Loading...
06-23-1992 1 1 2 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 5 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 6 7 HELD ON JUNE 23 , 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 Roger Lord 17 Kay Willis 18 19 STAFF PRESENT: David Weir Mark Simms 20 21 22 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 2 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We will call the meeting to 2 order . This meeting will be conducted following Robett"s 3 Rules of Order . If any member of the public has a comment 4 or a question that he or she wishes to address to the 5 commission, they will be recognized by the chair and then 6 they will state their name so it may be entered into the 7 permanent records of these proceedings . 8 When each person has been recognized once on each case 9 for a time period not exceeding three minutes , if someone 10 has new or additional information, then that individual will 11 be given one additional minute to speak after all citizens 12 who wish to speak on the case have been recognized. 13 When a large number of citizens wish to discuss the 14 case as a neighborhood group, then 15 minutes will be 15 allowed for a group spokesperson, if one had been selected 16 by the neighborhood group as their representative . If this 17 spokesperson is elected, then all other citizens wanting to 18 speak on that case will be given one additional minute . The 19 Planning and Zoning Commission is meeting tonight to have a 20 public hearing on two zoning cases, four zoning code 21 amendments, two subdivisions, two planned unit developments, 22 and to make recommendations to the City Council to either 23 approve or deny the requestS for those zone changes, 24 annexations or amendments to the zoning code . The City 25 Council will make the final decision on these requests at PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 3 1 its meeting on August 3rd, 1992 . 2 The Planning and zoning Commission will grant final 3 approval or denial upon request for all special use permits , 4 subdivisions , and planned unit developments at tonight' s 5 meeting. 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. The City of Las Cruces will make every effort 9 to provide reasonable accommodations for people with 10 disabilities who wish to attend the public meeting, if they 11 notify the City at least 24 hours before the meeting. 12 Telephone 526-0000 or TDD number five 526-1222 . 13 The first items on the agenda are the minutes for 14 February 25th, 1992 , and April 28th, 1992 . 15 These are the only two items that are on the consent 16 agenda. 17 May I have a motion to approve the minutes for February 18 25th, 1992, and April 28th, 1992? 19 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So moved, Mr . 20 Chairman. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any discussion? Any 23 additions or deletions to the minutes? 24 If not, all in favor? All opposed? Motion carried. 25 ( The motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0 . ) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 4 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Our next two cases, Case 2 ZCA-91-003 and ZCA-91-004--which are the University Avenue 3 Corridor overlay zone ordinance and the sign code--have been 4 requested to be postponed. For the benefit of those people 5 who are here for that, to hear that issue, we have not 6 gotten as far as we had anticipated getting with regards to 7 this overlay zone, so we are going to postpone it for 8 another public hearing. 9 At this particular point in time, I would like to ask 10 for a motion for approval of ZCA-91-003 and ZCA-91-004 . 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : So moved. 12 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? 14 May I have a motion to request a postponement? 15 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr. Chairman, in view 16 of the fact that it isn' t complete , I move that we postpone 17 this until next time . 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any discussion? 20 All in favor? Opposed? The motion carries . 21 ( The motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0 . ) 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, the next item is case 23 PUD-92-003 . 24 May I have a motion to approve Case PUD-92-003? 25 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Mr. Chairman, I would PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 5 1 move that case be approved, PUD-92-003 . 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Second. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present? 4 This is Ken Thurston' s . He may be running late . 5 Could we consider postponing this until the end of the 6 meeting? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I move that we postpone 8 this case until the end of the meeting. 9 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? All in favor? 11 Motion carries . 12 (Motion carried unanimously 5 to 0 . ) 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Under new business, 14 subdivision case 90-0026 . May I have a motion to approve 15 Case 5-90-026? 16 COMMISSIONER LORD: So moved. 17 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present for 19 Case S-90-026? Is the applicant present? 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Mr . Weir, do you know — — 21 MR. WEIR: I have received no word that they 22 would not be present at tonight' s meeting, Chairman Perez . 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, I guess we will follow 24 the same procedure as before , move to postpone Case 5-90-026 25 until the end of the meeting? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 6 1 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So moved. 2 COMMISSIONER LORD: Second. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? All in favor? 4 (Motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0 . ) 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, case 92-007 . May I 6 have a motion to approve case 5-92-007? 7 COMMISSIONER LINARD: So moved, Mr . Chairman. 8 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have the applicant 10 present? 11 MR. BOTSFORD: Yes . 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We thought it was going to 13 be a short meeting. 14 MR. BOTSFORD: I am Jim Botsford. I 15 represent United New Mexico Bank on this . 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Thank you, Mr . Botsford. 17 Would you like to make a presentation now? 18 MR. BOTSFORD: Ever so brief. 19 This particular parcel of land, when the bank entered 20 into an agreement to purchase it, consisted of three lots, 21 all which had frontage on Telshor Avenue . In the process of 22 their design, of the way they wanted to utilize the land, 23 they created the three parcels the way you see them here, 24 with one that does not have access to Telshor by direct 25 frontage . So we had to create--and it' s difficult to see PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 7 1 it--but there is a 27-foot wide private roadway along the 2 north giving access to the parcel C-1 . 3 Had it not been for that, this would be a relatively 4 simple summary procedure . But that' s the reason why we are 5 here tonight. Later on on your agenda, there is an 6 amendment to that. The city planning department has 7 requested a zoning code amendment that would permit this in 8 the future . So in the future it won' t come before you 9 again. 10 The bank is planning to build on parcel C-2 , and this 11 will be an entirely financially oriented subdivision. All 12 they are planning on putting in there - - there will be a 13 building on each tract. I think each one will be some sort 14 of a financially based business . 15 And I don' t believe I have anything else . If you have 16 got any questions , I will be happy to attempt to answer 17 them. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr. Botsford. 19 Mr . Weir . 20 MR. WEIR: As Mr. Botsford has already 21 stated, this is a three-lot summary subdivision. This way, 22 they are just moving lot lines . The purpose is for a 23 commercial lot to be developed. In reviewing the map, it 24 was found that it meets the requirements of the zoning code 25 and subdivision regulations with the exception of the access PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 8 1 to tract C-1 . The applicants have provided a 27—foot 2 private road easement to the property. The only problem 3 with this currently is that the zoning code does not allow 4 joint use of access aisles for parking areas . So staff 5 would recommend approval of this replat contingent on an 6 amendment to the zoning code that would allow joint use of 7 access aisles for parking areas . 8 If the commission has any questions, I will be happy to 9 answer them. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : At this point in time , we 11 will open it to public input . Anyone wishing to comment on 12 this application? 13 If not, we will close it to public and open it to 14 commissioner input. Commissioners? 15 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I was going to ask if 16 you were aware of the amendment that is being proposed for 17 this joint use of a parking lot? 18 MR. BOTSFORD: Yes, I am. 19 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Do you have any 20 comments on that? 21 MR. BOTSFORD: No. It fits right in with 22 what we want to do. I do have a drawing showing what their 23 proposal is . This will be a perimeter driveway around this. 24 The city code is for 27 feet of two-way street in a parking 25 lot; and that is what is proposed here . There will be a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 9 1 parking lot, and it works nicely. There also will be a 2 cross-parking and access agreement . So when you pull into 3 this - - this is very similar to Mesilla valley Mall--any 4 one of the commercial subdivisions you go into--where you 5 drive all over the place . There is virtually no difference . 6 We have a 27-foot private road requirement in order to make 7 it work . 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments? Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I wanted to ask David a 10 question. We discussed making an agreement for maintenance 11 and everything. Has it been added to that? 12 MR. WEIR: The way it' s been proposed is that 13 the staff would recommend approval contingent upon those 14 requirements . Later in the evening, you will see the 15 language that has been written for joint use of parking 16 aisles and driving aisles And within that language, it 17 calls for an agreement to address maintenance, access and 18 joint use . And all that would have to be provided in an 19 agreement that is satisfactory to the planning director and 20 the city legal department. 21 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Thank you. 22 MR. BOTSFORD: There is an agreement in the 23 process of being drawn up, and that agreement will discuss 24 and take care of the maintenance of the roadway and the 25 parking lot and the landscaping for all three parcels . