Loading...
07-28-1992 1 1 ' 2 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 5 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 6 7 HELD ON JULY 28 , 1992 8 9 7 : 30 P.M. 10 11 - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 12 13 14 15 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Eddie Perez , Chairman Sharlyn Linard 16 Beatriz Ferreira Richard Killian 17 Kay Willis 18 19 STAFF PRESENT: David Weir Mark Simms 20 Erick Hill 21 22 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 2 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ We will go ahead and call 2 the meeting to order This meeting will be conducted 3 following Roberts Rules of Order If any member of the 4 public has a comment or question that he or she wishes to 5 address to the commission, they will be recognized by the 6 chair and then they will stat-A their name so it may be 7 entered into the permanent records of these proceedings . 8 Each person will be recognized once on each case at issue 9 for a time period not exceeding three minutes . At the end 10 of the public comment portion of the hearing, if someone has 11 -new or additional information, then that individual will be 12 given one additional minute to speak after all citizens who 13 wish to speak on the case have been recognized. When a 14 large number of citizens wish to discuss the case as a 15 neighborhood group, then 15 minutes will be allowed for a 16 group spokesperson, if one has been selected by the 17 neighborhood group as their representative Once this 18 spokesperson is elected, then all other citizens wanting to 19 speak on that case will be given one additional minute . 20 The Planning and Zoning Commission is meeting tonight 21 to have a public hearing on two zoning code amendments , two 22 subdivisions , two planned unit developments , and to make 23 recommendation to the City Council to either approve or deny 24 the request for zone changes , annexations or amendments to 25 the zoning code City Council will make the final decision PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 3 1 on these requests at its meeting on September 7 , 1992 . 2 The Planning and zoning Commission will grant final 3 approval or denial on request for all special use permits , 4 subdivisions and planned unit developments at tonight' s 5 meetings . Any person adversely affected by the decision of 6 this commission may file a written appeal stating the 7 grounds for his appeal to the City Council within 15 days of 8 this meeting. 9 The City will make every effort to provide reasonable 10 accommodations for people with disabilities who wish to 11 attend these public meetings . Please notify the city at 12 least 24 hours before the meeting at telephone 526-0000 , TDD 13 number 526-1222 . 14 Okay, we will go on to old business . We have got two 15 items on the consent agenda . Those items with an asterisk 16 before them are the items on the consent agenda. Does 17 anyone on the commission wish to remove any of those items 18 from the consent agenda? 19 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Mr . Chairman, I move 20 for the approval of the consent agenda. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do I have a second? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I second. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Any discussion? 24 All in favor? All opposed? 25 ( The motion carried unanimously 6 to 0 ) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 4 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The second item on the 2 agenda is zoning case ZCA-91-003 , an amendment to the City 3 of Las Cruces Zoning Code , Section 6 . 2 , special districts , 4 and 6 . 2G, University Avenue Corridor Overlay Zone District 5 amendment to the city zoning atlas submitted by the City of 6 Las Cruces . This was postponed from June 23rd, 1992 . 7 May I have a motion to consider? 8 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Mr . Chairman, I move 9 for consideration of case ZCA-91-003 . 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Do I have a second? 11 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Second 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Do we have the city staff 13 who wish to make a presentation at this time? 14 MR. HILL • Yes , Mr . Chairman, however you 15 wish to the handle this We could go through the memo, the 16 memo that I enclosed in your packets . If the commission 17 wishes , we could remove the memo All of it is information 18 that I included in your packets reviewing this case 19 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, I don' t 20 believe I have such a memo in my packet. 21 MR. WEIR: Mr . Chairman, Commissioner Linard, 22 do you have a memo dated July 24th . It should have been 23 included in the packet that was delivered on - - 24 COMMISSIONER LINARD• It was not in my 25 packet . I thought it was peculiar that I didn' t have any PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 5 1 such thing on my packet since it was on the agenda . 2 MR HILL : There were two packets delivered 3 to the commissioners One was delivered that did not 4 include the overlay information because of our work session 5 on Thursday. That information went out on Friday 6 COMMISSIONER LINARD• I didn' t get it. 7 MR. WEIR: Okay, my apologies 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : David will run and make a 9 copy of that. 10 COMMISSIONER LINARD• Thank you. 11 Since I don' t have a copy of the memo available to me 12 at the moment , does the commission wish to open the case up 13 to public comment? 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Yes, I guess we can go ahead 15 with that process at this point in time . We will go ahead 16 and open the meeting to public comment . 17 Anybody from the audience wish to make any comments 18 regarding this case? This is in regards to the University 19 Overlay Corridor . Any comments? 20 Yes , sir . Please use either one of two podiums, and 21 please state your name . 22 MR. DAUMUELLER: My name is William C. 23 Daumueller I am the executive director of Southwest 24 Counseling Center . It' s a private , nonprofit - - it' s a 25 comprehensive mental health center that currently owns two PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 6 1 properties--one on 2401 South Espina and one at 1050 Monte 2 Vista They are both in overlay zone III . They are 3 currently zoned R-4 and R-4 , special use . 4 My comments - - by the way, I have discussed this with 5 my board of directors , so I am speaking for the board of 6 directors . Generally, we have no objection to the overlay 7 corridor , and we think it' s a good idea . We do think it 8 might be a bit broad in its reaching out towards Monte 9 Vista, and so we would ask that we not be included in the 10 overlay zone . But failing that, there are some 11 understandings that we have that we would like written 12 assurances on 13 First of all , it' s our understanding from Mr . Hill--and 14 by the way, I would like to thank the Planning and Zoning 15 Commission and Eric for their time and effort and your 16 courteous consideration of our issues--first of all , it ' s 17 our understanding that the current zoning in place remains 18 with the property, and if we sell the property. We want 19 that assurance . 20 Secondly, as the building stands , it' s our 21 understanding that we don' t have to make any changes in 22 landscaping, signage , architectural style and parking And 23 if that' s true , we would like an assurance on that . 24 And finally, if we would do interior remodeling, 25 particularly in the area of handicapped accessibility and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 7 1 maybe moving a wall or something, it' s our understanding 2 that we would not have to bring the whole thing up to the 3 overlay plan We have had conversation on this , and I guess 4 what we are saying is , we are fairly comfortable with that, 5 it' s just that that we would like that in writing. 6 And the next thing is , we feel we need a clarification 7 on one issue And that is , to what extent can we remodel or 8 add on to the building without having to bring the property 9 up to the overlay standards . It' s our view that there 10 should be some parameters that would kick in, such as a 11 square feet or a percentage of space use . 12 Now, it' s our understanding, also, that any 13 addition - - well , one idea that' s surfaced is , any addition 14 that would be for human habitation, that would kick in the 15 overlay, which we think might be a little stringent But 16 it' s not something that' s - - it ' s maybe a minor point, but 17 we do think that it might be too stringent, and perhaps 18 another standard would be better. Basically, we prefer not 19 to be in the overlay zone . That would be our first 20 preference . If not, we would like the assurances that we 21 have discussed in the past at the work sessions in writing. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Thank you. 23 MR. HILL• Mr Chairman, as Mr Daumueller 24 stated, I have had conversation with him about the points 25 that he ' s raised. As he indicated, the ordinance does PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 8 1 propose to retain existing land uses as dictated by the 2 existing zoning district in District III , as his property 3 stands , without making any exterior modifications to it . 4 There is no reason to urge any improvements to the property 5 as it stands--that includes any interior remodeling to be 6 done . As he has stated, the ordinance states that any 7 addition or structural modification to the existing 8 structure requires that all design standards of the plan 9 come into effect for that property. And the question that 10 he is asking is to what extent can the property be 11 rennovated without having to meet those standards . 12 I have spent some time considering that issue and they 13 have proposed either a percentage for area or some specific 14 numbers . I think that number will be difficult to arrive at 15 because the sizes of buildings throughout the corridor area 16 vary significantly what I had come to in my thinking at 17 this point is to approach it from a policy basis 18 than an actual square footage , to say that any addition or 19 structural modification that results in new floor area that 20 is to be used for storage or for human occupancy, no matter 21 how large or small , will cause the design standards to come 22 into effect. That would not include things like taking out 23 a wall or putting in a window or replacing a window or 24 replacing a door , or having the roof made over Obviously, 25 that would be unreasonably stringent But to create new PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 9 1 floor space , even if it ' s a bathroom or a small storage 2 area , I think would be a fair application to all the 3 properties in the corridor . And I would make that 4 recommendation. 5 If the commission wishes to act on specific wording on 6 this issue at this hearing, the wording would have to be 7 applied to the property renovation policy within the 8 ordinance . Additional wording would have to be added to 9 state the following--an addition or structural modification 10 is one that results in new floor area attached to an 11 existing structure that is designed for storage or human 12 occupancy 13 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Eric, are you 14 suggesting that if any additions , any structural 15 modifications were made that the entire building must be 16 brought up - - 17 MR. HILL. what I am proposing is , if those 18 additions or modifications result in new floor area attached 19 to an existing building, yes , all the design standards in 20 the overlay would apply for the entire area. That wording 21 is not included in the memo that was distributed, because I 22 received this letter from Mr . Daumueller late Friday 23 afternoon, and there was not time to address it more fully. 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments from the 25 commissioners? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 I 10 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIS Eric , I am wondering if 2 the wording would include things like adding a front porch. 3 It ' s not used for storage or human occupancy, but - - 4 MR. HILL I can see your point . And the 5 difficulty there is defining human occupancy or something 6 that can be used by people for any length of time . A porch 7 would be something that could be occupied for a period of 8 time , so as I have stated, an additional structural 9 modification would include a porch or a deck . 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIS A carport or anything 11 like that? 12 MR. HILL . Or a carport, yes , which is a 13 somewhat significant addition to a structure 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIS . Do you consider that a 15 roofed structure , or could it be for example a big patio 16 addition with a courtyard wall which doesn' t have a roof on 17 it? 18 MR. HILL • What I am proposing is any kind of 19 floor area, and roofed or not a patio, would become part of 20 the floor area of the building. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIS • But if someone were to 22 pour a concrete stoop like at the back door , does that mean 23 they have to comply? 24 MR HILL And that' s the difficulty. That' s 25 the difficulty with this policy, is how much, how big, how PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 11 1 great . I don' t have an answer for you at this point, but I 2 think that perhaps a safer avenue to go would be to 3 emphasize the floor-area aspect of the addition or 4 structural modification If it' s actual floor space and 5 part of a building, we could then negate any kind of patio 6 or porch or a stoop and could take those out of 7 consideration. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : But would you want to, 9 but I could see for example a commercial building overlay 10 zone wanting to add this huge covered patio veranda to the - 11 front of the building and it wouldn' t have anything to do 12 with the architectural standards that you are trying to 13 enforce in the zone . 14 MR. HILL . That' s the difficulty. And that' s 15 something I have not - - that I have not been able to define 16 in specifics 17 The zoning code for nonconforming uses states that a 18 nonconforming use cannot be modified except to make it 19 conforming. There are no standards for floor area, square 20 footage or the type of modification to be done ; it' s just a 21 blanket statement that applies to any kind of work on a 22 nonconforming use . We are not talking about a nonconforming 23 use in this case , but we do not have any standards in our 24 zoning codes anywhere that state a specific floor area or 25 type of addition that would cause current zoning standards PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 12 1 to come into effect And I am not prepared at this point to 2 go into those kinds of specifics 3 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Can I suggest 4 something that might be considered, something that might 5 could be done with what' s in the building code You could 6 have a certain appraised value to a building and if you add. 7 to that building, no matter whether it' s patio addition, 8 roofs , or whatever' s in it, when it reaches a certain 9 percentage of that value then it must conform, the entire 10 building. - 11 MR. HILL : Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 12 Killian, we had previously discussed setting a minimum price 13 for new construction, no matter what it was , and if it 14 attained a certain cost to the property owner , then that 15 would cause the design standards to come into effect. And 16 since that time , that price stipulation has been removed in 17 work sessions It may be something to reconsider 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA. Mr . Chairman, I think 19 that the problem that we are facing with this price 20 situation, trying to establish a price is that the market 21 changes . You know, $500 today could do a lot . Maybe $500 22 in two years can' t do too much So the standard would be 23 dictated by that price , and it wouldn' t really meet our 24 purposes And perhaps we can discuss something similar to 25 what Commissioner Killian stated, which is if there is a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 13 1 percentage increase , the percentage itself might trigger the 2 standards 3 I might also suggest that we consider - - in defining 4 the policy, that we consider the human occupancy and 5 categorize the different conditions that might exist, human 6 occupancy versus aesthetics versus like just a simple open 7 patio for dust abatement or whatever That' s something we 8 might be able to consider . 9 MR. HILL : I can only recommend further 10 discussion . I think the issue is an important one and one 11 that needs to be resolved. I can, upon your recommendation, 12 draw up some specifics for either further consideration by 13 the commission or by City Council , depending on how you act 14 on this ordinance tonight . 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Would it be appropriate to 16 recommend to the staff to come up with some language 17 defining the different categories , the different conditions 18 that may come about . 19 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I think it has to be 20 anything on the outside . I think an interior door would not 21 change it But there are people who will go out and use 22 paving stones and put it on top of a clump of grass, and it 23 will look like rick-rack braid I don' t think we want that. 24 And that would be just for paving to put an RV or something 25 on I think it should be all inclusive on the outside PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 14 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Yes , I agree I think 2 probably what we need to do is give direction to staff to 3 categorize those items and try to come up with some 4 definitive guidelines . 5 MR. HILL. Okay, that will be done . 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Any other comments from the 7 public regarding this corridor plan? 8 Would you please state your name 9 MR. BATES : I am Lloyd 0. Bates, Jr . I am 10 here on behalf of the Stricklands who own the largest parcel 11 of land in this proposed overlay zone I have been to - 12 several of your meetings , and other representatives have 13 been there , and I don' t know if some of the changes that you 14 have - - I had understood they were being incorporated, and 15 I guess that ' s my question tonight 16 It was my understanding that the 300-foot requirement, 17 the setback from University, was going to be changed, and I 18 don' t know if that' s been officially changed or not. We had 19 discussions about expanding the permitted uses And last 20 week at that meeting I understand there was some debate as 21 to whether you were going to adopt the C-2 extension from 22 the regular zoning, or if you are going to use a more 23 restrictive one , and I just need to have some input, if you 24 don' t mind, as to what ' s going to be adopted and what 25 changes will be made PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 15 1 MR. HILL : Mr . Bates , we held a work session 2 to discuss those issues further on Thursday we did not 3 have a quorum of commissioners , so we held an informal 4 discussion. A modified C-2 zone was presented by Jay Weir 5 as a proposal for the area There were perhaps eight to ten 6 uses that were deleted, and there may have been more that 7 were deleted from the zone for consideration. In informal 8 discussion--Commissioners Perez , Linard and Willis were 9 present--it was felt that although some of the uses had been 10 deleted from consideration that the similarity of impact on 11 those issues and that the regular C-2 zone was really too 12 close to call And we did not consider that proposal to be 13 a valid one I believe Mr . Weir is here , and he could fill 14 you in on some of these details . 15 what Commissioner Perez had suggested and what was 16 embraced at this informal meeting was that the Strickland 17 family consider drawing up a specific development plan for 18 their property That would require them to identify 19 specifically what uses they would like to develop on their 20 property And then we would take that into consideration. 