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 10 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Mr . Weir, the one that is 2 being proposed addresses the two items, one and two, on the 3 application; is that correct? 4 MR. WEIR: That is correct . Of the other two 5 options that staff listed--one was to postpone the action, 6 and that would just be to allow the amendment to go to City 7 Council and be approved before you took further action on 8 this date . The third option would be to deny the replat. 9 That' s just an option that' s always available to the 10 commission. But staff sees no reason to take that option. 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : In the spirit of cooperation 12 and expediency, then, if we approved option one, that would 13 be contingent upon us approving and council approving it. 14 Just for clarification purposes , in the event that that did 15 not occur, if the council were to deny this option or the 16 amendments, what would occur? 17 MR. WEIR: They would have to come back 18 before you, and they would have to alter their layout of the 19 lots so that they would all have access to Telshor Boulevard 20 before they could receive approval . 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The plat would not - - you 22 would have to take a step back and say that we approve this 23 contingent upon this amendment being approved? 24 MR. WEIR: Right . And if the amendment' was 25 approved, the plat could not be filed until the amendment PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 11 1 was addressed. It wouldn' t be deemed approved until that 2 day. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So we would have to address 4 option one as an amendment; is that correct? It would be 5 conditional? 6 MR. WEIR: Right, it would be conditional 7 approval of the zoning code . If it didn' t go through, then 8 they would have to amend their plat, and it would come back 9 to you for approval . 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So again, going back, we 11 would have to amend it conditional to approval of this 12 change in the ordinance? 13 MR. WEIR: That is correct. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments? 15 If not, may I have a motion to amend or condition this 16 application to option one? 17 COMMISSIONER LINARD: So moved, Mr . Chairman. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do I have a second? 19 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? All in favor? 21 (Motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0 . ) 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And we will go on to 23 approval of the main case as amended, Case 5-92-007 , 24 Foothills Center, Replat Number 4 . All in favor? Opposed? 25 Motion carries . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 12 1 (Motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0 . ) 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : In the event the commission 3 wishes to take a poll on this rather than just vote on- it as 4 a group, please do so, and then we will take the poll . 5 Okay, our next case , Z-2186 , is a request for a zone 6 change from R-3 high density residential to C-1 7 residential/commercial for a proposed business planned unit 8 development. The property is located at 801 Farney Road and 9 is currently zoned R-3 , and is occupied by a single family 10 dwelling. It is a tract of lands containing 4 .2 acres of 11 land, more or less, and generally located on the northeast 12 corner of E1 Paseo Road and Farney Road, submitted by Gary 13 Krivokapich. 14 Is the applicant present? 15 MR. BOSCO KRIVOKAPICH: Yes , we are here.. 16 There are a lot of people here we didn't meet the last time 17 we were here, so I am Bosco Krivokapich. I live in 18 Farmington, New Mexico. And Gary is living at Bakersfield. 19 We own this land, and we have had it for 28 years . And we 20 are trying to make a beautiful place out of it, a unique 21 little center, that will meet the community' s needs right 22 around the area of Crescent Park . And I am going to let 23 Gary do the talking. He ' s the guy that did all the hard 24 work . 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 2'3 , 1992 13 1 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: David, did you need to 2 say anything right now? 3 MR. WEIR: No, I ' ll follow you. 4 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: The first thing I 5 would like to do is to go over a little history of the 6 project. My interest in this is working with my parents and 7 trying to turn this into an actual investment property. 8 They have had it for about 30 years, and it' s for their 9 retirement income . And I am just trying to help them with 10 this . It' s a very unique project, because we went to an 11 extra effort to work with the community, with the staff and 12 with the neighbors . 13 First thing I would like to go with is, the property 14 was purchased in 1965 . At that time , it was R-1 . You 15 probably had quite a lot less students at NMSU, probably 16 less than 10 , 000 there . So at that time, they were doing a 17 lot of building, residential building in there . In 1980 , it 18 went up to R-3 . And this was something that was done just 19 through the planning process . 20 We have tried extensively to market this property as 21 R-3 for the last ten years without too much success, mainly 22 because of the high traffic count on that particular stretch 23 going down University. Also, the road was widened on 24 Farney, increasing the traffic count again. And so we 25 decided in July of last year to say, Well , what can we PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 14 1 really do with this property? It' s sitting there , and we 2 are paying taxes on it, and we need to turn it into some 3 type of income for my parents . 4 We know this is a very sensitive area. We surveyed the 5 residents . We surveyed everybody within 200 feet, which is 6 more than the city surveys , and everybody along Farney. We 7 did that because we considered that a high-impact area, and 8 just do give us an idea of how to start our process . 9 In October of 191 , we put the zoning application in, 10 and we met here . We had - - from the zoning commissioners, 11 we had, I feel , a pretty positive outcome on that, in that 12 they basically told us , Go back with the neighbors and work 13 out something. 14 And at that time, Jim Erickson was the spokesman for 15 the neighborhood. So we met with them in 12 of 191 . From 16 that meeting, we presented a simpler sketch of the site plan 17 that you see over here of what we wanted to do . We got a 18 basic commitment from the neighborhood group about what our 19 uses were, what they would be satisfied with, and then we 20 got a commitment from the staff to support us on it. 21 Now, the staff gave us a commitment on that to support 22 a PUD with an 0-1 . And again, this makes for quite a 23 lengthy process . The site plan was turned in in April , and 24 we are here in June with the zoning and the PUD. We tried 25 to simplify the process and get this all done at once so it PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 15 1 simplifies people having to come in. If everything goes 2 well , we expect to take it to the City Council in August. 3 If you have any questions as I go along, just go ahead 4 and ask . 5 I would basically like to go over why we decided to go 6 into the 0-1 - - I mean change the zoning on this to the 7 C-1 . The traffic count is the main indicator . People 8 called us, interested in property or developing the property 9 to put a business on. Can we put a restaurant there? Can 10 we put in an office? Nobody is really interested in putting 11 apartments there . You have got a high traffic count there 12 of about - - a minimum of what was figured was 12 , 000 to 13 24 , 000 cars on E1 Paseo . This property is bounded by two 14 commercial zones with a third commercial boundary at this 15 time . I researched this , and it' s a little more . This was 16 proposed by Gustafson three years ago on Farney there , a 17 little bit east of us . 18 The parcel is also surrounded by three developed 19 streets for safe and easy access . So access to it is not a 20 problem. The traffic report from the engineer turned out 21 okay last year, also. And again, in order to incorporate 22 the neighborhood coverage , a survey of the home owners was 23 taken. Basically, this gave us an indication, are we going 24 to be wasting our time , spinning our wheels . And it gives 25 us an indication that there is interest out there to work PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 16 1 with us , to get a change . 2 At that time , we got 66 percent of the people in favor 3 of the C-1 zoning change, but they really want architectural 4 restrictions . They don' t want a continuation of what is 5 occurring or what occurred on El Paseo going all the way 6 into their neighborhood. So that' s one thing we have taken 7 into consideration. And a lot of people are very concerned 8 about apartments going in there . We can put approximately 9 126 units in there . So you could have anywhere up to maybe 10 400 people living on that parcel , if you have two-bedroom 11 apartments . 12 Also, another good point, this helps develop an infill 13 area which is part of the comprehensive plan. This also 14 reduces the impact on the Mesilla Valley and the impact on 15 the growth of the outlying areas , plus your utility - - 16 extension of utilities and everything is really reduced. 17 Another problem we have with this particular area is 18 the high traffic count. We have had to reduce the rental 19 price about $150 under the market price just to get people 20 into the house . And we have had a significant amount of 21 problems just with the tenants in that area, and that' s 22 another reason why we are shying away from the R-3 . 23 We have also marketed the property significantly under 24 the appraised value for the last couple of years . And also, 25 the neighborhood center could actually decrease the traffic PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 17 1 flow on E1 Paseo by giving the people in that area a closer 2 place to shop. 3 Then again, here we can look at it. This is the 4 proposed property. The home owners are over here . The high 5 school is over here . We have got C-1 over here, the church 6 is here, the ponding basin, which is basically posted "keep 7 out, " is here . So for putting apartments , it' s another real 8 negative if we have kids that can' t go in here . And a lot 9 of times this park is very unkept. 10 You also have commercial in here . This was another 11 proposed commercial area in here . Also, another thing to 12 point out on the plans is that to widen Farney here , to make 13 it an even bigger corridor, what they are trying to do is 14 funnel - - is pull the traffic off the University and E1 15 Paseo intersection and bring it down into here . 16 Again, we can take a look at the parcel in here . 17 Basically, this is the southwest corner looking north. You 18 can see the two turn lanes there . There is a major traffic 19 light here . There is El Paseo going this way. You have got 20 the traffic light in there . And there is the existing 21 house . 22 And again, I ' ll show you what the survey actually looks 23 like that we sent out, basically asking very simply C-1 24 zoning with architectural restrictions . And you see the 25 results we got in on that C-1 zoning for a shopping center PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 18 1 similar to Arroyo Plaza on Lohman, R-3 for apartments , and 2 C-1 zoning only for the area around the existing home . 3 It' s a little tough to break these parcels out as far 4 as the PUD and the zoning, so do you want me to go into the 5 PUD right now? You probably want to do the zoning just now. 6 MR. WEIR: Just the zoning. 7 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: Okay, another thing we 8 did in our zoning, we did adopt the University Corridor Plan 9 in our proposal--to use the architectural restrictions that 10 are in the plan, the landscaping restrictions that are also 11 in that plan. So the PUD which ties into this, we have 12 taken account of the neighborhood. Concerning that, we were 13 aware of them and we put them into the PUD. And you can 14 basically take a look over here at what we are planning. 15 Here is basically a pad up front, which is about 7 , 000 16 square feet, with a heavily landscaped buffer going around 17 the whole project here And then this is about 32 , 000 18 square feet. 19 One thing we have in here , we are limiting the height 20 to one story, 25 feet. We could go up - - in R-3 21 apartments, we could go up to 45 feet. So we are not going 22 above and beyond that, to keep the beauty of the 23 neighborhood. And we also have - - I ' ll explain, we have a 24 requirement for signage to be removed off the buildings and 25 place them out of the sight of the home owners . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 19 1 Do you have any questions? Did you see - - were you 2 able to see this? If anybody has any questions , Mr . 3 Chairman, on the zoning - - what we are really trying to do 4 is fit into the PUD and meet the concerns of the 5 neighborhood, because we are really kind of stuck out here 6 in nowhere land as far as - - we aren' t interested in 7 building apartments on it. 8 If we do build apartments, the indication is they are 9 probably going to have to be lower rent apartments to make 10 them economically feasible in that area. I think one thing 11 why the neighborhood committee supported us , is if you 12 realize - - if you get Section 8 in that particular area, 13 the value of their homes can plummet immediately up to 20 14 percent. If you get a good, high quality commercial in 15 there, it could actually help improve the neighborhood. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Mr . Weir? 17 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez , commission 18 members, Gary has pretty much outlined the history of the 19 case, but I 'll go over it, too . Last October the Planning 20 and Zoning Commission heard a request for rezoning the 21 property to C-2 conditional . And the original conditions 22 were to specify the specific uses for development of the 23 property and to put architectural standards on the property. 24 At that time, there was a large amount of public 25 participation in the meeting, and the Planning and zoning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 20 1 Commission tabled the motion and recommended that the 2 property owners meet with the neighborhood and discuss how 3 the property should be developed. 4 There were meetings held in November and December of 5 last winter at those meetings the neighborhood, property 6 owners and staff all got together . At that time, it was 7 decided that a rezone and business planned unit development 8 would be the best or most appropriate use of the property. 9 And at that time, the neighborhood and staff came to a 10 consensus that the best zoning of the property would be 0-1 . 11 The basis for that, for that 0-1 zoning, is that it' s a 12 transitional zone that would allow residential areas to the 13 west and commercial properties to the east, and some of the 14 institutional uses to the north. And this property to the 15 south is also zoned residential . So from a strict zoning 16 standpoint, the 0-1 was what we felt was the most 17 appropriate zoning for this property to be developed in the 18 way that it is . 19 And then, the other thing that staff felt was that for 20 the Krivokapiches to develop the property as they would 21 like , that they would submit a business PUD, which would 22 allow them to pick zoning uses out of the office zoning 23 district, the neighborhood commercial zoning district and 24 the general commercial zoning district. And then that would 25 have to be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 21 1 for approval . 2 The applicants decided that they would take their 3 zoning down to a C-1 on their own request, and that' s what 4 the request is for this evening. 5 Earlier this evening when you came in, there should 6 have been about four letters from the neighborhood 7 concerning this property I would say from a zoning 8 standpoint the biggest concern was that if the zoning is 9 approved, that it be contingent or be subject to approval of 10 the planned unit development. The concern is that the 11 zoning will be placed on the property and the planned unit 12 development will never be developed, so it will revert to 13 whatever zoning district you have on the property. They 14 would be more comfortable if the zoning was made subject to 15 the PUD, so that if the planned unit development was never 16 constructed that it would go back to the original R-3 17 zoning. 18 Some of the other comments that you received were 19 concerns about increased traffic, the compatibility of 20 commercial uses next to the church, and proximity of the 21 high school and some of the residential areas . 22 From a staff perspective, staff would still recommend 23 that an 0-1 be placed on the property from a zoning 24 perspective . If you have any questions , I 'll do my best to 25 answer them. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 22 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Are there any comments or 2 input from the public? 3 MS . TRIVIZ : I am Mary Ellen Triviz . 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Could we get you to come up 5 to the podium, please? 6 MS . TRIVIZ : I am Mary Ellen Triviz , and I 7 did submit a letter . I misunderstood what zoning was 8 required, because I put C-2 in my letter, and I guess it' s 9 supposed to be C-1 . But I find this proposed use, according 10 to the plat that we saw - - Mr . Krivokapich, I find that 11 better than having apartments, provided such zoning is 12 conditioned upon requirements of the planned unit 13 development, and such zoning will prohibit the building of 14 apartments, will prohibit fast food stores with drive-in 15 service, and will prohibit auto repair service; and on the 16 condition that traffic regulations are modified to reduce 17 speed limits on E1 Paseo, to enforce 35 miles an hour, 18 lengthen timing of the green light for traffic on Farney, 19 and increase the caution of the E1 Paseo light from four 20 seconds to seven seconds . We have trouble getting across on 21 Farney because they speed so fast. We don' t think they are 22 going to stop at that yellow light, and we have to be sure 23 that that driver is stopped before we try to get across, so 24 two are the most cars that can get across El Paseo. 25 But as I said, it seems like this proposed plan would PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 23 1 be better for traffic than apartments, where then we would 2 have a traffic problem 24 hours a day. We already have a 3 traffic problem 24 hours a day. I have a hearing loss, but 4 I hear those things scre.eching all night long. So that is 5 my main concern. And some of my neighbors have agreed with 6 me on that. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Any other 8 person wishing to make a comment? 9 MR. BENNETT: I am Robert Bennett, and I 10 reside on lot 13 on Farney and E1 Paseo. I composed this, 11 and I ' ll read it if it' s all right. (Reading) 12 "We are writing to you in regard to the 13 proposed zoning change to the property on the corner of 14 E1 Paseo and Farney, a subject to be brought up before 15 the zoning board this evening. 16 "We reside at 2000 Crescent Drive, on the 17 corner of Crescent and Farney, and facing the property 18 in question. We have a number of concerns regarding 19 the proposal to change the zoning from R-3 to C-1 . 20 111 . Commercial growth in the City seems to 21 be tending to the north and east; those properties 22 zoned commercial on E1 Paseo acreage just north and 23 south of Boutz have not sold to date . 24 112 . There are shopping centers two blocks 25 east and three blocks west from the proposed site of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 24 1 yet another similar center on E1 Paseo and Farney. A 2 vacant gas station stands on Farney and Espina; 3 attempts to rent failed, and now that land, zoned C-2 4 is for sale . 5 "3 . Traffic on Farney is on the order of 6 magnitude of a freeway in both volume and speed on 7 weekends, from evening to bar closing. Along with 8 this is the noise from car "boom-boxes" , yelling, 9 screeching car tires, tossed beer cans and broken beer 10 bottles thrown from cars . Traffic during the day 11 seldom heeds the 25 mph signs, using Farney as a 12 thoroughfare between Main and E1 Paseo . Further 13 commercialization, we feel , will only exacerbate this 14 highly annoying situation. 15 114 . We project with this zone change that 16 other properties located on E1 Paseo between Boutz and 17 University, and on Farney between E1 Paseo and Espina, 18 now zoned R-3 , will also petition for commercial zone 19 changes, further compounding the problems we have 20 already. We would not like to see a continuation of 21 the fast food franchises that extend from Main to 22 Boutz , with all its attendant clutter. 23 "5 . Historically, we understood that the 24 City wanted to save the area south of Boutz as 25 residential . It is the City staff' s own PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 25 1 recommendation that the area not be re-zoned from R-3 . 2 "Because of the reason above and through this 3 letter, we are petitioning you and the zoning board to 4 follow the City staff' s recommendation not to grant a 5 zoning change for this property. " Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. From the public, 7 anyone else care to make comments? 8 MR. GUSTAFSON: I am Henry Gustafson. I can 9 beat the Krivokapiches as far as the purchase of property. 