21 In terms of the 300-foot stipulations on certain uses in 22 area four , I have indicated within the memo that I will 23 review that in its entirety for the commissioners , and that 24 the 300-foot stipulation be deleted from the policy along 25 the lines of allowing the Strickland family to develop a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 16 1 plan for higher density uses for their property. A 300-foot 2 stipulation would lessen the degree of flexibility they 3 would have to develop that kind of plan, so I will recommend 4 to the commission that that stipulation be dropped. 5 MR. BATES we also had requested, and I had 6 discussions with you about more than two uses in one 7 building, and I do not know if that' s been changed or not.- 8 ot.8 MR. HILL: If you will give me a moment, I 9 will read that policy in its entirety. 10 If the commissioners have their ordinances handy, the 11 policy in question is at the bottom of page 11 . The policy - 12 states as follows , "To avoid the development of strip-like 13 shopping center buildings , no more than two uses, as 14 specified for each area in the district, shall be permitted 15 to occupy a single building. The City and Citizens Design 16 Review Committee shall consider designs for developments 17 which propose more than two uses within a single building 18 where such developments consider large pedestrian uses or 19 bicycle access , outdoor seating and landscaping in their 20 design. " 21 The reason why this policy was drawn up was to avoid 22 the development of buildings that I am sure there are plenty 23 of, where it' s basically a rectangular block with five or 24 six doors or windows carved into it . That struck a common 25 cord among citizens at the meeting And it was very clear PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 17 1 that we wanted to avoid that for consideration of larger 2 scale developments So if the property is creatively 3 developed , not in a rectangular , box-like fashion, more than 4 two uses per building are permitted . 5 MR. BATES Is that actually written down in 6 the ordinance , or is that just an opinion? 7 MR. HILL That is written into the ordinance 8 and into the plan, I think 9 MR. BATES : Mr Perez had asked me at the 10 last meeting about the change to the limited - - if the 11 zoning that you are postponing adversely affected the 12 Sticklands on the present use , and it does . It' s presently 13 R-3 And as I have read your code , the R-3 allows more 14 than two-story development of apartments And you are 15 restricting this land, now, to two stories . And I think R-3 16 goes to approximately 45 feet in height. We could build up 17 to four stories , I believe , and you are restricting them to 18 35 feet, or a maximum of two stories . So you are adversely 19 affecting the Stricklands in terms of residential 20 development which it ' s presently zoned. And you are also 21 adversely affecting them in the commercial zoning, in that 22 you are permitting - - well , that' s why they are adversely 23 affected. And that ' s why at the last meeting I attended we 24 got out the city' s C-2 zoning And our understanding was to 25 review that with our client and eliminate a lot of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 18 1 objectionable uses that we had no intention of looking into. 2 And we did that And from your explanation tonight, I 3 understand the Commission has decided that you want to 4 impose the strict list for area four as opposed to C-1 or 5 C-2 . And in that choice , you have now said, in essence , 6 that the biggest block of land, the 12 or 13 acres of land 7 of the Sticklands is at a developmental disadvantage, 8 because it' s going to be limited dramatically in uses . Yet 9 down the street it appears what' s going to be considered 110 later tonight is - - only less than 300 yards way, there ' s 11 this situation that you are going to be talking about, 12 that' s entirely against the concepts which you just 13 described you wanted to have in this University Avenue 14 Corridor . And I don' t know how the Stricklands can be asked 15 to compete to develop this property, which you wanted 16 developed, if they can' t do the regular C-2 things that an 17 office kind of plaza can do . This office plaza, from what I 18 have seen, is one continuous strip. And you just told me 19 you didn' t want that. So the Stricklands are in a situation 20 where they have to choose to ask you to take their 14 or 13 21 acres out of your overlay district, or just eliminate it, 22 which somewhat defeats the purpose of your overlay district . 23 Or they have to ask that you reconsider the C-2 uses and 24 expand those , because they are totally at a disadvantage . 25 For the public that hasn' t gone through this with us , a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 19 1 good example is that there is no provision for a grocery 2 store Now, there is a grocery store right up the street at 3 Pan Am Plaza And a grocery store may be just the anchor 4 tennant that would help develop that 10 acres , but we can' t 5 have one of those So you have artifically limited the 6 competition that the Stricklands can have to develop because 7 you are not letting them have any big tennants . So that 8 means that land is going to sit there vacant. 9 MR. HILL : If I may comment 10 As I mentioned previously, we have invited the 11 Strickland family to submit a development plan. At the time 12 that Mr Weir submitted a development plan, it was not my 13 understanding that that transaction was designed to allow 14 the Strickland family to set up a modified C-2 zone 15 proposal . It was my understanding that I gave a list of C-2 16 uses to J Weir to allow him to choose what additional uses 17 they would like to see imposed in the area for the zoning. 18 But again, they are invited to submit a development plan 19 with whatever uses they see fit. We simply, at this point 20 in time , with the framework of the plan that has been 21 established for the area and with the input that we have 22 received from many citizens throughout the planning process , 23 that for any kind of zone we would want here , C-2 is 24 strictly too intense for the area, and is something that 25 would not be well embraced by the public . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 20 1 MR BATES : I have no further questions , Mr 2 Chairman. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Any other comments regarding 4 this overlay zone in the University Corridor? Any more 5 public comment? 6 If not , we will close it to public input . And Mr . Hill 7 are you ready to make a formal presentation to the 8 Commission on the memo? 9 MR. HILL : Yes , I am If you' ll please 10 address your memos dated July 24th The first page of the 11 memo outlines the proposed revision that the Commission --has 12 discussed in previous work situations--building height 13 measurements for the overlay zone . There is a request to 14 define measurements for one and two stories in terms of 15 feet . After discussion, the Commission proposed, add one 16 story height of 18 feet, two story heights of 28 feet, and 17 the current three-story measurements of 45 feet remains as 18 is . 19 Development standards for area one have been developed 20 and defined in your memo for Pan Am Plaza. Those standards 21 were dictated out of the Pan Am Plaza PUD document for land 22 outside of lot - - outside of the PUD area . And lot size 23 are indicated on your memo And they are consistent with 24 other development standards in other planning areas in the 25 corridor PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 21 1 If you turn to page two , rear yard setbacks , area 2 and 2 5s at a previous work session, I indicated to the 3 Commission that there were some rear yard standards for 4 areas two and five that measured 15 feet I had proposed 5 that they be changed to 25 feet for consideration as the 6 rear yard parking standards That is incorporated into the 7 ordinance that was discussed and approved by the Commission. 8 Maximum building heights for area two were discussed, and 9 are indicated in your memo 10 Area three permitted land uses , that was discussed by 11 the Commission. All land uses as allowed by existing zoning 12 districts shall remain in place The memo goes on to. 13 discuss the Strickland case , which we have just reviewed. 14 On the third page of your memo, at the bottom, I have 15 addressed comments that were submitted by former 16 commissioner Connie Sharp on the sign code portion of the 17 ordinance I can review those for you quickly 18 Her memo recommends for area three that pueblo, Spanish 19 colonial , or territorial architectural style be 20 encouraged--not required but encouraged--for new development 21 in that area . I would recommend that that change be made . 22 In terms of attached signage , Connie had proposed the 23 current sign code requires too much square footage . I had 24 recommended in your memo at the bottom, staff recommends 25 that the square footage of signage permitted in the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 22 1 ordinance not be changed Typically, businesses do not 2 utilize maximum footage allowed for the signage The 3 application process requires for degree of signage in the 4 application. Square footage viewed as excessive can be 5 addressed in the application review process 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Mr Hill , in regards to that 7 item eight, R-8 , the only concern that I would have is if 8 the applicant is within his rights of zone of signage , and 9 the design review committee would determine that it' s 10 excessive , would that person, he or she , be denied, or would 11 they have some kind of firm footing to say, "You are denying 12 me something that somebody else already has . " 13 MR. HILL : Mr Chairman, in that scenario, 14 say, if the staff review of the application showed that the 15 signage square footage permitted was not excessive , and the 16 citizen design review committee found that it was , the staff 17 would have to meet with the design review committee to 18 discuss that conflict and to resolve it 19 The application could not be approved if one of those 20 parties denied the application. So the meeting would be 21 designed to resolve that conflict. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Thank you 23 MR. HILL • If there are no other comments , I 24 can continue with the memo 25 At the top of the next page , Connie had made a comment PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 23 1 about free-standing signage , had commented that the signage 2 contributes to a cluttered street-scape , interferes with 3 pedestrian traffic , and should not be allowed. Point B is 4 staff ' s recommendation that free-standing signage remain a 5 part of the ordinance sign code as described in the 6 ordinance , ground signs , and that only free-standing signs 7 be permitted There are no pole signs permitted, and the 8 ground signs are required to be consistent with required 9 architectural design standards . And typically, businesses 10 do not utilize all types of signage permitted for their use . 11 If an application for new development is submitted, which _ 12 illustrates the number and types of signage , is reviewed and 13 found to be excessive , that can be addressed in the 14 application review process . In the same process as I 15 previously stated 16 Possibly a scenario could come about where an 17 application is submitted where they have the maximum amount 18 of signage that could be permitted. And if that is to be 19 viewed as excessive , that could be addressed in the 20 application review process . 21 Are there any other comments from the Commission on 22 point B? 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ No comment . 24 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr Chairman, if we are 25 taking about a two-block area there , and allowing PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 24 1 free-standing signs , it' s not possible to have everybody 2 replace - - have a free standing sign. And we must be 3 careful about overdoing something. If you don' t allow it, 4 then you don' t have to take it away. If you do allow it and 5 have to take it away, then we can' t do it . We are stuck . 6 MR. HILL : Mr . Chairman, Commissioner Linard, 7 that is a reasonable comment I think that the argument can 8 be made either way. If it' s removed, then it doesn' t have 9 to be dealt with. But a ground sign under the architectural 10 design standards of the ordinance would be a very attractive 11 addition to any business . I don' t know. It' s hard to _ 12 picture a scenario where every single business in the 13 corridor would put out a ground sign. But I can see why 14 there should be concern for that It is a possibility. 15 COMMISSIONER LINARD• It sure is And it' s a 16 lot easier not to have it in the first place than it is to 17 try to take it away after you have allowed it 18 Thank you, Mr Chairman. 19 MR. HILL : Any further comments on point B, 20 the signage? 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Continue , Mr . Hill . 22 MR. HILL : Connie had also made comments 23 concerning district directory signs as proposed in the 24 sign-code portion The comment was , not needed, too 25 expensive , difficult to maintain. I feel that the comment PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 25 1 in point C on the district directory signs are reasonable, 2 especially considering that area businesses have not been 3 invited to comment specifically on this issue . 4 Staff recommends that the directory sign policy on page 5 13 of your ordinance in the sign code portion be revised to 6 read as follows , "The district directory signs shall be 7 suggested to corridor property owners and businesses for the 8 purposes of discussing the demand, financing and management 9 of the signs , " which does not create a requirement under our 10 ordinance to create the signs , but only that they would be 11 suggested and considered. - 12 Any comments on that portion, on those additions and 13 deletions? 14 Connie also submitted some comments on the citizens 15 design review committee . The concern was that, as the 16 ordinance is currently stated, the review of applications by 17 the citizens design review committee did not allow citizens 18 to make general comments about what' s going on in the 19 corridor area . That wasn' t an intended purpose, but one 20 that was not stated in the ordinance . And I think the point 21 is well made , that that point should be made in the 22 ordinance under three , citizens design review committee , 23 point a , in the middle of the page Staff recommends the 24 following to be added to the citizens design review 25 committee language on page 17 "To allow citizens to review PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 26 1 application materials for development and for citizens to 2 discuss issues concerning the corridor area, so that it is 3 explicit that these meetings are designed for citizens to 4 air their general views about the corridor area . " Are there 5 any comments from the Commission? 6 CHAIRMAN PERE? Any comments? Continue , Mr . 7 Hill 8 MR. HILL. Connie had also made a comment 9 concerning property renovation. The suggestion was to 10 eliminate the role of the citizens design review committee 11 in reviewing applications that were designed only for 12 property renovation staff comments Point B is that in the 13 event that an addition or structural modification is needed 14 to a building, the building exterior and the property would 15 have to conform with all design standards stated in the 16 ordinance And applications for such work will resemble 17 applications for new development Thus it would be 18 difficult to just eliminate the committee ' s role in 19 reviewing such application. It is recommended that review 20 of property renovation applications remain a component of 21 the committee ' s function. 22 And as we discussed previously on what an addition or 23 structural modification is , upon development of more 24 specific language to define what an addition or modification 25 is , the recommendation may be a different one Are there PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 27 1 any comments from the Commission? Any comments on this 2 portion 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ No . Continue , Mr . Hill 4 MR HILL : The last point at the bottom of 5 the page , point four on appeals , Connie had made a comment 6 that the city staff and the design review committee needed 7 to be addressed in that policy concerning appeals . The 8 policy is on page 19 Staff has recommended that the first 9 sentence of that policy, it is policy C on page 19 of your 10 ordinance , read as follows • "An application for development 11 must be approved by both the city and the citizens design 12 review committee in order for a building permit to be 13 issued. In the event that an application is denied by the 14 city or the committee based upon interpretation of the 15 corridor plan and this ordinance , the two entities shall 16 meet to discuss the interpretation. " 17 And on the last page , on the top, it goes on to say: 18 "In the event that agreement of interpretation cannot be 19 reached to approve the application, the applicant may file 20 for an appeal with the Planning and Zoning Commission. " 21 This is simply a clarification of wording that is already 22 there . This wording speaks more clearly to the intention of 23 that policy 24 Are there any comments from the Commission on that 25 point? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 28 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Any comments? Continue , Mr . 2 Hill 3 MR HILL There are no more points to be 4 discussed on the last page The rest of the plan revisions 5 to the corridor overlay ordinance require that amendments 6 first be made to the corridor plan which reflect the 7 ordinance revision. Legally, the plan must lend guidance to 8 the ordinance , and the need to - - thus the need to follow 9 this procedure So what I would recommend is , if the 10 Commission chooses to act on the ordinance tonight, give its 11 recommendation for approval , the Commission must pass a 12 motion that the University Avenue Corridor Plan be amended 13 according to points as laid out in your memo If that 14 amendment is approved, a motion needs to be made to approve 15 the amendments to the ordinance as indicated in your memo, 16 and then a motion needs to be made to approve the ordinance 17 itself 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Does that conclude your 19 presentation? 20 MR. HILL • Yes , I have no further comments . 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Okay, since we have already 22 gone through the public comments portion, and the staff 23 comments , we will now close it and go on to commissioner 24 input . 25 COMMISSIONER LINARD Stop me if I am wrong, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 29 1 but didn' t we discuss the property between Jordan and Locust 2 as being one story, and so many units per acre , in order to 3 relieve some of the congestion? 4 MR. HILL. Mr . Chairman, Commissioner Linard, 5 that is correct The portion of area two, between 6 Jordan and Locust 7 COMMISSIONER LINARD And we discussed that at a work 8 session. I remember the chairman reiterated it, and we went 9 over and over my request, because I wanted to be sure that 10 that' s what we were getting, that there would be a limit as 11 to how many buildings per acre - - how many units per acre, 12 and that it would be one story 13 MR HILL : My recollection of the meeting was 14 that the height of that portion of area two was not changed, 15 but simple a maximum height in feet for two stories was set 16 of 28 feet 17 COMMISSIONER LINARD And a limit as to how 18 many per acre? 19 MR. HILL : My recollection of the meeting - - 20 I made a recommendation to the commission that the 21 underlying zoning dictate the building units per acre for 2Z development . I was negligent in not mentioning that in your 23 memo 24 COMMISSIONER LINARD You should be able to 25 find that in the recording of all of our work sessions PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 30 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ You will remember Brian 2 Denmark clarified that issue for us at that particular work 3 session when he stated that the underlying zone would take 4 precedence in this particular case . 5 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I wanted it in what we 6 are voting on, so we wouldn' t end up with six-story 7 apartments complexes up there with a driveway between and 8 5 , 000 cars parked on two streets . 9 MR. HILL : Are you proposing a second 10 language - - 11 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Yes , I think it should 12 be in there 13 MR. HILL : Mr . Chairman, Commissioner Linard, 14 do you wish to see language introduced that states that the 15 underlying zoning will dictate the building units per acre? 16 COMMISSIONER LINARD• If that reduces the 17 number of units that can be put on there , or if the overlay 18 zone reduces the number of units . 19 MR. HILL: The overlay zone will reduce the 20 number of units that could potentially be developed simply 21 by the height restrictions that we have already placed. 35 22 feet is permitted in R-1 and R-2 zoning, which conceivably 23 could be used for three stories . The 28-foot stipulation 24 for two stories eliminates the possibility of a third-story 25 development , so already we have eliminated that possibility, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 31 1 and it would take a much larger piece of property with the 2 building height stipulation to increase the units per acre . 3 COMMISSIONER LINARD: There are some builders 4 that could build three stories in 28 feet . They just 5 wouldn' t put any duct work between each floor , just prefab. 6 MR. HILL : Mr . Chairman, I recommend 7 additional wording The ordinance that would apply to all 8 planning areas of the ordinance that states the underlying 9 zoning will dictate the number of building units per acre , 10 that would be part of the amendment . 11 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Are we sure that' s going 12 to eliminate an overusage of the area, the density, that 13 that will eliminate it? 14 MR. HILL : Mr . Chairman, Commissioner Linard, 15 in that regard, it should significantly reduce it because of 16 the building height stipulation we have , that will 17 significantly bring down the number of units that are being 18 developed per acre . 19 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Beyond the overlay 20 area . 21 MR. HILL: It will reduce it beyond what the 22 current zoning allows . 23 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Thank you, Mr . 24 Chairman. I hope to see that . 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Mr . Hill has been directed PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 32 1 MR HILL My apologies for not including 2 that wording , but that wording will be put into the 3 ordinance 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any comments from the 5 commissioners in regard to that request from Commissioner 6 Linard? If not , we will instruct staff to include that 7 wording 8 MR. HILL: That wording will appear . 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any more comments regarding 10 this overlay corridor? Commissioner input? 11 Okay, are we ready 12 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, how many 13 units per acre can be built with R-3 , is what that area is? 14 MR. HILL: R-3 permits 30 dwelling units per 15 acre . 16 COMMISSIONER LINARD And what does the 17 overlay permit? 18 MR. HILL : The overlay will permit what the 19 underlying zone permits , but the building height stipulation 20 that' s been established will significantly reduce the 21 number , simply because a building cannot be built as high. 22 COMMISSIONER LINARD: But they can still 23 build 30 units per acre? 24 MR. HILL• Commissioner Linard, spread over a 25 larger piece of property, yes which means a larger PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 33 1 piece - - it would take a larger piece of property to 2 develop the same number of units at 28 feet per building 3 than it would for 35 feet per building. 4 COMMISSIONER LINARD: And why is everybody 5 fighting me to have only one story in that area with the 6 maximum height of 18 foot? 7 MR HILL : Mr . Chairman, Commissioner Linard, 8 the building height was discussed in the work session - - 9 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I would like to hear 10 the minutes of that work session 11 MR. HILL Mr . Chairman, I can provide those 12 minutes as soon as they are available . 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any more comments regarding 14 this overlay corridor? 15 If not, are we then ready to go ahead and vote on 16 recommendation of this plan? 17 Okay, then the first thing we need to do is - - may I 18 have a motion to approve the amendments as stated by the 19 staff to this corridor plan? 20 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Mr . Chairman, I move 21 to approve the amendments as stated. 22 we are referring to the July 24th, 1992 , memorandum 23 submitted by Eric Hill to the Planning and Zoning Commission 24 in addition to the amendments that have been made at this 25 hearing PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 34 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • That is correct. 2 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA• Then I would move to 3 approve the amendments as stated. 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do I have a second? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I second. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Commissioner Killian, we are 7 going to vote , and I am going to call the role now 8 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye . 9 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Aye . 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . 11 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The chair votes aye . 13 ( The amendment passed unanimously 5 to 0 . ) 14 We will now go on to approval of the main motion to 15 approve the University Avenue Corridor Overlay Zone as 16 drafted on July 24th, 1992 , with its amendments . May I have 17 a motion? 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Mr . Chairman, I move 19 for approval of the University Avenue Corridor Overlay 20 Ordinance drafted on July 24th, 1992 . 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : DoI have a second? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIS . Second. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Any discussion? 24 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: No . 25 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA Aye . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 35 1 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Were we voting? I 2 thought you were asking for discussion. I am sorry. I vote 3 aye . 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I am sorry, I should have 5 verified that . So you change your vote to aye? 6 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Yes 7 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Aye . 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . 9 COMMISSIONER LINARD: No . And I would like 10 to explain my vote I don' t believe in voting on anything 11 that becomes law that is not complete in front of .me with 12 every detail before I vote on it. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Commissioner 14 Linard The chair votes aye . The motion passes four to 15 one 16 ( The motion passed 4 to 1 . ) 17 MR HILL. Case number ZCA-91-004 is an 18 amendment to the sign code . That sign code portion of the 19 ordinance is incorporated within the ordinance, but because 20 the sign code portion will be incorporated into separate 21 city documents, it is necessary to take separate action on 22 the sign code portion of the ordinance . 23 Staff recommends that the Commission recommend that 24 portion of the ordinance at this time . 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Then we will go ahead and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 36 1 ask for approval for case ZCA-91-004 - - ask for 2 consideration 3 Do I have motion? This is an amendment to the City of 4 Las Cruces Zoning Code , Article 13 , Sign Code , Section C 10 , 5 on the premises sign provision, University Avenue Corridor 6 Overlay Zone District, submitted by the City of Las Cruces . 7 May I have motion to consider ZCA-91-004 . 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : So moved. 9 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Staff , any presentation? 11 MR. HILL. No further comment, Mr . Chairman. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We will open it now to 13 public participation Anyone in the audience wish to 14 address ZCA-91-004? 15 We are now closed to public input, and it' s going on to 16 commissioner input Any commissioner comments on 17 ZCA-91-004? 18 COMMISSIONER LINARD: What is it? 19 MR. HILL: Mr . Chairman, Commissioner Linard, 20 the sign code portion that is mentioned in that case is an 21 incorporated part of the ordinance , but that portion of it 22 will be incorporated into the sign code , which is treated as 23 a separate document. we are required to take separate 24 action on that sign code , on that portion. Basically, the 25 action that the Commission took to approve the ordinance PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 37 1 does approve that portion, but because it' s going to be 2 incorporated into a separate document, which would be our 3 city code , there needs to be a separate action on that part 4 of the ordinance 5 COMMISSIONER LINARD : Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Any more comments from the 7 Commission regarding this ZCA-91-004? 8 If not, then we will go on to the vote . 9 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye . 10 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA• Aye . 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIS Aye-. 12 COMMISSIONER LINARD• Aye . 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The chair votes aye . 14 ZCA-91-004 passes 5 to 0 for recommendation. 15 ( The motion passed unanimously 5 to 0 . ) 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Okay, case PUD-92-003 , a 17 request to amend the planned unit development standards for 18 Los Colinas PUD. The amendment is to clarify the setback 19 requirements for lots located on T and Y cul-de-sacs within 20 Los Colinas PUD. The property is located generally north of 21 US 70 and west of Las Alamedas Bouvelard. Submitted by 22 Roger Cox, Western Development 23 This was postponed June 23rd, 1992 May I have a 24 motion to consider case PUD 92-003 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I move to consider case PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 38 1 PUD 92-003 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Do I have a second? 3 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Is the applicant present? 5 Would you care to make a presentation, please? State 6 your name 7 MR THURSTON: My name is Ken Thurston, 8 President and CEO of Roger Cox, Western Developer . I have 9 been before you on two occasions . And the last occasion 10 that I was here the commissioners had requested staff to 11 conduct a survey of the clients in the subdivision and to 12 report back , apparently, the information collected by the 13 staff regarding how they felt on the setbacks . 14 At this time , I am kind of at a loss, due to the fact 15 that I have not seen or read or had any documentations of 16 that survey, and so I guess my request is that I would like 17 to hear staff and commissioner comments before I have to 18 make any further formal presentation, reserving the right to 19 hopefully make comments after those comments have been 20 discussed, since I have not been made part of that 21 discussion. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Okay, fine . We will give 23 you an opportunity, Mr Thurston. 24 MR WEIR: Chairman Perez , commission 25 members , as Ken has already said, this case has been before PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 39 1 you twice already. And what it relates to is the setback 2 requirements for the T and Y cul-de-sacs within Los Colinas ' 3 planned unit development And what it all originates from 4 is a difficulty in interpretation that was handed down from 5 a previous planning director by current staff on building 6 permits 7 within your packets on page 2-3 is a copy of that 8 interpretation that was used for the permitting of the 9 current lots and houses that are located on the T and Y 10 cul-de-sacs Staff has had difficulty interpreting the 11 definition of the requirements for setbacks . -So what we 12 have provided for you this evening is a copy of the original 13 PUD document relating to setbacks . 14 And what it states is that setbacks shall be 20 feet 15 from the right of way for all single-family, detached units . 16 The second thing that I provided is the interpretation that 17 has been used in the past . As Ken has also noted, there ' s 18 been a survey done at the request of the Commission And 19 that is included on the last two pages of your packet. And 20 this is a copy The verbiage at the top of the page was 21 what was read or given to the individuals at the homes that 22 live on the T and Y cul-de-sacs , and then the four questions 23 were asked 24 As you can see , the survey was fairly inconclusive . It 25 was pretty much split down the middle on all the questions . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 40 1 But it should be noted that few of the comments were in 2 relation to the setbacks They were more a question of the 3 standards of the street . If you' ll notice on the last page 4 of your packet , I think you' ll find the comments more useful 5 than the survey itself. 6 One comment was that traffic is not a problem. The 7 shorter and smaller streets prevent more traffic from 8 coming So that was of benefit to these types of 9 developments . The other one was a complaint against the 10 streets They felt the streets were narrow and hard to get 11 in and out of And that ' s not an issue before you this 12 evening And that' s more design standards for the PUD. 13 And the third is just a general comment that they 14 experienced a lot of turn-arounds of people driving in 15 thinking they are through streets and realizing they had to 16 turn around And on the Y cul de sac, it was a comment more 17 on the narrow streets rather than in relation to the 18 setbacks themselves . 19 what the staff would like to note is that all houses, 20 all the lots within the existing Y and T cul-de-sacs , have 21 been permitted. And they have been permitted under the old 22 interpretation So the decision by the Commission tonight 23 is more of a definition for future phases of Los Colinas as 24 to what the setbacks should be as they are brought in, and 25 what setbacks are going to be required. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 41 1 what staff would state is that the Commission should go 2 ahead and use a 20-foot setback as stated in the original 3 PUD document The second option would be to go ahead with 4 the proposal that ' s been submitted by the applicant--and 5 I ' ll go ahead and show those for your review First is the 6 cul-de-sac - - what the applicant has shown is 20 feet in 7 these areas , on these two lots , and then a minimum of 15 8 feet from back of curb in these areas , and basically 20 feet 9 here . And a minimum of ten feet between structures on those 10 lots And this is the T cul-de-sac 11 On the Y cul-de-sac , the only two lots that are 12 affected are these here , on which the applicant has stated 13 there would be a 15-foot distance from the back of curbing 14 from the street on those two lots , and that a minimum 15 distance of ten feet be between structures . 16 Staff also prepared some other options for the 17 Commission to review And those are in your packets So 18 the Commission could also review those if they felt that was 19 a more adequate setback requirement for this case . 20 Basically, what staff would request from the Commission 21 is they make a decision as to whether to allow the 22 applicant' s amendments or to go ahead and require the 23 20-foot setbacks on future phases , and that just be included 24 on the review of future subdivisions , or to choose another 25 alternative PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 42 1 If the Commission has any questions on my presentation, 2 I will be happy to answer them 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Thank you, Mr Weir At 4 this point we will open it to public participation. 5 Anyone in the audience wishing to address Case PUD 6 92-003? No public input? I ' ll close it and go on to 7 commissioner input 8 Commissioners , any comments regarding this case that 9 you wish to pose to either Mr . Weir or Mr Thurston? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Mr Weir, as I 11 understand this case , the reason we are discussing this is 12 to give Mr Thurston some interpretation from which to 13 continue with his development; is that correct? 14 MR. WEIR: That is correct, Commissioner 15 Willis . 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : And is this 17 interpretation strictly for lots under development now and 18 not for future developments in his subdivisions? 19 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez , Commissioner 20 Willis , no , that is not totally correct. What it would be 21 for would be for future phases . This is an interpretation 22 of his development standards for Los Colinas planned unit 23 development . All the houses that currently exist on T and Y 24 cul-de-sacs have been permitted And I believe all but two 25 of them have been completed; is that a fair estimate , PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 43 1 MR THURSTON You mean either closed or have 2 received their seal? That is correct 3 MR WEIR. So this interpretation would apply 4 to future phases What you would be reviewing them on, the 5 final site plan. And then also on the final plat of the 6 subdivision, at the final platting stage, is where the 7 interpretation of the 20-foot setbacks , or any modifications 8 would be relevant. 9 This is so that Mr . Thurston will be aware of how to 10 plat out the lots and then also what his requirements will 11 be when he requests building permits for those lots , and--so 12 staff will have clear direction on how to interpret that 13 section. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Could you tell us 15 approximately how many cul-de-sacs would be involved if this 16 entire development were to come to fruition? 17 MR WEIR. I believe at a past meeting Mr . 18 Thurston - - Dave , do you have an estimate? Was it around 19 20 T and Y cul-de-sacs? 20 MR. THURSTON: I don' t want that set in 21 concrete . That was for discussion purposes only. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I just wanted to 23 roughly know how many we were dealing with? 24 MR. WEIR: Basically, what we would be 25 dealing with is the development of this project north of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 44 1 arroyo As I understand it , all development south of the 2 arroyo , either the project , or the lots are already created, 3 or there will be no more development of T and Y cul-de-sacs . 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIS • One of the questions I 5 think that needs to be answered in order to give Mr 6 Thurston his answer is how we go about defining front yard 7 in our T and Y cul-de-sacs Because if you read the PUD 8 document literally, there would be no question that front 9 yards have a 20-foot setback , and none of the options that 10 have been presented to us would comply with that So the 11 next question is what defines "front"? 12 MR WEIR. Generally it' s the front portion 13 of the lot In a traditional subdivision - - I think I 14 might be able to show you a little better on the overhead. 