10 My father bought what, at that time , was 40 acres of land 11 south of Farney and east of E1 Paseo and west of Espina back 12 in about 1914 . So that' s about 68 years ago. I have had a 13 plan in effect for quite some time, for ten years or more, 14 to develop the property--the 30 acres we have--into a real 15 nice townhouse development. Unfortunately, I don' t have a 16 million dollars in my petty cash fund yet. I am working on 17 it, but I don' t have the money to start the development, 18 although I think it would be a delightful place . The plans 19 are still in effect, and I have worked with a real topnotch 20 architect on this. 21 Our plan would be--going back a little bit about the 22 history--to have access on Farney about partway down from E1 23 Paseo . In fact, we have given the City some extra land from 24 the farm so that Farney would be wider . And we will 25 cooperate in widening Farney all the way to Espina, so it PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 26 1 ties into the next street up there , to Wofford. This will 2 be a quality development and, of course, very extremely well 3 done . 4 I want to say one thing about the University Avenue 5 Corridor Plan. It' s amazing that it' s taken 100 years to 6 develop some sort of commercial development on University 7 Avenue . And mainly it' s because of the university, they 8 will have to admit, because they have stopped any commercial 9 development whatsoever on their side because they owned the 10 land and they said "no development. " 11 Now, finally, for two years now they have worked up a 12 plan that' s about to be finalized--it may take a couple of 13 more months before it is finalized--where we will have some 14 real true zoning of commercial development, all types of 15 commercial . In effect, there are zones that we don' t even 16 show in the regular code . I think it' s a tremendous step 17 forward. There are very few campuses around the country 18 that don' t have some sort of business development, so this 19 will be a good thing. 20 Now, there was a mention that I had - - this was - - my 21 land was commercial development land, and that' s not true . 22 I made an effort to get the corner of Farney and Espina 23 zoned commercial . I was shot out of the saddle . Everyone 24 at city hall says "that' s spot zoning. It' s no good. " Tom 25 Gomez said it was a terrible thing. I was told "that' s out PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 27 1 of the question. " So, it' s still there, and all the land is 2 R-3 . That' s the way it should stay. I was told there was 3 never going to be commercial development south of Boutz , 4 even. Tommy Graham told me that, and you know how many 5 years ago that was . So that shouldn' t change so far as 6 commercial property. 7 We have so much commercial property, we have a surplus 8 of commercial property. The University Avenue Corridor is 9 sound. And if it should happen that we get anything - - 10 everything else is north on E1 Paseo - - well, we have all 11 the restaurants we ever need, and stuff, on Espina. We 12 don' t need anything else . 13 As far as apartments, I think the comments that have 14 been made about apartments are scare tactics . I am a real 15 estate broker, and have been for 18 years. I manage 16 property. And I ' ll tell you there is a tremendous shortage 17 of apartments . Not necessarily for students--and I don' t 18 want to downplay students , because I rent to students and 19 there are some topnotch ones, and then there are a few 20 others--but there are staff people, new people coming to 21 town to work at the university or in the city environs, and 22 they cannot find a place to live . It' s a tough situation. 23 I think one problem with the R-3 land they have been trying 24 to sell , the price was way too high. 25 So what I think is really happening--and I ' ll have to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 28 1 say it--I think it' s true they are trying to make the value 2 of the property worth more money so they can get more money 3 out of it. They live in Farmington. They don' t live in Las 4 Cruces . We live in Las Cruces . I want to protect the 5 beautiful surroundings we have in that particular area. So 6 I say, we do have a shortage of R-3 land for apartments . 7 And there are some nice apartments that could go in there, 8 whether they are for elderly people or families, it doesn' t 9 make any difference ; but it' s a great place for them. I 10 just feel that, very sincerely, what we have now is what we 11 should keep. 12 I am violently opposed to any change from R-3 to C-1 13 and C-2 . And please do not change the zoning. It' s best 14 for all concerned to leave it the way it is. 15 Thank you very much. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments from the 17 public regarding this application? 18 MR. PAUL: Yes , sir . My name is Robert Paul . 19 I live on 2007 Crescent Drive . It' s about four houses down 20 from the intersection there at Farney and E1 Paseo. And I 21 just - - I don' t have much to stay. I kind of second what 22 Mr . Gustafson said. I think the main advantages we have 23 heard accure to the Krivokapiches and not in the 24 neighborhood, as far as I can tell . And I don' t believe - - 25 I don' t blame them for pushing their project, but we have to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 29 1 make sure our views are known as well . So I don' t see any 2 advantage to the neighborhood. I see , as some of the people 3 have already pointed out, considerable disadvantages . So I 4 would urge the commission to refuse to change the zoning for 5 that property from R-3 to C-1 . Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Anyone else? 7 MS . GOODE: My name is Ann Goode . I reside 8 at 2042 Crescent Drive . I think in your package--you will 9 remember from the last time this came up before Planning and 10 Zoning--we brought you a list signed by many of our 11 neighbors expressing their concerns over a blanket change to 12 commercial zoning. You requested that we meet with the 13 owners of the property, and we have done that. I think this 14 is my fifth meeting on this. And it' s been seven months of 15 turmoil . And I know seven things . 16 One, the value of our property is going to go down, 17 whatever is done with it. 18 Two, the saleability of the property is going down. 19 Three, the quality of our life is going down. 20 Four, the traffic is going up. 21 Five, the noise is going up. 22 Six, crime is going up, and we have had a siege of it. 23 And seven, if a change to commercial without very, very 24 strict requirements is made , not only the quality of our 25 lives , but in my opinion, the quality of the whole city is PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 30 1 going down. 2 And in the ten years I have been licensed in real 3 estate, I have never had anyone come up to me and say, "I 4 would like to buy a house next to a commercial zone . " I 5 have never had anyone come up to me and say, "Sell me a 6 house right below a three-story apartment complex. " So I 7 don' t think either one is going to help us . 8 We tried and they tried. And I understand their 9 position. I think when we worked with staff and everything 10 else , we tried very hard to work something out, and I hope 11 you will consider it . 12 I have lived there 30 years . Most of us are original 13 home owners . I understand both sides, but please don' t give 14 us a spot zone without severe restrictions, if that' s what 15 you decide . Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I have a question. 17 You indicated strict commercial uses . What did you mean by 18 that? 19 MS . GOODE: In other words, if there are not 20 restrictions on what - - say you have a C-1, you have a 21 whole long list of things . Certain of those things, I feel , 22 would be very inappropriate next to a school , next to a 23 church and next to a residential area, although they are 24 included within C-1 zoning. 25 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: And do you have what PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 31 1 those parameters would be? 2 MS . GOODE : I believe you received a letter 3 from one of the residents , Mr . Erickson, and he had very 4 thoughtfully gone through and marked out some of those . 5 They told me that I should go with, what, the funeral home , 6 because, at least, they were quiet. But I hope not. 7 I hope you will take this into consideration. Thank 8 you, very much. 9 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, I have a 10 question of Ms . Goode . 11 Ann, our staff person recommended 0-1 , but no one has 12 commented on that. Everyone has commented about C-1 . 13 MS . GOODE: As far as we were concerned--and 14 I was asked - - I did not hold the meeting, but I did attend 15 this meeting. I spent a lot of hours on this . To me , 16 offices would make a good transition. And to me, offices 17 would not be offensive to what' s in the area around it. And 18 they would be compatible . And they probably would not add 19 to the traffic and the number of strange people in the area, 20 as much as some other things . 21 I may be incorrect, but I thought the Krivokapiches 22 indicated that that would not be an economically feasible 23 thing for them. 24 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: Well , to allow the 25 business PUD, we would need at least an 0-1 . And I am kind PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 32 1 of at a disadvantage right now, because I haven' t presented 2 the PUD. I don' t think this is the appropriate time . We do 3 not object to holding it down to 0-1 with our PUD, that' s 4 not a problem. And also meaning, if we don' t build, it can 5 revert back in the time period to the R-3 . That' s fine . We 6 will meet those conditions . That' s not really a problem. 7 In fact, we sent a letter - - the last letter we sent 8 said we would accept it reverting back to the R-3 if they do 9 not build it to our standards and specifications . Now, our 10 uses, we went into real detail . I don' t know if you read 11 the PUD, exactly what' s going in there. I know we got the 12 letter today from Jim. We didn' t get anything back as far 13 as answers from your group till today, so we are kind of at 14 a disadvantage . But looking at - - the only one that I 15 would probably like to leave in that he scratched out on 16 that would be the laundry, self-service . And I will go 17 into that a little bit later . 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other questions? 19 COMMISSIONER LINARD: No. It seems to me 20 that when somebody wants to change the zoning, if they don't 21 get what they want, then they let it revert back to what it 22 was . It' s not something you can play around with forever, 23 where you change this to that and maybe I can sell it, and 24 if not it will go back to that. If you are going to change 25 to 0-1 , it should be change to 0-1 period. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 33 1 MS . GOODE: I did want to say one other 2 thing. We had a lot of people in our neighborhood who 3 signed the list that was given to you before , who tonight 4 are ill or out of town. And we are sorry that they couldn' t 5 all be here . 6 MS . TRIVIZ : I think some of us - - another 7 disadvantage there is, this is the first time I heard of 8 0-1 . And for it to come out of the blue , while we had been 9 considering this other , I don' t know whether we need any 10 more time or if someone will discuss 0-1 with us tonight, or 11 soon. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Well, we will go ahead and 13 discuss that issue . And probably in all fairness to the 14 applicant, we might consider some aspects of the PUD. 15 MR. WEIR: Would you like him to make his 16 presentation on the PUD? 17 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, could I 18 interrupt. Maybe we can listen to Mr . Gustafson, or get Mr . 19 Weir to explain 0-1 zoning. 20 MR. WEIR: In the packet provided by the 21 applicant, they have 0-1 listed very carefully there along 22 with C-1 and C-2 . 23 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: But it wasn' t given 24 to the public, was it? 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : It wasn' t given to the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 34 1 public . 2 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: We have the packet, 3 they don' t. 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And we want to make sure 5 that we give the public and the applicant as much 6 opportunity to discuss both sides of the issue as they need. 7 At this particular point in time , I will go ahead and 8 recognize you, Mr . Gustafson, and then we will allow the 9 applicant to make a presentation on the PUD so that we can 10 take a look at the entire picture of this particular 11 situation. 12 MR. GUSTAFSON• I want to rise to a point of 13 order . The first case asked for a change of zoning to C-1 . 14 There is no motion of 0-1 , no mention of anything else . Now 15 then, the next case talks about the PUD. The first thing on 16 the agenda before you tonight, the first case change was to 17 C-1 . If that is approved, then you go to the next case . If 18 it' s disapproved, then you have no issue . So this is not 19 the time to talk about 0-1 , or anything else . You are 20 talking about the first case, which is a change to C-1 . So 21 I call that as a point of order . 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Gustafson. 23 Mr . Weir , O-1 is in order below C-1 ; is that correct? 24 MR. WEIR: That is a less intensive use for 25 the .property. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 35 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So if--and I 'm just trying 2 to be fair with everybody here . If we do consider C-1 - - 3 even though we are considering C-1 , to consider 0-1 is still 4 within order? 5 MR. WEIR: You would still be within order, 6 because it' s a less intensive zone . They have asked, like , 7 if you put your land uses on a scale , your least intense is 8 your rural area. Then your R-1, R-2 , and they get more 9 intense in density and use . The 0-1 fits between R-4 and a 10 C-1 , so it' s less intense . And you would be able to act 11 this evening on an 0-1 zone change . 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And for the purpose of being 13 able to consider what would be included in those particular 14 zones , we can hear, as we have in the past, what is being 15 proposed to be put in there , in this particular case , 16 through the PUD? 17 MR. WEIR: What I would think would be best 18 is for the applicants to state they are asking for a C-1 19 zone change . And their proposed use within that zone is for 20 a PUD. And then they could state the uses that they wanted 21 to go through. And then you could act on the zone change 22 and then hear the PUD at the next moment. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay. Mr . Krivokapich 24 am sorry I can' t pronounce it. 25 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: There is one thing I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 36 1 would like to explain. It gets real confusing. And when we 2 develop this - - and we made a guarantee with the 3 neighborhood group through Jim that we would give them this 4 list. And I think that might be where they are getting a 5 little confusion from. I hope it' s clear to you guys . What 6 we did here is put together all our uses in Table I of the 7 PUD. Now, if you go 0-1 , C-1 or C-2 , they allow you to have 8 a business PUD. R-3 only allows for a 50-percent PUD. 9 With your present zoning, we really can' t develop our 10 center like we want to . Now, what I did on this particular 11 item here is take like the animal hospital and clinic - - 12 you can look at the top, and there is 0-1, C-1 and C-2 . It 13 shows you what is allowed in C-2 . And that may be a use we 14 were including in our PUD. The reason why we did that is so 15 the residents won' t go back and say, Where did that come 16 from? 17 Now, I got confused when we started mixing these 18 together to make a PUD. So I came up with this table . In 19 other words, there are uses that are allowed in all the 20 three zones. So this table allows you to see the various 21 uses that might conceivably come up in a PUD, or, if you 22 went back to cutting everything off and making it a pure 23 0-1 , or it' s reverting back to 0-1 , you would just cut off 24 the C-1 , C-2 uses , and it would show you all the 0-1 uses . 25 We have taken all of that into consideration. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 37 1 I don' t know if you want me to go into all this, read 2 all the uses on these or not. What would you prefer? 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I think it' s pretty well 4 self-explanatory. 5 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: Now, in the letter 6 from Jim, the community group crossed out - - I don' t know 7 if you have got the letter . But they crossed out the uses S that they did not want to see . Probably what you want to do 9 is look at that. For apartments, which is R-3, business 10 service establishments, community building, dry cleaning, 11 steam cleaning, game room, glass cutting, health 12 club/gymnasium, self-service laundry. The only ones I would 13 be in agreement of holding those out - - it' s getting a 14 little bit confusing, because I think Jim is not here as the 15 spokesman for the group, so we are kind of missing a key 16 element, and we were sort of directed to work with him on 17 this . So we are at a little bit of disadvantage . 18 One thing that if we go down to the - - we would really 19 rather prefer it to be C-1 . And with C-1 , we would agree 20 with them on removing everything they have outlined, except 21 for the dry cleaning, the health club and the laundry. We 22 would probably like to have those uses left in, because we 23 might have use for a small gym to go in there that might 24 meet the neighborhood' s needs . So that would - - we could 25 go ahead and make it of record that we would remove the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 38 1 upholstery shop, private club or lounge , newspaper 2 distributing office , glass cutting business and game room, 3 community or public building, and the business service 4 establishments . So those would be fine with us . 5 And we realize that there is - - that we have to 6 promise , also - - well , they did also suggest to us that if 7 our PUD - - if we get an 0-1 or C-1 , they wanted it - - if 8 we do not build exactly what we are building here and 9 proposing here with architectural restrictions, that it 10 revert back to the original zoning. If that' s acceptable to 11 you guys, we are willing to accept that, to meet their needs 12 as stated in their letter . So we are willing to do that. 13 Also, in here you can see "prohibited uses . " We are 14 real specific on what' s prohibited in there. Hotel/motel, 15 liquor store , lumber yard, and so on. We tried like heck to 16 meet their needs and our needs . And one thing that' s really 17 missing, take a look and drive around, the amount of vacancy 18 in the commercial area is very low in that area. There is 19 only one strip center that' s really vacant right now, a 20 newer one . And from what I hear, it is a problem that the 21 person is asking too much compared to the other rentals in 22 the area. Also, the service station, which is empty, has 23 environmental problems . That' s one reason people aren' t 24 jumping in and taking that service station over . 25 COMMISSIONER LINARD. Mr . Chairman, I counted PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 40 1 like the apartments that are up on University. So it' s 2 really not my interest in this just to make this property 3 into income property. 4 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, I would 5 like to ask Mr . Krivokapich a question. 6 There is a lateral that flows in that area. In your 7 4 .8 acres - - 8 MR. GARY KRIVOKPAICH: Are you talking about 9 the canal? 10 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Yes . 11 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: We are planning on 12 pulling that down through the front landscape buffer . 13 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Have you cleared that 14 with the Elephant Butte Irrigation District? 15 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: We are working on 16 that. 17 COMMISSIONER LINARD: But there is nothing in 18 this packet, or anything, that has anything to do with them? 19 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: Right, there is 20 nothing in this packet. That' s something that we would have 21 to work out separately with them before the project even 22 started. 23 COMMISSIONER LINARD: But they control that? 24 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: They control that. 25 COMMISSIONER LINARD: You understand that? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 41 1 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: They control that 2 wholely. 3 MS . GOODE: May I just clarify one thing. My 4 name is Ann Goode . I was at the meetings , and I did not 5 represent anyone . Those of us who were there were there 6 because we were concerned. I do not believe we have a 7 "spokesman. " I think each of us is a speaking as a private , 8 concerned citizen. 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, I move 11 that - - 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Point of order. We are 13 still not in commissioner input. I think it might behoove 14 us to look at the letter . 15 Excuse me, Commissioner Linard. You seem to have a 16 problem with us discussing the PUD. I think Mr. Weir 17 explained how we were going to do this, and how we arrived 18 at discussing the PUD. 19 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Would you ask him to 20 explain it to me again? It seems we are mixing apples and 21 oranges . 22 MR. WEIR: Well , I believe I said the first 23 thing that you need to do is to act on the zone change . 