15 On the traditional lot of an square nature , it' s very 16 easy to determine the front yard That is that portion in 17 front of the street , and these would be side yards 18 I believe what you are getting at is , this portion 19 right in here , because that basically - - those lots are in 20 front of the street, is that what you are considering a 21 front yard? 22 And I would agree with your interpretation if you take 23 a literal reading of that document , that 20 foot would have 24 to be somewhere in this range You would have to create a 25 radius and keep the 20-foot distance through here And that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 45 1 would require Mr Thurston , if he continues to utilize his 2 current floor plans for the houses , to widen these lots out 3 with his future phases of development , create wider lots . 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : To try to maybe restate 5 what you said , would it be correct to say, then, that a 6 front yard setback would be considered from the property 7 line that is common to the street? 8 MR. WEIR: That is correct 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIS • Then in that corner 10 that you just pointed to , that corner that everybody is 11 _talking about , would that corner not be common to the 12 street, the corner that we keep going around in circles 13 about where the asterisks are? 14 Would you point out the property line as it' s common to 15 the street on that? 16 MR WIER. The property line would be this 17 right through here 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIS Is it inappropriate to 19 consider that the definition of a front property line for 20 front setback purposes? 21 MR WEIR• I do not believe so . 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIS And the PUD document 23 says that he should have a 20-foot front setback? 24 MR. WEIR: That is correct 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIS Then what' s the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 46 1 question? 2 MR WEIR. This was an interpretation given 3 by a previous planning director And basically, this is the 4 way it was interpreted And it' s rather difficult to 5 interpret - - basically, what you see graphically here as 6 far as 15 feet from back of -urb of the street And staff 7 has this document from a previous planning director saying 8 this is the way it ' s interpreted 9 Then when he came to get a permit, the person reviewing 10 the permit said, "Well , the document says 20 feet back of 11 - right of way. " And then we get this document here . And 12 what we are asking for is clear direction from the Planning 13 and Zoning Commission, which would you rather have? Would 14 you rather that it be interpreted 20 feet from the right of 15 way, or do you see any problem with the interpretation 16 that ' s been used in the past? Or would you like a different 17 setback to be established for these lots? Is that answering 18 your questions? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I think , then, what you 20 are saying is , Mr . Thurston has been given an interpretation 21 in the past, and we are trying to give him an interpretation 22 that he can rely on throughout the rest of his development? 23 MR. WEIR: That' s correct . 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIS That ' s only fair to 25 him PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 47 1 MR WEIR: We ' re saying, let' s clear the air 2 once and for all 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIS Did we not establish at 4 another public hearing that any interpretation that we would 5 make in this process would be appropriate and binding and 6 legal regardless of past interpretations? 7 MR WEIR• What you would be doing is 8 normalizing the decision. You would be taking action on an 9 amendment clarifying the language . What we had in the past 10 was an interpretation from the previous planning director . 11 So by taking formal action, I would say your action would be 12 greater and have more strength and validity than the 13 planning director ' s 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIS . Mr . Thurston, I wonder 15 if you could give us any reason why we wouldn' t want to 16 comply with the standards that are stated in the PUD? 17 MR THURSTON I think I have got caught in a 18 situation where we had approval by a previous commission, by 19 a previous planning and zoning group called staff that hurt 20 the entire consent of the PUD, hurt that entire concept. 21 Based on the interpretation of the PUD back in 1987 , we had 22 a certain understanding Then that letter of interpretation 23 was given to staff, to the building permit officials and so 24 forth That was not just the planning director issuing that 25 statement , that was taken before the chairman of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 48 1 Planning and Zoning Commission and the utilities director 2 Now, five years later , staff has changed, planning and 3 zoning has changed, the city commission has changed, and the 4 PUD document has not changed, but the interpretation of the 5 PUD document has changed The application of the - - the 6 application of the interpretation has changed. You are 7 asking me now to defend our change in the PUD document, and 8 I don' t think I have changed it. 9 I was commissioned by staff four months ago to come up 10 with a drawing that would put in writing the interpretation 11 of that letter issued by the director We did that , brought 12 it to planning and zoning, and now I am having to clarify my 13 position as to the interpretation, as to why that was done , 14 and why this was done . I don' t feel that that' s right I 15 don' t think that legal counsel can say that' s right . But I 16 am here now to basically accept your decision, and then, 17 based upon that decision, decide whether or not I will 18 comply with that decision and go out and redo my thinking in 19 platting those lots and land usage , or turn around and as 20 stated by your own attorney, plead estoppel , that I had 21 approval , that I was doing what I said I was doing, and that 22 staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission and the 23 director of utilities had full knowledge of what I was 24 doing 25 He ' s right , you have my plan in your hands to say PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 49 1 either yes or no And I was simply doing what staff had 2 recommended so that we could clear up the air This has 3 gone on now for four months , and I just want the decision to 4 be final so that I can go on and make another phase in Los 5 Colinas 6 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA. I have a question for 7 Mr Thurston if I may for a moment Were these drawings 8 presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and to the 9 planning director at that point in time? 10 MR THURSTON. When the actual application 11 for a building permit was made , the question came up at that 12 time with the current director of planning. And at that 13 time , we talked about it And we sat down and sketched out 14 different ways And then that' s how that letter was 15 written It was based on him and I--Mr . Greenfield--sitting 16 down and sketching out various ways that that house could 17 get on there and which one would be considered front yard 18 and which would be considered side yard. And at the time , 19 the health and safety standard was applied and that' s how we 20 interpreted that And that' s how come the letter was 21 written 22 Now, in retrospect of that, the only thing that -I feel 23 I did not do was to follow through with something in writing 24 or in drawing form so that it was placed in the PUD 25 document Based on that letter , that' s where I feel like I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 50 1 have neglected putting that in the document back in 1988 2 when the letter was written And now, you know, to pay the 3 money to take the time to do this , that' s what I was hoping 4 to do , to go back and redo the entire PUD document, to 5 rethink the thing out , to redo the deal I don' t think it 6 is fair , and that ' s the reason that I am taking such a stand 7 on this 8 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA. I think we are trying 9 to - - at least I am trying to understand what went on, 10 because we have to make a decision tonight We could 11 establish a precedent that we may or may not want to do . 12 But let me just ask for my own information, why was the 13 design a T and a Y rather than the normal cul-de-sac? I am 14 not a developer or a builder , so maybe it' s obvious to 15 someone who is a developer . 16 MR THRUSTON Again, back in 187 , we 17 presented it to the council and the commissioners , that 18 concept, after attending several planning seminars 19 throughout the country and after having had several planners 20 come in to the city. We held various workshops here and 21 that was the decision that we made based on land usage and 22 cost savings and affordable housing Those things came into 23 play And that was our decision . And at the time all of 24 the entities , all of the government officals , approved that . 25 And now I have a tough time coming back and spending the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 51 1 time and the energy to redo it again and again and again 2 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA And have there been 3 other developers that have been using this design here in 4 Las Cruces? 5 MR. THURSTON I don' t know that that' s been 6 done in Las Cruces , because it was a new concept But it is 7 not new to the development community in the nation. I think 8 you can go to almost any community - - it' s basically in a 9 book that' s supported by the Urban Land Institute and also 10 adopted by the National Home Builders Association I think 11 staff has a copy of that in their library And that was 12 part of our supportive material given at the time to staff, 13 to the council and to the commission. And I would be glad 14 to give you a copy of that for your review. We are not 15 trying to pull something over everybody' s eyes that' s not 16 being done somewhere else 17 I think Albuquerque , if my memory is correct, I read an 18 article about six months ago where they adopted almost word 19 for word the residential street document that I am talking 20 about that was created by the Urban Land Institute . And I 21 would have to verify that , but I know I did read an article 22 in the Albuquerque Journal about that particular issue . So 23 it ' s being done , and successfully I don' t think that you 24 can see by the survey that it ' s a negative Some people 25 accept it , some don' t If you don' t like to live on a T, we PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 52 1 are not coercing you to buy on a T or a Y We offer it to 2 the public , and they buy it 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIS Mr Thurston, would you 4 happen to know - - you said NHB and some other - - 5 MR THURSTON ULI 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : - - are encouraging 7 this kind of development . How are they interpreting the 8 setbacks? Would you know? 9 MR. THURSTON• I could not answer that . I 10 would have to call and - - actually, I could make a request 11 of them? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIS . I think that would be 13 worth knowing, how that ' s being done , the setbacks . 14 MR THURSTON. I don' t have that answer , but 15 it would be an interesting response . 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Thank you, Mr Thurston 17 Mr Weir , would you put the overhead back on 18 MR. WEIR• This is the cul-de-sac . And I 19 also have a graphic of the Y cul-de-sac . 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : When we are dealing, for 21 example , with a corner lot, and we have got two phases, we 22 are aware of the clear-site triangle . But of course , we 23 don' t have that situation here But if we have the front of 24 the building to consider , and we have a corner lot, what 25 criteria is used to determine the front yard? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 53 1 MR WEIR. Are you saying a traditional 2 double-fronted lot - - 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ A corner 4 MR WEIR. Within the subdivision - - or 5 excuse me , within the zoning code for the City of Las 6 Cruces , they give the applicant an option of picking his 7 primary front yard And that would be - - that would allow 8 the front yard setback of that zoning district, which. is 9 usually 20 feet And then for the second side yard, they 10 allow them to reduce it to 15 feet And then, that' s the 11 way it ' s handled for a lot that has double street frontage . 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • So, could that same criteria 13 be used to determine this dilemma, in that we say - - since 14 the majority of the frontage of the house or the dwelling 15 would be facing the street and not the adjoing property, we 16 have a minimum of ten-foot distance between the two and 17 simply consider that area as we would a corner lot, and 18 simply go with the 15-foot setback? 19 MR WEIR• What you are proposing, rather 20 than this being at the back of the curb at the street, that 21 we would push it to the property line , and you would see , 22 you know, 15 foot or something along those lines 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ No . 24 MR WEIR• Okay, perhaps I missed something 25 somewhere PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 54 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ On the corner lot, where is 2 the 15 foot? 3 MR. WEIR It' s taken from the property line . 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Not from the back of the 5 curb? 6 MR WEIR. No , it would be generally - - if 7 you see a detached sidewalk , it would be from the back of 8 the sidewalk to the structure . The 15 foot would be the 9 point where the property line meets city right-of-way. 10 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN Mr Chairman, if I 11 may I think what I am seeing, where you just drew that 12 line there , if this were a residence or a structure out to 13 that setback line , then the view corridor is blocked from 14 that residence back in this lower left-hand portion, and 15 that' s why - - what I think Chairman Perez is saying is that 16 maybe the setback should be brought back , and the side may 17 be not as much as the front but something to prevent that 18 view corridor from the front - - am I making it clear, or 19 did I make it very muddy. 20 MR. WEIR: I believe what you are saying is 21 that you feel in this area it needs to be more open, and you 22 wouldn' t like to see a structure in that corner? 23 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN• Let' s take the T, for 24 example If you could take the option there where you have 25 drawn that line , the heavy line to the left there with the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 55 1 little indentation on the setback line , to me , that should 2 swoop around rather than just having a slight setback , 3 because if you look back both this corner down below - - if 4 you had a structure down there , your view corridor is really 5 chopped off If the structure was built out there . That' s 6 the only thing I can see with the close setback at the side 7 where the curves in that should be some consideration, that 8 that is considered something like that . That that is 9 considered front lot line also in these unusual cul-de-sacs . 10 The standard cul-de-sac , everyone knows this is just a 11 circle This obviously creates more land usage , using the T 12 or the Y because , if there were a circle it would dip 13 terribly down into those two lots , and those are very nice 14 shaped lots 15 So the one on the left and at the top, to prevent the 16 view corridor - - I keep calling it a view corridor because 17 I can' t think of better terminology But perhaps it could 18 be brought back a little bit to ease that situation. Mr . 19 Thurston, does that sound logical to you? 20 MR. THURSTON: Yes . 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Would that be something you 22 could live with? 23 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Is that acceptable to 24 you? 25 MR THURSTON Let me see if I understand my PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 S6 1 interpretation of what you are saying Okay, you are saying 2 that as we come around on the front side , we are looking at 3 a 20-foot setback As we come to the side yard we are 4 asking for a 15-foot secondary side yard, back 15 feet 5 adjacent to the common property between lot - - can I call 6 that 1 and 2 15 on the side yard and 15 feet coming back 7 from the property line , not from the back of curb; is that 8 what I am hearing? 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . That' s what I am looking at. 10 MR THURSTON• So you would have a 15-foot 11 indentation coming off the corner and coming back 15 feet 12 between lots one an two; is that correct? 13 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN. Actually, he ' s drawn a 14 curve , a little different than I would. The curve should go 15 the other way and follow the front lot line 16 MR THURSTON• Are you saying that 15 foot 17 would carry the same arc as the lot? 18 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN That' s what I was 19 suggesting . You see , now, you have got the vision problem 20 resolved, yet you haven' t chopped off that much buildable 21 area . 22 MR THURSTON: You have the same radius on 23 the lot one or lot six , whatever we want to call that, that 24 would go from a five-foot side yard to a 20-foot with a 25 15-foot radius ; is that correct? Is that what you are PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 57 1 saying? 2 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN. It doesn' t look to me 3 like it ' s in the same radius It' s in the same location. 4 MR THURSTON• What you are trying to do is 5 start out at 15 foot at a common property line , is that what 6 I am hearing? 7 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN• Your side lot setback 8 is five ; isn' t it? 9 MR THURSTON: Yes , sir . 10 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Starting at the five 11 next to the - - on that corner right there . If you start -at 12 that point Now start your arc around that , you see . Now I 13 realize that would be very difficult to describe that in 14 language on a document, in actual terminology. All I can 15 think of is a swoop 16 MR THURSTON. As long as the Commission will 17 come up with the language Based on that , I think I could 18 live with that And I hope you guys could live with the 19 interpretation of that. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We can live with swoop? 21 MR WEIR And now it' s a matter of putting 22 it in drawing form and bringing it back I think for final 23 approval 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Okay 25 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN I think that' s the way PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 58 1 to describe it , is draw it for him That' s our our 2 interpretation, Ken, for putting it together , this drawing, 3 so that would be visual as well as verbal . 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Any more comments from the 5 Commission regarding this case? Do we want to postpone to 6 bring back the final version? 7 Do I have a motion to postpone for 30 days to our 8 August P & Z meeting public hearing. 9 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I ' ll move to postpone 10 case PUD 92-003 for the August 192 public hearing 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do I have a second? - 12 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Second. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Discussion? All in favor, 14 aye . 15 Okay, the motion carries unanimously 16 ( The motion carried unanimously 5 to 0 . ) 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Now, we come to case PUD 18 92-004 . And before we continue on this particular 19 application, do we want to take a five-minute recess? 20 (A brief recess was held. ) 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We are now to case PUD 22 92-004 , a request for final approval for Crescent Center, a 23 business planned unit development . The property is a parcel 24 of land located at 801 Farney Road and contains 4 2 acres , 25 more or less , zoned R-3 , high density residential PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 59 1 Currently there is a single-family dwelling on the property; 2 the remaining property is vacant . The property is proposed 3 for a zone change to 0-1 , office , submitted by Gary 4 Krivokapich. Postponed from June 23 , 1992 . 5 May I have motion to consider case PUD-92-004 6 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA. So moved, 7 Mr . Chairman? 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Do I have a second? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I second. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Is the applicant present? 11 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: Yes. - 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Would you care to make a 13 presentation at this point in time or wait until the staff 14 and public comment are heard? 15 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH. I would rather go into 16 the staff and the public comments first, because some of the 17 people need to leave right away 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ That will be fine . Staff. 19 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez , commission 20 members , the request before you is for planning and 21 development of a parcel of land located at the corner of 22 Farney and E1 Paseo Last month the Commission recommended 23 approval of 0-1 , general office , conditional , to the City 24 Council for the rezoning of this property The condition 25 placed on the property was that it be developed through the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 60 1 planned unit development process Therefore , any action the 2 Commission takes this evening on this case will require 3 approval or denial subject to City Council ' s approval of the 4 zone change last Tuesday. 5 Just to go through the meeting, we had a neighborhood 6 meeting and three of the Commission members were present 7 there The neighborhood was there And the applicants were 8 all there to discuss the planning and development process , 9 the proposal , and also to air their concerns about the 10 proposals 11 what you have tonight before you is a planned unit 12 development concept approval If the concept is approved, 13 then it will have to go for final approval The main 14 purpose of this concept approval is to determine the uses 15 within this development 16 Also submitted with the uses was a site plan and 17 document as to •chat they are proposing These requirements 18 are not set in stone as far as what the applicant can 19 provide what they generally are is to give the Commission 20 some reference material as to what the proposal is when they 21 come in with their final site plan and their final 22 development standards 23 what I would like to do is go through a quick overview 24 of what they are proposing within their planned unit 25 development within the title of their document, they state PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 61 1 it will be a neighborhood shopping center . And they also 2 have set out certain development standards for the project 3 One of those is a common architectural style And they have 4 listed the architecture of New Mexico--territorial , pueblo, 5 Spanish colonial--or early California mission as the common 6 theme for the development of this parcel . They also set the 7 maximum height of the developments at 20 to 25 feet, and 8 have limited the gross floor area for any business to 12 , 000 9 square feet . 10 They have also stated that 20 percent of the parking 11 area will be landscaped, and it will be in conformance with 12 the landscaping that was approved by the Planning and Zoning 13 Commission for the University Corridor Plan. 14 They have also provided proposals for signage within 15 there that varies from the strict application of the sign 16 code They propose three types of sign--one attached to the 17 building, one that is a free-standing pedestrian sign that 18 can be seen on the ground level , and the other is more of a 19 common development sign for the proposal . And this would 20 also be free standing. 21 Access to the project would be from Farney-El Paseo and 22 West Park Drive . 23 The applicants have also provided a list of uses that 24 would be allowed within this development , and I will put 25 that on the overhead As you can see , there is quite an PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 62 1 extensive list of uses , and all of these uses are accepted 2 uses in either the 0-1 , which is general office , the C-1 , 3 which is neighborhood commercial , or the C-2 , which is 4 general commercial . And a business PUD allows these uses 5 for the development of a business PUD 6 when staff reviewed this , we reviewed it against the 7 comprehensive plan . And what we found were the most 8 important elements or policy were taken from the land-use 9 element . And beginning on the first page of your staff 10 report , you can see staff comments as to that Basically, 11 what they are is that this is an infill project--and the 12 city encourages infill of property within the city core--but 13 the proposed uses are not necessarily in accordance with the 14 surrounding neighborhood. 15 On the second page of the staff report is another 16 objective and goal from the comprehensive plan that states 17 the objective of maintaining and improving and economically 18 revitalizing the existing commercial area . Currently, the 19 city has a large amount of vacant land, undeveloped vacant 20 commercial land within the city core , and this area could 21 possibly dilute those areas and the development of those 22 vacant parcels 23 The other goal listed is that Las Cruces will stress a 24 trend toward planned nodes and centers in all new commercial 25 development , and will discourage further strip commercial PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 63 1 developments This proposal would allow further stripping 2 of El Paseo Drive 3 On the transportation, the goal is to achieve a system 4 of streets that provide traffic movement and property access 5 and cost convenient in an environmentally sound manner . 6 Staff has reviewed this , and the proposal will not 7 negatively effect the level of service of either Farney or 8 E1 Paseo, or the intersection 9 During the course of review of this proposal , there 10 were several neighborhood meetings dating all the way back 11 to the end of November and early December , and as recent as 12 last Tuesday. At these meetings , there were several 13 concerns voiced that there were two sides to this 14 development . The first was the concern of the 15 neighbors--who had a great deal of concern One was the 16 increase of traffic on Farney and El Paseo and safety 17 concerns at the intersection. A second concern by this 18 group was the impact of the commercial use on the property 19 value . A third concern was the compatibility of the 20 proposed uses with the existing neighborhood and area . And 21 the fourth concern was compatibility with the comprehensive 22 plan Again, like I said, there were two views to this 23 project And the second view was they would rather see 24 neighborhood commercial or offices developed on this parcel 25 rather than see it go into an apartment development, which PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 64-7 1 would be allowed under the R-3 zoning. 2 They also stated that certain uses within the C-1 and 3 C-2 would be allowed if there were additional measures taken 4 into consideration, such as buffering, landscaping, hours of 5 operation for the project C, { V c'W 6 Staff did,` -drts e on the property. We reviewed the 7 uses and found that as proposed the majority of these are 8 permitted in the C-2 zone , and are a little too intense for 9 the existing neighborhood . Staff also had to factor in a 10 large amount of input against the development as proposed 11 from the neighborhood, and also the consideration of further 12 stripping as far as strip development along E1 Paseo and the 13 existence of a large amount of commercial property already 14 existing within the city core Taking all of these factors 15 into consideration, staff does not support the conceptual 16 approval with proposed - - with emphasis of C-2 uses over 17 office and neighborhood uses If the Commission has any 18 questions , I will be happy to answer them. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • At this point, did you still 20 want to - - do you want to make a presentation now, or still 21 wait until we go into the public input? 22 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: There were a couple of 23 people who needed to make input who want to leave in about 24 five minutes 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Okay, we will go into public PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 65 1 input 2 Anybody from the audience wishing to make any comments 3 regarding PUD 92-004? And at this particular point in time , 4 if you have got a neighborhood spokesman, we will have the 5 15-minute rule in effect . If you are an individual , we have 6 the three-minute rule in effect 7 Okay, at this particular point, are you an individual 8 or are you speaking for the neighborhood? 9 MR. LUSK. I am an individual . We will have 10 five speakers all together this everything. We will stick 11 to our 15 minutes allotted . 12 My name is Carl Lusk . I am spokesperson for a group of 13 approximately 200 residents of the whole Crescent Park 14 area--that is Crescent Park as well as the residental area 15 on and off Wofford east of the land you will be considering 16 tonight on El Paseo and Farney 72 members of our group are 17 present this evening Will the members of our group please 18 raise their hands . 19 As we understand it, there are four different types of 20 PUD--one being the business PUD--which allows a developer to 21 introduce commercial uses into a zoning which otherwise 22 would not allow such use . Creating commercial zones within 23 residental areas degrades the integrity of those areas , 24 lowering property values , creating thoroughfares of once 25 quiet streets and driving residents eventually to sell PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 66 1 property at a loss--property they would otherwise not have 2 sold What was once a very desirable neighborhood becomes 3 just another inner-city nightmare 4 This is a well-maintained area with most houses 5 assessed in excess of $80 , 000 We pay high property tax 6 rates and expect the city to respond to the majority needs 7 of the neighborhood. If the 0-1 zoning is approved by the 8 city commission, we do not want a business PUD attached. We 9 would expect to see as much as a 20-percent drop off the 10 value from hundreds of individuals ' property in this area, 11 just to satisfy the desire of one individual . 12 Mr Krivokapich has stated that he has owned this 13 property for many years . Most of the Crescent Park area 14 residents have also owned and resided on their property for 15 many years . We have personally committed ourselves to a 16 high standard in the upkeep of our property and the 17 neighborhood in general . We are not talking only about 18 paying taxes We have invested a great deal of time as well 19 as money over the years to present the well-tended look of 20 this residential area for our own enjoyment and profit, yes , 21 sir , but also to tell others entering our neighborhood that 22 we think this is a special place to live . 23 We do not want a business PUD on this proposed 0-1 24 zone . This group of area residents will do anything we can 25 to protect our neighborhood. We have met to consider Mr PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 67 1 Krivokapich' s list of proposed commercial uses Under his 2 PUD plan, with the exception of very few exceptions to the 3 0-1 list of uses deemed appropriate to the area, we decided 4 that the adoption of a business PUD was absolutely 5 inappropriate . 6 The next speaker will now give you further arguments 7 voiced at our various meetings 8 MR. GUSTAFSON: I am Henry Gustafson. I own 9 about 30 acres of land on the corner of Farney and E1 Paseo , 10 and I actually live on the land So it' s very, very 11 important to me , and- I am vitally concerned about what 12 happens in that particular area. 13 As was stated by the first speaker , in addition to 14 those who are present this evening, there were about 90 15 signatures on a petition, previously signed by members of 16 the area, that were submitted for your attention. In 17 addition to the statements submitted this evening, numerous 18 letters and petitions with over 75 signatures have been 19 submitted to the zoning board in the past, protesting 20 commercial development of any land adjacent to the Crescent 21 Park area The concern shown by the board and the planning 22 staff, and your time taken to hold a workshop for us , and 23 the time Mr . David Weir took to come to our meetings to 24 explain or clarify, assured us that we should continue 25 seeking the best solution, one that best serves the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 68 1 traditions of our neighborhood 2 The PUD concept plan proposed small and large volume 3 retail food, beverage , dry goods , personal medical , repair 4 services , residential and so forth, and then refers to the 5 detailed list of proposed uses . The majority of these uses 6 are used in C-2 and C-1 , but especially C-2 . 7 I know David Weir made some comments about the 8 recommendations in the staff report, but I think they are so 9 vital that I want to repeat some of those , because they 10 really have meaning in this issue under the section entitled 11 assessment of compatibility with comprehensive plan. It is 12 stated by the staff that the integrity of the existing land 13 uses and densities should be protected. That' s very 14 important. It states that the supermarkets and small store 15 uses mentioned in the application would not be consistent 16 with protecting the integrity of existing uses . 17 We assert that all C-2 and most C-1 commercial uses are 18 inconsistent with protecting the integrity of existing uses . 19 when the staff makes these recommendation as far as this 20 concept is concerned, and most of us here agree on this , 21 then I don' t know why we are here continuing this lengthy 22 discussion. 23 "The staff at Planning and Zoning should discourage 24 further strip commercial development , " that' s been stated 25 also , "as current land use policies recommend We agree . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 69 1 Granting a business PUD to the proposed 0-1 zone would only 2 encourage further high-impact commercial proposals on E1 3 Paseo south of Boutz 4 When the 0-1 zone was proposed, most of us agreed with 5 the proposition that it would probably be better than R-3 . 6 I disagree , but it seems the majority feel the 0-1 was okay 7 That' s fine And that' s been approved, but we ought to stop 8 there . It is projected that the traffic would increase . 9 That' s normal . We know it' s going to happen. But there is 10 no reason to augment it . 11 Please respond to the majority opinion We want you to 12 vote against the business PUD, and we want to protect our 13 long-term investments , like most of us have . Thank you very 14 much . 15 MR. WATTS My name is David Watts I am a 16 rare item to this area , I am a native New Mexican. My 17 original home is in Silver City I have lived in Las Cruces 18 since 1957 . I would like to thank the board and the city 19 staff for all of the cooperation that they have given us 20 while working with us , attending the different meetings and 21 the workshops I know that everybody' s time is value Some 22 of you are probably familiar with the Crescent Park area and 23 the adjoining areas , that' s the area just south of the Las 24 Cruces High School on that side of E1 Paseo . If you aren' t 25 familiar with those areas down there , there are some very PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 70 1 nice yards , and there are some very nice homes , as was 2 mentioned Come down and take a look sometime You are 3 welcome , and drive through any time . I would like to 4 especially ask the board members , if you are out cruising 5 around about 1 15 a m. to 2 15 , or so, in the morning, come 6 part way down Farney and see what happens after Cowboy' s 7 turns loose 8 Most of us have lived in these homes for many years . I 9 had my home built in 1962 and have lived there since . Those 10 who have moved here recently, did so because it was obvious _11 that the residents were committed to their neighborhood and 12 that they liked the residential atmosphere that it 13 presented. 14 Now, we are here this evening, because we feel that our 15 neighborhood is under a tremendous threat The proposed 16 business PUD will not just lower our property values , it 17 will degrade the basic integrity of the whole residential 18 area . we have a high school within walking distance for our 19 children. We have a church and a swimming pool just across 20 E1 Paseo or Espina . We also have a couple of parks and a 21 couple of day care centers . 22 There is a farm across the street from Frenger Park , 23 and at some future date there possibly will be townhouses or 24 something in there We were not at all happy to hear that 25 the the owner of this property was asking for a zone change PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 71 1 to C-2 or C-1 Many of us signed a petition stating our 2 position against any commercial development in our 3 neighborhood When this board voted in favor of the 0-1 4 zone change we were somewhat relieved. At least you were 5 willing to consider the property as a transition area, a 6 buffer zone , if you please , so to speak from the ever 7 encroaching C-2 intrusions on E1 Paseo 8 Now, many were very relieved that we would possibly 9 have an end to the property owner' s threat to build low 10 income apartments over there if he couldn' t have his 11 commercial zoning with a business PUD. But then we learned 12 that this business PUD, what it will do and how it will do 13 for the neighborhood, if it goes through. I won' t try to 14 repeat what' s been said, but I would only appeal to you to 15 seriously consider what has been said. 16 Please consider the major opinion. The majority is not 17 proposing anything excessive or extreme . We recognize the 18 property owner ' s right to develop his land. But his 19 proposal should be in keeping with the existing land uses of 20 the area. And that is not what this proposed business PUD 21 will do . The property owners proposal to add C-1 and C-2 22 _ uses to this proposed 0-1 zone threatens to degrade what 23 many people have tried to build and maintain at a 24 considerable cost in not only time but money. 25 We ask that you consider your city staff ' s PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 72 1 recommendation The passage of a business PUD is not 2 consistent with the comprehensive plan of the residential 3 neighborhood It is not in the best interests of the 4 community to have C-1 or C-2 development in this area, 5 because of it ' s incompatibility with the residential uses 6 that have been existing in this area for years 7 I expect to see some of you down there between 1 . 15 and 8 2 . 15 some morning. Come on down. Thank you very much. 9 MR. PAUL. I am Robert Paul , and I am sort of 10 the fourth spokesman you have heard here We have each 11 _ tried to address an area that is of concern, in some kind of 12 coherent fashion And I wanted to talk about sticking with 13 what we understand to be the development plan. As you know, 14 and we all know, Las Cruces is growing at a fast pace . And 15 we suggest that we have to channel our commercial growth to 16 areas where it will thrive and bring profits to those who 17 would risk to initiate it . I would like to point out that 18 many of us have invested in our own businesses We are 19 quite sensitive to commercial needs . At the same time , we 20 feel we also have to protect what we have already built . 