24 What the applicant is doing is requesting a zone change to 25 the property. And then he would also like to request a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 42 1 business PUD. 2 Maybe this will clarify things a little . There are 3 only three zones in which a business PUD can be approved, 4 and that is in the 0-1 , C-1 and C-2 zoning districts . So 5 before, Mr . Gustafson was correct in that, before you could 6 even hear the PUD, you need to approve one of these zone 7 changes . 8 The problem was, it appeared that you were having a 9 little confusion on what he was proposing for the property. 10 I thought it would be appropriate for him to go ahead and 11 list his proposed uses , so that you would have a better feel 12 of what you would be doing with a zone change . 13 My understanding is, you are still hearing the zone 14 change for this property. And if you made a recommendation 15 to approve one of those three zone changes, or actually just 16 the C-1 or the 0-1 , then you could go ahead and hear the PUD 17 case . 18 If you were to deny their requested zone change, then 19 there would be no reason to hear the PUD case afterwards . 20 Does that clarify it? 21 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Thank you. 22 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: One thing that might 23 clear up some of it here is - - you might look at the letter 24 that we got from David about the meetings and kinds of 25 outlines . Before we started, we worked extensively with the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 43 1 staff here. 2 In the second neighborhood meeting of citizens, staff 3 provided the neighborhood with a short summary of the zone 4 change request. Staff provided information on uses allowed 5 within the current zoning of the property. Now, this is at 6 the meeting with the neighborhood. In information on 7 potential uses of other zones, staff also provided an 8 explanation of the planned unit development process . 9 After a short question-and-answer session, the 10 neighborhood reached a consensus to support a zone change to 11 0-1 with the condition a PUD be approved for the development 12 of the property. 13 Staff also feels a zone change to 0-1 and the approval 14 of the PUD is the best option for the development of this 15 parcel . A PUD will allow neighborhood, city and property 16 owners ' concerns to be addressed. And that' s, basically, 17 sort of a complicated compromise that we chose to do them 18 both at one time , so it saved them time to come in. And we 19 are highly dependent on the meetings that Jim sat up as our 20 agent with the neighborhood group people, and upon his 21 letter as we developed the PUD. 22 Do you have any more questions? 23 Now, we are willing to bring the zoning down to an 0-1 . 24 That is fine with us, and it will also meet the other needs, 25 that if we do not build specifically what we have here , it PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 44 1 will revert back to the old zoning. That' s something that 2 Jim asked for , and the neighbors asked for, because they 3 were scared that if we got 0-1 , that what we proposed 4 here - - that we might just go put junky offices over there . 5 That' s a real concern. So if that is not in there , then I 6 guess they kind of felt we had an advantage over them. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : What we are in right now is 8 public input. And you will probably get some questions from 9 the commissioners when we go into commissioner input and 10 close that portion to public input. But we are still in 11 public input at this particular point in time . 12 We will probably have more questions for you then. But 13 are there any more comments from the public? 14 MR. RAY: Yes , sir. I am Earl Ray. I would 15 like to raise a question, and that is for 0-1 . I did not 16 see on your list that you could have a restaurant in 0-1 . 17 If that be the case - - and then I assume from what you 18 said, you are planning a restaurant, it would seem that the 19 zone you asked for would not allow one . 20 MR. WEIR: Mr . Chairman and Mr. Ray, a 21 straight 0-1 does not allow a restaurant of the size they 22 are proposing. This is where the second case comes into 23 play. By doing a business planned unit development, the way 24 the code is written, they are able to choose or to propose 25 uses out of the C-1 and C-2 zoning direct and then that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 45 1 would be presented before the Planning and Zoning 2 Commission. And if those uses were found to be compatible 3 or if there were appropriate steps taken to mitigate any 4 detriment to the surrounding neighborhood, those uses can be 5 approved and then a restaurant would be allowed through the 6 planned unit development process . 7 If you would like , I can explain the planned unit 8 development process just for clarification purposes , if that 9 would be appropriate. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Please . 11 MR. WEIR: The Las Cruces Zoning Code allows 12 what we call a planned unit development. There are 13 basically three types . There is a residential planned unit 14 development. And that allows a little play with the 15 development standards, such as setbacks, height standards, 16 lot sizes . 17 The second type of planned unit development is what we 18 call a mixed use . And that would allow residential and 19 commercial uses to be mixed on the property. And again, it 20 allows some flexibility for the applicants and for the 21 staff. Let' s say the staff would allow - - not, excuse me, 22 not the staff, but the Planning and Zoning Commission, would 23 approve reductions in lot sizes, or they would allow - - 24 the zoning would only allow 35-foot heights, and they would 25 allow it to go up to 40 feet. And in return, the developer PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 46 1 would provide additional landscaping or would dedicate some 2 property for a city park . These are options that are 3 available . 4 The third type of planned unit development is a 5 business PUD. Andthat is what is being proposed this 6 evening. And that is, as I have stated earlier, that is to 7 be allowed in the 0-1 , the C-1 and the C-2 zoning districts . 8 And again, that would allow the applicant the opportunity to 9 list the type of uses that he would like to put into his 10 development, and then that would be reviewed, input would be 11 received by the community, staff, and the commission could 12 look at it. 13 Again, the development standards would be reviewed, and 14 there would be some give and take involved in that. An 15 example of that--not necessarily using this proposal that 16 the Krivokapiches have--but for example, say this would be 17 adjacent to a residential neighborhood. So the Planning and 18 Zoning Commission might say, We would like to see a larger 19 buffer area between the residential area and the commercial 20 development. 21 Another example, since there is a residential 22 neighborhood is close , we do not want large signs that are 23 lit up all hours of the night. We would like the signs to 24 be not illuminated or at a lower standard so that they don't 25 reflect into this neighborhood. It allows that flexibility, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 47 1 so that the property can be developed, yet it won' t have a 2 negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood. And that 3 was what we were trying to accomplish with this development, 4 was to give the neighborhood input into the proposal , give 5 the property owners an opportunity to make some proposals as 6 to how they would like to develop the property, yet at the 7 same time provide some type of guarantees to the 8 neighborhood that it wouldn' t be a straight C-1 . And all 9 the negative impacts associated with that would be placed on 10 the property. 11 I hope that' s answered your question. 12 MR. RAY: Yes . I wish on the agenda that it 13 had been designated as an 0-1 rather than C-1 . I think it 14 would be clearer . 15 I can relate to you, Bosco . I , too, am going to 16 retire . I think your putting the shopping center there is 17 detrimental to my home . And I have lived there since 1969 . 18 MR. BOSCO KRIVOKAPICH: Let me ask you 19 something, would you like apartments? 20 I would like you to get in your car and go up Wyoming 21 and see - - I just sold that piece of property. You go look 22 at those apartments they are building. If you want 23 apartments there, we own the land. I have got a lot of 24 money in it. It wasn' t given to me . I wasn't as lucky as 25 Gustafson to inherit. I worked awfully hard to get that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 48 1 piece of property. 2 If you want to leave it like it is , a group of you 3 people get together, get your money up, and I ' ll sell it to 4 you, and you can leave it just like it is . I 've had it 28 5 years . And I worked awfully hard to get it. And we want 6 to develop it. 7 To give a little more history on it, Mr . Graham, when 8 he was mayor , they condemned our piece of property to give 9 them all of the right-of-way on Farney. They took it away 10 from us . We went to court, and we won. He got a six-foot 11 right-of-way, and I had to pay for the paving on Farney. I 12 put a lot of money on that Farney paving. It was dirt then. 13 And it' s hard for me to sit here and see you people - - you 14 are going to upgrade your houses across the street with 15 commercial . If apartments go in, then you are going to lose 16 about 20 to 30 percent on your houses 17 But we didn' t just come in and build, we considered the 18 people across the street . It' s true that I am in 19 Farmington, but I am a native here . I started here in 1939 , 20 and I paid a lot of taxes right here in Las Cruces. And I 21 have been paying them every year since we bought this . I 22 couldn' t help it that a better job took me to Farmington, 23 but I love Las Cruces . And I would like to move back here 24 some day. 25 And I don' t like Gustafson to say, "He ' s living in PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 49 1 Farmington and he doesn' t give a damn. " I do give a damn. I 2 really do. But it' s hard - - it' s hard to stay here and 3 listen to you people that don' t have any money in this 4 property - - I realize you have got a house out there . And 5 I don' t want you to lose any money on your house . I want to 6 upgrade it with a nice , unique shopping center . Your land 7 and homes will not be hurt. If we build apartments there , 8 then, you know, we have to lease it. It doesn' t matter who 9 wants to lease it, we have to lease it. And the point is, 10 we will build apartments if we have to. 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments from the 12 public? 13 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: I would like to say 14 one thing, too, if I may? 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Why don' t you hold that 16 until we go into commissioner input so we can get this phase 17 of the meeting over . 