21 When we allow spots of commercial area to infringe on an 22 established residental area, then, that area is no longer 23 able to offer the same quality of life that people paid for 24 in time , in committment and money Roads become busy 25 thoroughfares into our private lives , our homes are our PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 73 1 refuge from the commercial pounding we take day after day, 2 and they are no longer a quiet place to unwind in safety. 3 If city has , as we understand it, a comprehensive plan 4 as briefly explained in the workshop on the 21st, and the 5 plan is to infill vacant areas around the city, as we 6 understand it , your staff report endorses the goal that this 7 future infill be in harmony with the environments already 8 established. 9 Of course , our group also encourages such a goal . 10 Please note that in the immediate neighborhood north and 11 immediately south of Boutz along E1 Paseo , as well as south 12 of Boutz along Main, there are many acres of vacant land 13 already zoned C-2 . Those lands have been advertised for 14 many years and still stand vacant. This indicates to us , 15 and we believe to the city staff based on their report, that 16 there is little or no need or demand for further commercial 17 zoning in the area In keeping with the comprehensive plan, 18 efforts should be made to infill the available C-2 strips 19 and not create more . 20 We believe , therefore , that it would be highly 21 inappropriate to allow the business PUD Mr . Krivokapich is 22 urging or proposing, and we urge you to vote no to his 23 proposal Again, our group would like to thank you and the 24 city staff We appreciate the time you have given us in 25 several situations , and in particular on the 21st We are PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 74 1 sensitive to the difficulty you face in trying to find some 2 optimum solutions to the city' s planning needs , but please 3 consider this majority appeal and help us to preserve this 4 residential environment . Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Thank you Any more 6 comments from the public? 7 MR. REDE . Mr . Chairman my name is Raymond 8 Rede , and my plea is more personal than the previous 9 speakers , for my property is exactly across the street on E1 10 Paseo from the proposed development. And in talking at the 11 workshop the other day--and I ' ll apologize for being 12 repetitious , ,but I strived for many years to cope with the 13 noise and the traffic factor that I have to put up with. The 14 first thing I did is , I changed all the glass in my doors 15 and windows to double-pane to try to be able to sleep at 16 night from all the noise And then I had to remove some 17 sliding doors that led to a patio , because sliding doors 18 certainly don' t keep any noise out. And I had to remove 19 them and install windows and a solid door there . 20 And so my plea to you folks , Mr . Chairman, and members 21 of the Commission, is that when you see all these folks here 22 present that are pleading with you to at least meet us 23 halfway. I think the property owners have already been 24 given an option. He had been given the 0-1 zoning that can 25 give him other options for development or the sale of his PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 75 1 property, and my plea to you is hopefully that you will 2 listen to the majority of residents from that area and keep 3 it at that and vote against the PUD. Thank you very much, 4 Mr . Chairman. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Thank you. Any other 6 comments from the public? 7 MR. GIEVER• My name is Terry Giever, and I 8 have lived in the neighborhood off and on for probably about 9 30 years . Now, one thing, David, I drive by your house 10 every night on my way home from Cowboy' s No, I am joking 11 with you. I have lived over there for years . _ 12 One thing I need to go ahead and state that I have been 13 compensated off and on doing business with the Krivokapiches 14 in the past, just so there are no surprises later down the 15 road 16 I live on Turrentine . I grew up on Milton, 475 Milton, 17 which is right in that neighborhood A couple of things 18 that I wanted to point out . One was , as far as the traffic 19 and as far as the planned shopping center area versus say 20 apartments , you are going to have the traffic . You are 21 going to have the traffic all day long and all night with 22 apartments If you have got 123 units or 130 units that are 23 alluded to here , what does that work out to. You figure you 24 got , what, two people going in there per unit? That' s 250 25 cars a day in and out of there And that' s if they only go PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 76 1 one time a day As far as the traffic , you are going to 2 have the traffic 3 If you have a planned shopping center , you will have 4 the traffic in there maybe until five o' clock A lot of it, 5 if you look at some of these other malls , strip malls , after 6 five o ' clock , or six o ' clock , most of it is closed. Not all 7 of it ' s going to be closed, but you are not going to have 8 traffic coming in there all day and all night long as you 9 will with college students coming in there . 10 Over there on Turrentine , I remember when they built 11 the apartments at the end of the street on Turrentine and 12 university Everybody remembers those . And what happened, 13 we had all sorts of traffic coming up Farney and up 14 Turrentine , more than we ever had Then all of a sudden 15 Holiday Inn bought it and turned it into Holiday Plaza. Did 16 the traffic stop? A lot of it sure did. 17 You know, as far as your traffic end of it, you are 18 going to have the traffic . My last two little points here . 19 One , somebody passed a circular by. I have never been 20 invited to the meetings or anything, but I had a circular 21 sitting on my doorstep the other day. And some of the 22 figures--I don' t know who' s writing stuff out and 23 things--but there are lots of you who are a little bit 24 misinformed as far as apartments . They stated on their 25 letter that these apartments were going to run $50 , 000 a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 77 1 unit, cost per unit I don' t know who got that 2 information , but they are not going to be building anything 3 more than $30-35 , 000 units on there . They are not going to 4 be nice luxury apartments . You are going to have high 5 density, cheap-as-possible apartments . That way you can 6 make them cash low and get the highest return on your 7 investment As an investor , you are not going to be 8 spending $50 , 000 per unit for apartments 9 And there was also the issue of the fill dirt, the 10 circular said it would not be economical to bring in that 11 much fill dirt, but believe me , it is . I am building one in _ 12 Santa Fe , and we have poured in 30 or 40 yards of fill dirt. 13 Believe me , the fill dirt is a very small consideration in a 14 situation like this . Somebody said it wasn' t feasible for 15 us , but it was . I guess that ' s about it I would recommend 16 that you vote in favor of the PUD 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Thank you. Anybody else 18 from the public wish to make any comments regarding PUD 19 90-004? 20 Okay, we will close it down to public participation and 21 go on to commissioner input . 22 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: Can I do my quick 23 presentation now? 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Let me see if there are any 25 comments that the commissioners wish to make at this point , PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 78 1 or would you care to hear from Mr Krivokapich at this 2 point? I am not going to get in to that again 3 No comments? Okay, go ahead and make your 4 presentation 5 MR GARY KRIVOKAPICH. Okay, the first thing 6 I would like to do is go over a brief history on this 7 project , and that way it will give us a little more 8 understanding. We purchased the property, my dad did, over 9 here in 1965 . At that time , it was zoned R-1 for 10 residences At that time , New Mexico State was probably 11 about 10 , 000 students . It was a two-lane road, El Paseo - 12 was , and - - it was still considered at that time a business 13 road, when we purchased that property. 14 we have marketed it for R-3 apartments real heavily 15 since 1982 . Everyone in the university corridor plan, in 16 that whole area--even Mr Gustafson--has a hard time getting 17 people to come in and build apartments . We did a survey 18 starting in July. That survey went to the property owners 19 along Farney within 200 feet, so it was actually a little 20 more than what the city put out. We took it to the zoning 21 meeting for a C-2 , conditional . That was conditional on 22 architectural restrictions and landscaping restrictions . At 23 that time , we met and that was tabled to meet with the 24 residents We came in, and we met with the residents in 25 December of 191 This was done at Jim Erickson' s house PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 79 1 There was a group that we were assigned to work with then. 2 We flew out to meet with everybody then. At that 3 particular time , we were advised by the staff that it would 4 be good to develop a PUD, because we came in with a site 5 plan basically fairly similar to what I have here without 6 the parking and landscaping, presented it to the people , and 7 said what would you like? 8 After that meeting, I met again, I think in the church 9 over there . And from then, it' s kind of an important part, 10 that ' s when we took on the expense of, yeah, we will develop 11 the PUD There was interest with the staff with an 0-1 12 business .PUD And on our part, because we didn' t want to 13 waste our time , if the staff wasn' t supporting us on that, 14 we didn' t want to bother 15 What I ' ll do here is read part of the minutes from 16 David Weir ' s City of Las Cruces meeting, the december 10 , 17 second neighborhood meeting on the proposed zone change 18 "City staff provided the neighborhood with short summaries 19 of the zone change request. Staff provided information on 20 the uses allowed within the zoning and the potential uses of 21 other zones . Staff also provided an explanation of the 22 planned unit development process . After a question and 23 answer discussion, the neighborhood reached a consensus to 24 support a change to 0-1 with a conditional PUD, and that it 25 be approved for the development of this property PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 80 1 Staff also feels a zone change to 0-1 and the approval 2 of a PUD is the best option for the development of the 3 parcel A PUD will allow neighborhood city and property 4 owners concerns to be addressed The option provides a 5 means for infill development which is mutually beneficial to 6 all involved groups " 7 What we did, because we wanted to make sure we were on 8 firm ground, at least before we take off--because when you 9 develop a PUD, you work with the neighborhood and you incur 10 a lot of expense--we came in and submitted our site plan and 11 PUD Last May, we actually put that in a month earlier than 12 it was actually due , so the staff could look at it and get 13 comments back to us if they had any problems with it . . As 14 you know, in June we had our meeting for the zoning. The 15 zoning was recommended 0-1 with a PUD Now, we are here 16 with a PUD and the uses 17 What we did is to develop a plan that took the 18 neighborhood concerns into mind. And I think what one of 19 you had to say here is , "Change is hard. " I think from our 20 neighborhood meetings , we had one lady say she would like to 21 see the cotton in the field and the beautiful cotton 22 flowers well , that ' s kind of nice for her , but for my part 23 this is to develop a payoff for my dad and his investments, 24 his retirement investments 25 One of the main things that makes this project really PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 81 1 unique is that it has three access points , so you can 2 distribute that traffic out there and not impact a lot of 3 the neighbors . One of the first things we did upon a 4 recommendation from staff--and it' s also logical--is to put 5 a landscape buffer in all around. That' s a 20 to 25 foot 6 landscape buffer 7 What we also did is restricted the height of the 8 buildings What you really want to do on a neighborhood 9 concept like this is make the center as much like the 10 neighborhood as possible . 11 Another thing we did is we proposed in here to use 12 monument height signs Now, my proposal in there , and 13 that' s just for the neighborhood concern of too many signs 14 on the buildings , is that if you are business X, Y, and Z 15 and you advertize on this sign, then that area comes off the 16 amount of sign you can put on your building. If you put it 17 up here on both sides in that area, the total of those two 18 areas have to come off your signage here . And what that 19 does is , it makes signs about six foot high so they are not 20 visible from homes across the street. 21 We also went into extra landscaping. We landscaped 20 22 percent of the parking lot . So we have got two landscaped 23 medians going down here and going down here . One thing that 24 is really important so you don' t really look like you are 25 strip centering everything, is to put a good walkway, a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 82 1 lengthy walkway, so that when they are walking through the 2 mall , somebody from Crescent Park goes over there to fill a 3 prescription, or goes over there to have some yogurt, they 4 have shade We have a ten-foot long walkway in here for the 5 pedestrians now. 6 Also in the center part here--this is a concept I got 7 out of the Fresno shopping center--that is if the 8 neighborhood would approve , you could have nighttime 9 concerts or meetings in this area. This particular center 10 that was in Fresno had jazz concerts there every Friday 11 night . Of course , that' s something you would have to work 12 out with the neighbors , if the noise was too loud. But 13 that' s not a must in the project. 14 And again, the only thing that would be 25 foot in 15 height would be this back section in here Another thing 16 that was important to us was to put a lot of the parking in 17 the back away from the buildings , so it would look better 18 We also got one , two , three exits . With those exits , we 19 also have the option on this particular piece of land, if 20 you have a business that the neighbors don' t like, let' s say 21 a laundry, you can put it on this side . So if you are 22 catering to the college students on this side , you can put 23 the front here of that particular business , on this side . 24 So there are a lot of options on this land . 25 One thing I wanted to point out - - while we were here , PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 83 1 it ' s sort of interesting and something that came up in the 2 zoning. I didn' t think it would be rehashed again. On this 3 side , we have a church. On the other side we have C-2 4 conditional commercial . On this side , there is a park now. 5 That park is posted "keep out" because of toxic waste , or 6 whatever is in there , and then we have commercial on that 7 side 8 We are actually not creating another node , we are 9 actually connecting into a node that already exists . So I 10 think that' s a very important distinction. If you look at 11 the map, there is a church there , next to it is commercial 12 land owned by New Mexico State 13 Now, what we are proposing here is 22 , 000 square feet 14 up to 32 , 000 square feet in the back . And again each use 15 can be up to 12 , 000 square feet. And we also did a little 16 trick here on the layout If there are any driver-throughs , 17 say the cleaners , we hid that back behind the building We 18 also hid the drive-through here for the drive-through on 19 this building We hid it from sight from the neighbors . 20 That ' s a real complaint . People don' t want to see cars 21 stacked up in a line . 22 Another thing we did is , we also hid the loading and 23 unloading, because that' s one of the objections to a center 24 like this , if they come and unload their stuff in the 25 morning, or pick up the trash, that they can see it or hear PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 84 1 it . We put the building right out here . And the loading 2 for these buildings would be in the back . If you have any 3 questions as I go along go right ahead. Can everybody hear 4 me okay? 5 Again, I think what is important on here is how we 6 approached the concerns of the neighborhood. What I did 7 here is put together a little sheet on how we did that . The 8 first one is traffic. One thing about traffic--and I 9 requested that the traffic engineer be here tonight, and he 10 is not From what I understand, the traffic study that was 11 done for our C-2 uses were actually more than what we have 12 right now, the traffic created by that. And the traffic 13 created by the R-3 apartments was almost equal , so the 14 traffic impact to the area is going to be the same . 15 Another thing we did, we did one survey at the 16 beginning Now that we had a PUD, the neighbors should be 17 getting a survey today or tomorrow in the mail to return. 18 So we are going to have another survey before we go into the 19 meeting August 7th, to give us a feel for how the whole 20 neighborhood is going. 21 We got kind of sideswiped by having to work with the 22 different neighborhood groups , so it' s made our part a 23 little bit more confusing, because we thought we had a lot 24 of these issues ironed out with Jim Erickson' s group. 25 Okay, we did have meetings , two meetings with two PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 85 7 1 different neighborhood groups . One was the Jim Erickson' s 2 group that was mentioned in the first letter . The other 3 thing I pointed out--I do understand their concerns for 4 their neighborhood, because I live in a house that' s 35 5 years old, and I have those concerns . That' s the reason why 6 we have spent so much time in getting these developments 7 tightened up to protect their neighborhood. This is our 8 third meeting with the zoning commission on this particular 9 issue , and we also consider those as public input meetings , 10 we get input from them. And also there were. two meetings , I 11 think , with the staff, where we met separately with these 12 groups 13 Okay, the traffic concerns are met by three entrances 14 on three streets to distribute the traffic . Again the R-3 15 and the commercial uses are about the same . One fear you 16 have here is tall buildings . What we have done is limit our 17 building to 25 feet If we stick with R-3 , we can go up to 18 45 feet . If you look at this , we have protected the uses by 19 keeping that 20 foot up here . We kept the majority of the 20 height of the building into the back, so we are not blocking 21 the use of any of the residences . That is something under 22 the current zoning we don' t really have to consider . We can 23 put our building anywhere we want, ugly commercial . I don' t 24 think you have to drive far away from our piece of property 25 to see a lot of that . And I understand the concerns of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 86 1 neighbors I don' t think you want press-board buildings on 2 the corner there That' s where we are coming up with these 3 standards 4 Also, we have - - again, we have adopted the University 5 Corridor Plan for architecture . As far as ugly signs , we 6 have tried to limit those and put them down into the 7 landscape corridor , the landscape buffer . And that is to 8 reduce the visual impact. We are close to a residential 9 area, and we have got a street in there . If you look at 10 this figure , it has a traffic count of anywhere from 12 , 000 11 to 20 , 000 cars a day. Also, we are bounded by that street, 12 also , by the lateral canal so we are not actually backed up 13 right to them. 14 We have the same problems as one of the guys stated 15 here . When we go to market this for apartments , people 16 don' t want to put apartments there . They don' t want to put 17 houses there why? Because E1 Paseo is a business street 18 It has a high traffic count. They don' t want the noise . So 19 we are in kind of a nowhere zone right now. Bad commercial 20 uses , if you take a look at the prohibited uses--and this is 21 one thing we tried to do is get out the prohibited uses--the 22 real obnoxious uses that we felt the neighborhood would like 23 right in the beginning, the first is adult entertainment, 24 auto and camper sales , automobile parking lot , boat sales 25 and service PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 87 1 When we developed this we said, well , if we were living 2 over there what would we object to And that is what we 3 came up with--bowling alley, bus terminal , cigar stand, 4 dance hall , department store , electric shop, firewood sales , 5 fraternity, frozen food lockers , funeral homes , gas 6 stations Gas station is a biggy We could probably get 7 that corner out to a gas station within just a matter of a 8 month, get a little station to locate there . A lot of the 9 stations that are closed down that you see have 10 environmental problems , so that one hurt us Glass cutting 11 and finishing, golf course , hardware store , -heavy equipment 12 sales There is another one you wouldn' t want to see out 13 your back door Overnight clinic , hotel-motel . And that' s 14 another one you wouldn' t want to see . A liquor store , 15 lumber store Let' s see , furniture , golf course , motion 16 picture theater , motorcycle sales , skating rink , sorority, 17 steam cleaning and tavern, which is actually the biggest 18 money maker anyway, taxi cab stand, tire sales and service . 