18 One more time, any more comments from the public? 19 If not, we will close that portion and go into 20 commissioner input. Commissioners? 21 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I just had a couple 22 of questions of clarification on widening of Farney. When 23 is that supposed to happen? 24 MR. WEIR: It' s not projected right now. 25 There is no project in the capital budget to improve Farney. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 50 1 Generally, what we do is, the Las Cruces Metropolitan 2 Planning Organization has what they call a major 3 thoroughfare plan, and Farney is identified as a collector 4 on that street. As development comes in, we try to acquire 5 the additional rights-of-way to meet that plan. And it' s 6 just in case this property is ever subdivided or some type 7 of development came in, we would try to acquire right-of-way 8 on that property so that it could be widened at a future 9 date . 10 But to give you a simple answer to your question, there 11 is no scheduled project for the widening of that road. 12 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: And at this time, is 13 there a proposal of any sort to make - - to convert the R-1 14 across - - south of there into a C-1 , or any type of 15 commercial? 16 MR WEIR: There is no proposal right now to 17 convert that to a commercial use . My understanding is that 18 Mr. Gustafson has a planned unit development approval for a 19 residential development of that property. 20 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: There is one in 21 existence right now that' s been approved for townhouses; is 22 that correct? 23 MR. WEIR: That' s my understanding. The 24 underlying zone is an R-3 zoning, which is the same as the 25 property before you now. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 51 1 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So at this point, 2 there does exist a PUD that would allow townhouses in that 3 area; is that correct? 4 MR. WEIR: That is correct. 5 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: How many townhouses? 6 MR. WEIR: I am not familiar with the density 7 on that. g COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Maybe Mr . Gustafson 9 could kind of give us a little bit of information on that? 10 MR. GUSTAFSON: The original proposal was 11 done in order to change from A-1 agriculture to R-3 . And 12 the basic plan was for 65 units, which is a very high 13 density for that area, plus some apartments, which would be 14 closer to Espina and the southeast corner of the property. 15 And that was the total package that was presented at that 16 time . And that was approved by the Planning and Zoning 17 Commission. 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: How many apartments 19 was that? 20 MR. GUSTAFSON: 65 units . 21 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Did that not include 22 the apartment area? 23 MR. GUSTAFON. There was no definite plan. 24 The PUD covered the townhouses only. 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any more comments from the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 52 1 commissioners? 2 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: No, I have no more 3 comments at this point. 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : You mentioned that you were 5 willing to downgrade this to 0-1 at the time that you met 6 with the residents . Did you discuss the 0-1 classification, 7 and what you were proposing to put in there? 8 MR. KRIVOKAPICH: One thing that needs to be 9 clarified is that our business PUD doesn' t really change as 10 far as the uses, whether we have 0-1 or C-1 or C-2 . So the 11 uses that we worked out with the area don' t change . So in 12 all practicality, for our business PUD, it doesn' t make any 13 difference . The difference it would have made to us is if 14 we changed to an 0-1 and we don' t build the PUD, and it 15 stays 0-1 , then we cannot build apartments . 16 And also, they don' t have the ability to say, you can' t 17 build those ugly offices , if we decide to build ugly 18 offices . What we have here is a unique project where it' s 19 win-win. The city wins because development is begun. We 20 win because we get our property developed. And the 21 neighbors win, because you have a high-quality development 22 guaranteed to go in there . If it doesn' t, it reverts back 23 to its own zoning. So, it' s a win-win-win. You can talk 24 about the negative parts of it all you want to, but all you 25 have to do is drive up on University there and see the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 53 1 three-story apartments, and see what is going in. And 2 because you are still further away from the university, you 3 have to take your scale of apartment down even further to 4 make them economic . 5 What I think we 've here with our package is a 6 guaranteed package . If we don' t build it as we presented 7 it, we are out of the door . I mean, that' s the way I 8 understand it. We spent a considerable amount of time and 9 money developing this project. Based on this letter from 10 Jim, we went forward, because we were really assuming that 11 Jim was going to be coordinating all this input from the 12 neighbors . And to me , it' s kind of bad to get this input 13 right at the date for the meeting, because we have been in 14 contact with them all the time . So we are kind of stuck 15 here fighting this group, and yet we worked very hard with 16 them. So we are a little frustrated in that sense , since we 17 have taken almost every step to make everything really 18 positive for the benefit of the public. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I would like to read the 20 letter from Jim Erickson, who is acting as a private citizen 21 in this matter . But he writes : 22 "As property owners who reside at 2015 23 Crescent, we believe that whatever development occurs 24 on the property at 801 Farney Road, it will influence 25 our property and will substantially impact our PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 54 1 neighborhood. However , infill development such as this 2 usually present major questions for both the city and 3 the surrounding property owners . The choices are 4 seldom clear, and each alternative carries with it 5 potential problems and opportunities . " 6 He goes on to say that based on his review of the 7 proposal , he wishes to support the proposed rezoning and 8 planned unit development, but mentioning some concerns that 9 the zoning would be conditional , to require, if the property 10 is developed, it must be developed pursuant to the proposed 11 PUD. 12 That if the PUD expires or is removed, the zoning 13 should automatically revert to R-3 . 14 That the list of permitted uses should be amended to 15 the list provided by the applicant with our suggested 16 deletions which are highlighted and attached. 17 It' s signed James Erickson. And he has highlighted 18 some of the uses that he would recommend to delete . And 19 that' s apartments, R-3 , 123 units, business service 20 establishments, a community or public building, dry cleaning 21 and steam cleaning, game room, glass cutting and finishing, 22 health club/gymnasium, institutions public and private, 23 laundry self-service, newspaper distribution office and 24 newspaper establishments, private clubs or lodges , and 25 upholstery shop. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 55 1 I tend to agree with Mr . Erickson that whatever is 2 approved in certain parts of the community--such as the 3 University Corridor Plan which we have been working on for 4 almost a year , or a little bit more--impacts the property 5 one way or the other . And we don' t know what effect your 6 proposal would ultimately have . It' s going to happen in the 7 future . 8 But the purpose of rezoning is to try to enhance the 9 area or a particular part of the community without 10 detrimental effects to the existing portion of that 11 community. But at the same time, we have to decide whether 12 we wish to continue to allow the property to sit empty as 13 they are and eventually allow, because of the lack of 14 development, the denigration of the area. We certainly 15 don' t want that, so we want to encourage infill . 16 If you sit on a board such as this, you begin to see 17 many areas within the community that we have to take and 18 address and consider their uses . That we are getting many 19 spots within the community that aren't being developed, and 20 they are being left to not being used to their full 21 potential . Subsequently we wind up having to deal with spot 22 zoning whether we like it or not . We have to sometimes 23 allow something that doesn' t fit exactly with the particular 24 zone or the comprehensive plan simply for the sake of what 25 the council is now addressing as infill . And I think this PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 56 1 particular situation involves some infill . 2 My personal opinion is that this PUD would definitely 3 enhance that particular area, and I would encourage the 4 owners , if the proposal is approved, that you work as 5 closely as you possibly can with the residents , continue to 6 do so throughout the development, and try to head off any 7 potential problems that you might have in the future . 8 That' s my opinion or input. 9 Commissioner Linard. 10 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, I make a 11 motion that we zone this property 0-1 , and that it not 12 revert to R-3 . And that the exclusion of those things in 13 C-1 , as Mr. Erickson noted, be held with the 0-1 . 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We have the motion as stated 15 by Commissioner Linard. Do we have a second? 16 Going once , twice, three times . The motion fails for 17 lack of a second. 18 We will continue considering it. 19 Any other comments from the commissioners? 20 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I would like a motion 21 that we approve the 0-1 with the condition that it reverts 22 back to R-3 if indeed it is not developed as planned, and 23 that those restrictions, the exclusions that are listed in 24 that particular letter , including another restriction which 25 was mentioned, which was funeral home , be included PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 57 1 MR. WEIR: A point of order . Conditional 2 zoning has to be requested by the applicant. 3 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: That is correct. 4 MR. WEIR: And also, the uses that Jim' s 5 letter addressed, it would be more appropriate for you to 6 address those with the PUD, if you made the recommendation. 7 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: That is correct. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : You are correct, we do need 9 to wait. 10 You might put it in the form of a recommendation and 11 see whether or not the applicant would be willing to put 12 forth that proposal . 