19 So you can see we removed a lot of very obnoxious uses from 20 that property. 21 Again, I ' ll point out - - I ' ll wrap up my talk here , 22 the advantage is that it provides neighborhood shopping 23 while preserving the neighborhood. To me that' s the most 24 important thing. If you can get quality, like we propose , 25 commercial in there , you will put - - you will start PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 88 1 preserving that neighborhood. If you let it go for 2 apartments , that may be fine for the first five years , but 3 then you see them go down the tubes It doesn' t take much 4 to drive around and see these cheap apartments being built 5 and coming in and almost choking the neighborhood off . 6 If this neighborhood continues to be picky, they are 7 going to be surrounded by apartments that are going to be 8 built for $25 to $35 a square foot . And when somebody comes 9 in here - - and New Mexico State, I think something people 10 don' t realize is , is that the private market here has to 11 compete with New Mexico State . And New Mexico State puts 12 out cheap housing. So that forces the apartment people to 13 put in even cheaper housing. So you are not going to get 14 really good apartments there . 15 I advise you to take a drive around at night and look 16 at the apartments . I think one thing that you don' t 17 understand about the PUD process , we are getting concept 18 approval so we can start marketing. We will have to come 19 back in and get final approval that would guarantee that if 20 we deviate from this we have to get it okayed from the 21 neighborhood. 22 As far as there being too much commercial around the 23 city. I mean all I have to ask the staff is , you know, do 24 you believe in the free enterprise system, or does the staff 25 decide , well , you can put your store in or you can' t . And I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 89 1 think there are a lot of concessions that everybody has to 2 make They have to make them, let ' s say for Wal-Mart . 3 Wal-Mart wants an extra light on the freeway for the mall , 4 when that went in up here . Everytime something goes in, it 5 affects the other businesses . That' s the natural parts of 6 our economic system I don' t think you are going to get 7 away without that But if this high quality design is put 8 in and it' s not maintained, we will suffer the economic 9 consequences Somebody else will come in and our tennants 10 will move That' s the natural happening in the free 11 enterprise system. 12 Another advantage we have , is the drive-through hidden. 13 40 percent of the cars are hidden. The drop-off points are 14 hidden. The landscape buffer of 20 feet and the landscape 15 standards from the University Corridor Plan. And one thing 16 I want to make clear is , if you take a drive around the 17 apartments , what we are proposing is a big upgrade to what 18 can be built there now And if you take a look, this is an 19 example of R-3 apartments up on University. That' s what can 20 be built there now Now this particular apartment is what 21 you would have to build to bring those down to $25 to $35 a 22 square foot, and to get your rent down so you could complete 23 with New Mexico State . 24 I would like to put this in. We all have to take 25 chances I think we have proposed a very good design . It' s PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 90 1 up to us to find the tenants that can afford to be in this 2 center and to support the center If we can' t, as it ' s 3 designed, it will revert back to R-3 . So if this center was 4 not economically supported, it will naturally expire . But 5 we are going to work hard to get this concept built on our 6 property I think it' s a win for the city, because you have 7 your infill planned. It' s a win for the residents , because 8 you don' t have that 20-percent, 30-percent thing, because 9 you have run-down apartments next to your house, or you have 10 the projects next to your house And it' s a plus for us , 11 because we are able to develop our project . And I consider 12 it a win, win, win decision. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any comments from the 15 Commission? 16 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr Chairman, I have a 17 question I would like to ask Henry Gustafson 18 How many vacant apartments are there in Las Cruces,, 19 would you know? 20 MR. GUSTAFSON: I manage rental property, and 21 I have apartments of my own. And we have one apartment to 22 rent out of all we manage . There are no rentals available 23 at this time . 24 COMMISSIONER LINARD : So there is a demand 25 for rental apartments in this city? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 91 1 MR GUSTAFSON. A great demand for rental 2 property 3 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Any further comments? 5 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA I have some comments . 6 I think we have kind of - - this group has kind of been 7 together a few times This isn' t the first time we have 8 been addressing the issue here 9 And at one of our meetings , we postponed it because we 10 had some confusion as to what exactly the PUD meant to the 11 owner and to the surrounding residents . And we had some 12 work sessions on this issue . And those of us that are up 13 here are volunteers, first of all . And we are trying to 14 learn as much as we can about the PUDs , and all the issues 15 that come before the Commission And my understanding of 16 this whole project , as far as the PUD goes, is that the PUD 17 is primarily to allow some flexibility in the development of 18 certain parcels of land. And it' s used so that we can 19 encourage the development of properties that perhaps haven' t 20 been developed properly. And we have been given materials 21 to review on the standards that we should be looking at to 22 determine whether a PUD is going to be compatible with the 23 surrounding area, whether it' s going to serve a purpose, or 24 whether it' s going to be able to be served by existing 25 utilities , by existing streets And when we had our meeting PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 92 1 last time , there was a work session an informal work session 2 here where the public came . The neighborhood got an 3 opportunity to strike out all the uses from the 0-1 , C-1 and 4 C-2 . Even though the Commission approved an 0-1 zoning, we 5 went back and allowed everyone to have an opportunity to 6 strike out those uses , including some uses under the 0-1 7 classification that they felt were not compatible . And we 8 came up with a list that I understood was going to be 9 revised and then presented to us . I am not sure if it has 10 been at this point Was this ever done? 11 It was my understanding that at the last meeting, we 12 would have some kind of revised list that we could look at 13 on those classifications that were struck out . 14 MR. WEIR. Chairman Perez , Commissioner 15 Ferreira, staff did not prepare a revised list of uses to be 16 struck out What they did do was provide letters from the 17 public in which they struck out uses they were opposed to . 18 And the applicant was also given the opportunity to revise 19 his list if he so desired. But staff did not prepare a 20 revised list for your review. 21 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA. Because basically at 22 this point, then, if we don' t have that information before 23 us , then we are kind of faced with the same situation that 24 we were faced with at the beginning In that we are trying 25 to approve a PUD with conditional uses , or with strict PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 93—7 1 restricted uses , and we don' t have any reference . We need 2 to have some kind of an understanding as to exactly what 3 that survey showed, because I think we want to encourage 4 development of parcels such as these But we don' t want to 5 do it in such a way that it' s going to adversely affect the 6 surrounding area. I live right on Main Street, so I live 7 right on a commercial - - in the commercial area For me , I 8 think it' s perfect, because at night everybody leaves , and 9 it ' s totally quiet It' s very peaceful . And I just happen 10 to live on the part of Main Street where the traffic diverts 11 to E1 Paseo . I have to face the traffic in the evening, but 12 I am a resident of the entire City of Las Cruces and drive 13 up and down E1 Paseo . And I am very familiar with Farney 14 and the traffic that occurs down Farney between El Paseo and 15 South Main Street, and the activities that goes on there 16 with that bar , Cowboy' s , or whatever it' s called now I 17 understand the problems And I think that the public also 18 understands that the Commission has to try to make difficult 19 decisions This is one of the reasons we have had a number 20 of meetings to try to understand the concerns of everybody, 21 not just the owners , but all the area residents . And we 22 want to make the right decision. 23 We want to try to balance it so that we can continue to 24 develop our community in a balanced way. Is there any way 25 we can get an idea as to what uses were discussed, because PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 94 1 we had a pretty good idea from that work session as to what 2 kind of uses the people did not object to 3 MR. WEIR: What I could go is put the list of 4 uses back on the screen I feel it may be appropriate for 5 the Commission to ask the applicant what uses or the bare 6 uses - - what are their minimum requirements for this 7 project to go . I don' t know if it' s necessary for the 8 community or the applicant to go use by use and on a popular 9 vote determine it 10 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I wasn' t suggesting 11 that I think we went through that before . It takes a lot 12 of time . It was my understanding that we were going to get 13 some kind of a printout or something, some sort of a 14 composite of our last meeting to kind of assist us here 15 tonight . 16 That' s all I have here , Mr . Chairman. 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Thank you, Commissioner 18 Ferreira . Let' s go ahead and put the list back on the 19 board. 20 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I understood from our 21 legal counsel that paragraph 64D on page 668 , in the zoning 22 book that I have , says 0-1 , C-1 , C-2 and DM, which is 23 downtown mall , a PUD in any such business zoning district 24 may include only those uses which are permitted principal 25 uses in a structure in any of the above-referenced PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 95 1 districts , plus any type of residental use allowed 2 Now, that "any" can be interpreted two ways . Some can 3 interpret it, because it' s so vague as to scramble oranges 4 and apples I interpreted it - - to me , if you have 0-1 5 zone , you put 0-1 stuff in it . A C-1 is a C-1 allowable 6 And a C-2 is C-2 stuff They are not to be mixed up I 7 would like to know Mr Weir ' s interpretation of that 8 MR. WEIR: The planning staff' s 9 interpretation of that is that any permitted uses within 10 those four zoning districts are allowed within a planned 11 unit development . And I am reading about planned unit 12 developments . 13 COMMISSIONER LINARD: So you are reading 14 "any" to mean you can scramble the whole thing? Why don' t 15 they put one zone there called "whole thing, " so you could 16 put everything in there that you wanted to 17 MR WEIR: The whole purpose of the planned 18 unit development is to allow flexibility within the zoning 19 code . The initial zoning theory or Euclid zoning theory was 20 specific zones for specific uses , and that there were no 21 other uses allowed. What the PUD does, depending on how the 22 ordinance is written--and our ordinance is written to allow 23 it as a special use and to allow flexibility within a 24 planned unit developments . And what it does - - the way 25 that our business PUD is written is that it would allow any PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 96 1 of the permitted uses from the 0-1 , C-1 , C-2 and downtown 2 area 3 What the Commission needs to do is , as the applicant 4 makes the presentations for those uses that they are 5 proposing for their specific development, is ask , is it 6 going to be negative to the surrounding areas ; is it in 7 conformance or out of conformance with the comprehensive 8 plan for the city? 9 Then, if they can get a go ahead on that, then they 10 need to determine , "Will it meet these requirements?" If I 11 put certain conditions on the PUD, like increased 12 landscaping or like , say, the applicant says , the views of 13 the building. And I think that that' s too large for this 14 parcel , they can go ahead and request that it be restricted 15 further . 16 And then there are the cases where conditions will be 17 compatible with the neighborhood, and then they can make 18 those conditions on their conceptual approval , or they. can 19 decide no matter what the applicants do, what they are 20 proposing is not going to conform with the neighborhood and 21 the content should either be denied, or they should come 22 back with some type of adjustment that' s acceptable to the 23 neighborhood, acceptable to the Commission, and in 24 conformance with the comprehensive plan. And that' s the 25 basic theory of the planned unit development PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 97 1 COMMISSIONER LINARD• Mr . Chairman. Mr . 2 Weir , we have 6 . 4E which says mixed use planned unit 3 developments . What is that? 4 MR WEIR: Basically, the zoning codes allows 5 three types of planning developments . One of them is a 6 residential PUD. And what that does , it allows relaxation 7 of the typical development standards for residential 8 development . And depending on the size of the property, it 9 requires a set percentage of open space . 10 The second type of PUD is the mixed use planned unit 11 development . And in that one , -it sets a certain criteria. 12 It allows - - you have to have a minimum of 51 percent 13 residental use within a mixed use PUD, and you cannot exceed 14 49 percent for business-type use 15 Your business PUD on the other hand is just that, it' s 16 related to business uses And I would say that what the 17 Commission needs to get out of that is , this allows the 18 developer to use some uses that would not be allowed in the 19 strict 0-1 zone , but it also gives the Commission the 20 ability to put conditions on the approval , to mitigate 21 negative impacts on surrounding properties and 22 neighborhoods . And again, I think the best example of that 23 is a buffer or a screening 24 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Weir , does the city 25 consider 0-1 as a buffer between residental and commercial? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 98 1 MR WEIR Yes 2 COMMISSIONER LINARD And is this property 3 not surrounded entirely by residential? 4 MR. WEIR: Mr . Chairman, and Commissioner 5 Linard, the 0-1 district is a transitional zone to act as a 6 buffer from commercial areas and residental areas I can go 7 ahead and put up the graphic that shows the zoning 8 surrounding the property. 9 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I have a copy of it in 10 my packet, and it' s all R-3 and R-1 . 11 MR WEIR• Thi-s is the graphic showing the 12 zoning This is the R-1 area to the south. This is R-3 . 13 This is Frenger Park , which is a city property and will not 14 be developed. It' s a retention basin. It' s got commerical 15 areas off of Espina And there is a section of R-1 further 16 to the north This is R-1 This property here belongs to 17 the University. And they received a conditional zone change 18 of C-2 . I believe that that zone , that property has not 19 been developed so, therefore , it reverted to its original 20 zoning. 21 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Was it agricultural or 22 R-1? 23 MR WEIR: I am not sure of that. 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any more comments on the 25 PUD? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 99 1 I would like to ask , on Farney Road, what is that road 2 currently classified as? 3 MR WEIR Chairman Perez , from South Main to 4 E1 Paseo , Farney is classified as a major collector . From 5 E1 Paseo to Espina, it' s currently just a local street . 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . What are the plans on Farney 7 from El Paseo to Espina in the future? 8 MR. WEIR: Currently, Farney streams into 9 Espina , and then there is a slight street jog for Wofford. 10 And the city is investigating taking out that street jog and 11 aligning those two streets And the-re is already - - there 12 is already like a thoroughfare there . What that would do, 13 this would make the intersection come to 90 degrees , rather 14 than having to have the street jog and go up this way. And 15 that would probably be taking place to increase the safety 16 of the intersection and also bring it in conformance with 17 the City of Las Cruces ' design standards which, currently, 18 on any new development does not allow street jogs of less 19 than 125 feet of intersection. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : How far, then - - does 21 Wofford extend all the way to Locust? 22 MR. WEIR: It goes from Solano, it goes to 23 Solano and then it meets Myrtle , and then it stops . It ends 24 at Solano , and then there is another street jog to Myrtle 25 And that would take you all the way to Locust PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 100 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ So we are potentially 2 looking at a - - if and when Farney is connected to Wofford, 3 would that then become a major collector? 4 MR. WEIR: That would be reviewed by the MPO, 5 and in all likelihood Farney, for that section, would become 6 a major collector to match the portion from E1 Paso to Main 7 Street . 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • By any chance , would we 9 happen to have any MPO maps of that? 10 MR. WEIR: Not with me , I am sorry 11 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: Can I say something. 12 The traffic count on Farney going east there is about 6 , 700 . 13 So it' s actually twice as many cars going down to Crescent 14 Park . So it' s up to 6 , 700 , so it' s twice as much as the 15 other . 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Any more comments from the 17 commissioners? 18 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Mr . Chairman, if I 19 may. Because I am fairly new to this situation, and I am 20 not sure what the residents say they wanted or would allow, 21 and what the owner says they prefer to have in the way of 22 businesses or whatever . In talking with fellow 23 commissioners here , I need that list . I think I need the 24 list to see what they are wanting or would allow, and what 25 the owner thinks he must have So then there are probably PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 101 1 some things that maybe the residents are being, maybe , a 2 little unreasonable about , and some things that the owner is 3 being a little unreasonable about . 4 If need be , then, maybe we can take that list and we 5 can check off what we think would be acceptable to the 6 group I would like to see that list, or a compilation of 7 that list of both parties And I don' t know if you have got 8 one together or not? 9 MR. WEIR. In the documents that were 10 submitted with the application, these were the uses the 11 applicant had requested. - 12 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: The applicant? 13 MR WEIR: The applicant. 14 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Now, the residents 15 obviously want some of those crossed out? 16 MR WEIR• Correct 17 MR BENNETT: All of the C-2 18 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: To make it - - maybe 19 to simplify this process , because we went through this 20 process . Looking at their list, that list was chopped down 21 about 95 percent . Not even the 0-1 uses remained. So 22 looking at that type list, I think the only thing they 23 allowed us was a knit and yarn shop. 24 MS BENNETT I think that' s not true , Mr.. 25 Krivokapich You really ought to stop distorting the facts PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 102 1 of these meetings It really makes the neighbors mad about 2 this 3 we were willing to compromise with you, but if you are 4 not going to work with us or if you' re going to try to 5 distort every fact that comes along - - 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Let' s try to get a little 7 bit of order back into the meeting. 8 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH• The only thing is , I 9 didn' t keep a list myself. Now, if she has a list, it would 10 be okay to look at it . 11 As far as we are concerned, in our- proposal , we have an 12 economic base to maybe move this thing forward. If it would 13 move forward We are willing to remove fast foods from the 14 list . That' s another big one for us . That would be an easy 15 candidate to get in, the fast food firms . You look at Las 16 Cruces , and it ' s the biggest employment factor as far as 17 increasing employment and as far as creating jobs So we 18 are willing to take the fast food out. That' s one item that 19 the neighborhood was concerned with. That' s really the only 20 item on that list, because we have already pared it down 21 through these other meetings that we are really talking 22 about . If we take these out , this shopping center , the 23 economic viability of it collapses , and you start chopping 24 these uses off But just in the interest of moving forward, 25 I think we are willing to take the fast food off We are PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 103 1 just willing to go ahead and move forward. 2 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN• Does the neighborhood 3 group have a list of what they propose? 4 MS BENNETT• I have one here , but I don' t 5 know whether this is signed by just one member of the group. 6 I assume , but I don' t know if the group has come up with a 7 consensus of the uses 8 MS . BENNETT I thought it was pretty clear 9 when we voted on the 21st that we were cancelling out 10 anything C-2 . We did not want C-2 period, which did omit 11 some things in C-1 - 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . At this particular point in 13 time , I don' t have a list of what you agreed to on the 21st. 14 As I stated, the only list that I have - - do you have in 15 your packets anything other than what we have here? 16 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA. Is that Mr 17 Erickson' s list? I gave my list to David at the end of that 18 meeting. We apparently have a similar list. I am not sure 19 whether the list we have here is the list. 20 MS BENNETT. That' s not our group' s list. 21 This group of 200 people do not agree with Mr . Erickson' s 22 list of one person. 23 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA. No, this is not the 24 list This was the list one of the couples that' s here 25 today, they submitted their list We went through it , every PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 104 1 one of those categories . And it was my understanding that 2 we were going to get a little list, a pared down list , so we 3 could look at it from both sides . 4 MS . BENNETT• We would be happy to construct 5 the list We have the list as to what people would agree to 6 under C-1 C-2 was not agreed to at all . 7 MR. WEIR: What may be able to facilitate 8 this meeting a little bit is have Ms . Bennett come to the 9 podium and mark the uses that they felt their group was not 10 in favor of allowing. 11 - MS BENNETT: Are those uses on the screen? 12 This is a list of the uses that we reviewed at the 13 neighborhood meeting and formal work session last Tuesday. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The applicant has deleted 15 fast food Who did you suggest - - 16 MR. WEIR. I believe Ms . Bennett has the uses 17 that were discussed at the neighborhood meeting that a 18 majority of the people in attendance felt were not adequate 19 for this proposal . Can you just give me a second? 20 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: If I may, Mr . 21 Chairman, without that list, it' s real difficult for me . I 22 don' t know really that we have a list here . But this is , of 23 course , not your list This is one person' s list . 24 MS . BENNETT• We allowed all the 0-1 , except 25 for a private club Of the C-1 - - all the other 0-1s were PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 105 1 okay Of the C-1 , we said a cosmetologist thing was okay. 2 You know, a beauty shop, barber shop, dressmaking shop, 3 tailor shop. People were in question about the florist 4 thing. What that means, how big of a gift shop . If it' s 5 small , we wanted clarification on that . Insurance office , 6 that also was in the 0-1 . The knit shop, office complex, we 7 didn' t know what this meant , office , professional That 8 will give you an idea. Now, some of these other people 9 voted yes for it in that meeting That' s where we are at . 10 MR WEIR Mr Chairman, commission members, 11 what I am going to do is go ahead and go through this list 12 and how the discussion went the other meeting and mark on 13 those , mark the ones that they did not want to go in their 14 development And I ' ll leave - - I ' ll leave unmarked the 15 uses that they felt were appropriate for this development. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ That' s fine . I think that' s 17 what the applicant did on the fast food next to it, he just 18 made a mark . Don' t mark through it, just mark next to it if 19 you would please . 20 MR. WEIR: These marks are what they do not 21 want , do not want within the proposal . 22 The question marks are uses that they felt there needed 23 to be more clarification as to whether or not to use those . 24 And the residents also wanted to put down as a use , jazz 25 concerts , just for general discussion PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 106 1 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I just want to make 2 sure that everyone knows that I have to be at work at seven 3 o' clock in the morning. 4 MS BENNETT: I think we would like to vote 5 on a jazz concert when we approved the 0-1 zoning, I 6 forget if there were any conditions . The only conditions 7 that there would be through the PUD process , and they have 8 started that - - 9 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: Can I say something. 10 I understand the 0-1 was approved only if our PUD was 11 approved, the 0-1 zoning. So that essentially means that 12 that ties in our uses , so it does limit our uses 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : That' s what I am trying to 14 clarify. 15 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: So we can' t go in and 16 just start building offices , because that would violate the 17 PUD as I understand it 18 One other thing that we asked for when we were going 19 through this process and we were denied, is that we be given 20 reasons why, let' s say, a pet shop, a bakery, or a yogurt 21 shop would be an impact on the neighborhood. That was 22 denied to us as far as going down each use . So we didn' t 23 really consider that at a work session, we just sort of got 24 lynched, as you can see by the mob . As you can see , almost 25 everything is removed You can' t ask investors to come out PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 107 1 and build a high quality center for free and invest their 2 dollars and take away all the uses . It' s not going to be . 3 I think we are really going to have to compromise to get 4 this moving forward, by taking the fast food out, because 5 that ' s what people are really scared of, the fast food 6 moving into their neighborhoods . 7 MS . BENNETT: You know this is a group of 8 about 200 people . In December you met with maybe six or 9 eight couples, and you said that everything was agreed to at 10 that time . It was never agreed to . I was there No one 11 agreed to anything at that time . You had a very sketchy 12 plan of what you wanted to do, and none of the uses were 13 ever even brought up at that time . You have never met with 14 this group even once, and yet I think the Commission did ask 15 you to, you know, try to work with this group or any group 16 in the neighborhood. You have only referred to Mr 17 Erickson. 18 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH• We did meet with your 19 group. 20 MS . BENNETT: No, you never met with this 21 group . 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Let' s keep this in order , 23 please . 24 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: There are some things 25 here that when I stated awhile ago that might be , I thought , PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 108 1 unreasonable An example of what I mean is , we say an arts 2 and crafts studio is okay, and yet a hobby shop is not . I 3 don' t know I don' t understand why. They are one and the 4 same in my opinion. Book store and stationary shop, for 5 instance That' s probably as close to being a quiet labor 6 situation as I can think of And the traffic in a book 7 store , I don' t see as an - - 8 MS . BENNETT. Well , it' s - - 9 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Excuse me just a 10 moment . I ' ll be through, and then I ' ll let you rebut. So 11 what I am saying, I don' t -see the difference between a 12 library and a book store . They are pretty much one and the 13 same . 14 Now, if you are talking about a public library, you are 15 going to very seldom see that in a development like this , 16 anyway That' s going to be a city development on its own 17 piece of property. 18 Then, hardware store . And he says "small . " I can' t 19 see an objection to that . If I were in that residential 20 area that you are talking about--and it is a nice area--I 21 see that as something that would be very handy to me , 22 because I am a handyman and it might be nice to have a 23 hardware store right close by. I realize you have got 24 Cashway up the street , but a small hardware shop, just a 25 half block away, might be handy for the nuts and bolts and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 109 1 things that you need. 2 A restaurant , I agree E1 Paseo is full of them I 3 agree it seems to me that every corner has a fast food, and 4 I see your willingness to relent on that fast food, which is 5 a moneymaker But there seems to be a myriad of those 6 things , so that' s what I am saying. 7 And while there is a little bit of unreasonableness in 8 that, I think you could relent on some of these things and 9 get together and maybe come up with something that' s not too 10 damaging to your residential area . The one that you are 11 really concerned about--and I understand that concern--I 12 have seen residential areas , as you all have in various 13 cities destroyed by the wrong usages allowed next to them. 14 I have seen it in Albuquerque . 15 MS . BENNETT: I just want to say one thing, 16 like you say book store - - 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . If you are going to address 18 the Commission, I need you to come up to the podium and 19 state your name . 20 MS . BENNETT: Ruth Bennett. You said 21 something like book store . well , it does on this list sound 22 very innocent But what we are thinking about is Hastings , 23 where videos are sold, records are sold, all kinds of things 24 are sold And traffic is there until , what , eleven, twelve 25 o ' clock at night That' s what we are thinking about . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 110 1 What we objected to , essentially, were the C-2 uses 2 And we object to a lot of the C-1 things that would keep 3 things open until ten or eleven o' clock at night. There are 4 people very close there , their back yards are right on the 5 ditch adjacent to this corner . They are trying to sleep, 6 and he ' s talking about a jazz concert This man here gets 7 up at 4 : 00 in the morning to go to work He doesn' t need a 8 jazz concert in his back yard. He has never tried to work 9 with our group. He has never tried to contact our group. 10 He has never asked us why we don' t like certain thi.ngs . The 11 only vote that was ever taken was at that workshop on the 12 21st by this commission, and we did have the list And I 13 gave that to you, to David, to use . And the reasons why, 14 maybe should have been worked out beforehand by him. But he 15 never made any attempt to do that. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ In defense of the 17 applicants , apparently because of the communications that we 18 have and the sequence of events as stated by the city staff, 19 there were some meetings held, whether or not every one of 20 this particular group attended at that particular point in 21 time , is unclear . But it was clear to us , at least to me, 22 in the last meeting that we had here , the last public 23 meeting, that perhaps what was occurring was that there was 24 not a complete communication of the neighborhood at that 25 particular point in time That' s why we elected to postpone PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 111 1 it and give the neighborhood more time to be contacted And 2 like I said , going back in defense of the applicant, I 3 believe that based on their previous meetings with a 4 different group, they came up with some things And that' s 5 why he keeps referring to two different groups I think 6 that ' s what was occurring, because there are communications 7 to that effect And going back to some of the letters that 8 were written, going back to June 23rd, reference is made 9 that a compromise was attempted to be reached prior to that . 10 So what we need to do is try and come up with something 11 that we can help the area through some kind of development 12 and not allow it to slide in to a deteriorating situation. 13 We recognize that there are many commercial properties out 14 there that haven' t been developed. Some of them that have 15 been started to be developed were not developed because 16 other commercial developments took place . A good example is 17 the Pan Am Plaza which was not fully developed because. 18 subsequently the Mesilla Valley Mall came into play. And so 19 that part of that development didn' t continue to occur . We 20 have got an infill policy that the City Council is trying to 21 implement and trying to devise and develop . And this is 22 something that we are having to wrestle with. And that is , 23 that some of the design standards that have been designed 24 for the community, oftentimes the areas don' t allow that 25 flexibility So a vehicle has been devised, similar to this PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 112 1 or such as this PUD process , where we can protect the 2 integrity of the neighborhood and at the same time encourage 3 development of those properties that can become productive 4 And so I have to agree that there are some of those 5 uses that have been deleted. There can be some compromise 6 that could allow the residents to keep that - - preserve 7 that neighborhood atmosphere , but at the same time put it 8 into a state where it could be developed by the owner . At 9 this particular point in time , we have had to deal in the 10 past kind of like King Solomon. And that is where we have 11 had to actually go in ourselves and say, yes , this is what - 12 we will consider and this is what we won' t. And because of 13 the apparent impact that we have here, and because we will 14 now have to go in to that, in to that position, I consider 15 it will probably cause us to have to postpone this situation 16 and work on this in a work session, for us to mediate this 17 situation, because I do believe that the area needs to be 18 put into a position of being able to be developed. For 19 example , by right it' s R-3 . And it' s being suggested that 20 that be eliminated. So I think we need to probably sit down 21 and work on this ourselves . And so I think probably what we 22 need to do is set up some work sessions and work on this so 23 that we might approach or might suggest a solution to this 24 matter 25 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN If I may, Mr PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 113 1 Chairman I think you are exactly right I don' t see any 2 other direction to take except that we have to be the 3 mediators , the King Solomons And I realize there is only 4 five of us - - six of us And actually, we will have to 5 make that decision for you, because there doesn' t seem to be 6 an agreement here I think we can take what expertise we 7 have and select things that we think that you may be a 8 little unreasonable on and some things that the applicant is 9 being unreasonable on and come back to you with a list that 10 we feel is fair And I think we will come up with a list 11 that - - I think we can put ourselves in your shoes and say, 12 we are living in your home and we would not want to have 13 that next to our homes . And I think that' s the most you can 14 expect from us . 15 MR. MARLIN• I have got a question, one 16 fundamental question here . 17 CHARIMAN PEREZ - If you are going to address 18 us , please come up to the podium and state your name, 19 please . 20 MR. MARLIN: My name is Joe Marlin, and I 21 have been a resident since 165 . Suppose by some 22 happenstance we agree on a list tonight, is that a binding 23 covenant for future use? Can he can sell it tomorrow and 24 the new owner do what he pleases? That' s what bothers me . 25 And also , the official limitations , the zoning limitations PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 114 1 themselves , there is no legal line-item veto of these things 2 is there? 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Yes , it would be subject to 4 conditions . And if it' s not developed within two years, it 5 would revert back to its current zoning class , status . 6 Okay. Thank you 7 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: We have also agreed to 8 put the PUD in the deed. So if we sell it, they have to 9 develop everything and keep the PUD. So if we sold it, they 10 can' t just go put commercial uses in there . 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Obviously, we are not going 12 to be able to resolve this issue here . At this point in 13 time , I ' ll ask for a motion to postpone? 14 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I will so move . 15 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I ' ll second that. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ All in favor , aye? All 17 opposed, no 18 ( The motion carried 4 to 1 . Commissioner 19 Linard dissenting. ) 20 COMMISSIONER FERRIERA: I move we adjourn. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIS Second. 22 ( The motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0 . ) 23 ( Meeting adjourned at 11 : 05 p m. ) 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992 115 C�o T 2 Chairman Pere Commissioner Linard 3 4 5 Commissioner Willis Commissioner Ferreira 6 7 C mmiIsioneril1ian 8 9 10 I 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 28 , 1992