13 COMMISSIONER LORD: Dave, is there a time 14 frame by city ordinance , or is it something that we are 15 going to have to do, where it would revert back to R-3? 16 MR. WEIR: The way conditional zoning works , 17 if the property is not developed within two years , it 18 reverts back to the R-3 zone . 19 COMMISSIONER LORD: Does development mean 20 actually breaking ground or issuing a building permit? 21 MR. WEIR: It would be the issuance of a 22 building permit. Development would be considered the 23 issuance of a building permit. 24 Do you want to make that recommendation and see whether 25 or not the applicant wishes to make the proposal? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 58 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I guess you are carrying the 2 ball , Commissioner Lord. 3 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: But if it' s a request 4 to the applicant, then the request would be whether the 5 applicant would consider actually amending his request and 6 requesting an 0-1? 7 MR. WEIR: Yes . 8 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: We would be willing to 9 bring it down from the C-1 to an 0-1 . 10 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: In that case, then, I 11 can make a motion. Well , does it have to go through you? 12 Do they have to place the condition that if the PUD is not 13 developed it will revert to R-3? 14 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: We would make it also 15 with that particular condition. That was a condition that 16 was requested by the city and also in this letter by Mr . 17 Erickson. Mr . Erickson, as a resident of that neighborhood. 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Your proposal would 19 be to request an 0-1 zoning? 20 MR. KRIVOKAPICH: Yes . 21 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: With the exclusions 22 desired by the neighborhood group? 23 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: I think what it would 24 be - - the application - - the applicants are requesting an 25 0-1 zoning conditional upon a development of a business PUD. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 59 1 And if the business PUD is not developed, that it would also 2 expire in the normal time period of, what, 24 months back to 3 the R-3 , as requested in Jim' s letter , if the PUD is not 4 built as proposed. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay. So any more 6 commissioner input? 7 If not, can we go ahead and - - 8 COMMISSIONER LORD: Does the public 9 understand the restrictions on 0-1? Could we - - would you 10 like to understand the restrictions? Could you put that 11 overhead up there once more . 12 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: 0-1 is basically, as I 13 understand it, for offices . It would revert to very limited 14 commercial development, basically, is what it is, as I 15 understand it. What I did here , again, if we got the 0-1 , 16 and if they accept it as we propose it, it would revert back 17 to the R-3 . But I will explain it . All of these are the 18 0-1 approved uses . And as you can see, it is mostly 19 offices . 20 MR. WEIR: I think a lot of the confusion to 21 what we have up here is that he is requesting a PUD approval 22 after the zone change. And the big confusion comes from 23 what he wants to do in the proposed uses for the PUD. He 24 cannot do those things in an R-3 , so he has to have a zone 25 change to 0-1 , C-1 or C-2 . The confusion comes from what PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 60 1 happens with that underlying zone , if the PUD is not 2 developed. 3 Okay, if you would change that strictly to an 0-1 4 office use and not place any conditions on it, and let' s say 5 after a two-year period - - let' s make an assumption that 6 the PUD is approved with the uses they propose . After a 7 two-year period, if that PUD is still not developed, that is 8 an expired PUD, it cannot be developed, so the only uses 9 permitted would be those in the 0-1 zoning district, which 10 on the chart - - here are all the uses with that. 11 Now, what the commission has requested of the applicant 12 is that he place a condition on the 0-1 zoning that if the 13 PUD is not developed that it will revert back to the 14 original R-3 zoning. So in essence what he is doing is 15 saying if the PUD is never developed, the 0-1 zone change 16 goes away and he is only allowed those uses within an R-3 17 district which are primarily residential uses . 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Excuse me, what would be the 19 time frame? 20 MR. WEIR: Again, it would be a two-year time 21 frame to develop that. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So the public is aware . 23 MR. WEIR: Now, the PUD is a separate 24 process, as I described it earlier . It was provided to 25 provide flexibility for the applicant, the neighborhood and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 61 1 the city, and development within the city. In a business 2 PUD, the permitted uses are any of the uses in the 0-1 , C-1 3 or C-2 . And the applicant proposes what specific uses he 4 wanted or intended for his development, then he also is 5 required to prepare a site plan and his development 6 standards , along with his uses . And that' s what would be 7 involved in the next case , is what he is proposing to do 8 with that. And that would be a separate approval . 9 And basically, I think a lot of the confusion this 10 evening is that they are only requesting the 0-1 zone change 11 so they can request the uses in the C-1 and C-2 zoning 12 district. From conversations that I have had with the 13 applicant, they have stated that they are not interested in 14 developing these for apartments; therefore, they didn' t want 15 to choose the mixed use PUD which requires up to 50 percent 16 of the property to be developed as residential . If at all 17 possible, they would like to develop it as a neighborhood 18 commercial area. That necessitates an 0-1 zone change at a 19 minimum, and then it would require the PUD approval . And 20 that' s where I feel that some of the confusion is coming 21 out. 22 COMMISSIONER LORD: So in the PUD, they can 23 ask to expand the list of uses that are listed under the 0-1 24 in the zoning - - 25 MR. WEIR: Right. But as commissioners , you PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 62 1 can go through that list, and if there is something you feel 2 is detrimental to the community, you can exclude that. That 3 is within your power . It falls within the special use 4 permit. So it' s different than the zone change , in that you 5 can make specific requests and place specific requirements 6 on the approval of the planned unit development. 7 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So Mr . Chairman, with 8 respect to the zoning request, can we then make a motion at 9 this point to approve the 0-1? 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Based on the proposal that 11 the applicant has made to us, we can accept that proposal 12 and act on it, yes . 13 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Then I would go ahead 14 and make the motion that we approve the 0-1 zone at this 15 point in time . 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second on that? 17 COMMISSIONER LORD: I second. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any discussion? Okay 19 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Aye . 20 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 21 COMMISSONER WILLIS : Aye . 22 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Nay. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The chair votes aye . The 24 motion passes . 25 ( The motion carried, 4 to 1 . ) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 63 1 MR. WEIR: Okay, point of order, Commissioner 2 Perez . So what you have approved is a zone change to 0-1C, 3 conditional that that zoning would only be in effect if the 4 planned unit development is approved, and if it is not 5 developed within two years, the zoning will revert to R-3 . 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : That is correct 7 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: That is correct. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, the next item is a 9 request for concept approval for Crescent Center, a business 10 planned unit development. The property is a parcel of land 11 located at 801 Farney Road which contains 4 . 2 acres, more or 12 less, zoned R-3 high density residential . Currently, there 13 is a single-family dwelling on the property. The remaining 14 property is vacant. The property is proposed for a zone 15 change to C-1 neighborhood commercial . Submitted by Gary 16 Krivokapich. 17 MR. BENNETT: May I say something, please . 18 The irrigation canal traverses that property to the property 19 to the south. I talked to one of the board members on the 20 EBID, and the only way to get that water to the property to 21 the south is to take it across the road and have a gate 22 right on the canal . 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : If I may, so that we can 24 continue with the process here , we will address that in the 25 public participation in this case . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 64 1 MR. BENNETT: Yes , I think it ought to be 2 considered. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We will give you an 4 opportunity to address that, okay? 5 Do I have a motion to approve case PUD-92-004? 6 COMMISSIONER LINARD: So moved. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would the applicant like to 9 make a presentation at this particular point in time on the 10 PUD? 11 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: Again, here I go, 12 covering some more material . One reason why we are doing 13 these together is that it would probably have meant two 14 trips for everybody. Basically, what we are doing here is 15 providing a neighborhood shopping area. What we are 16 providing are small shops , basically C-1 , with some C-2 17 uses . 18 We are also preserving the neighborhood by allowing 19 high quality development to occur . One question the staff 20 asked me is, How are we doing this? 21 Number one is with architectural restrictions, signage 22 restrictions, and landscape restrictions or standards . We 23 also came up with a signing standards . We are coming in 24 with some momument signs here , so they are not seen above 25 here , and also to remove some of the signage off the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 65 1 building strips that' s up here , and put it more into the 2 traffic area here, and to put it at less than six foot so 3 that they can' t see it from their homes . So that' s another 4 thing we are doing. 5 I don' t see a whole lot of that around Las Cruces . 6 They are building a lot of those signs in a lot of other 7 areas, using that in a development where it abuts up against 8 apartments and homes . I see that going on. One good point 9 about this is, it helps to keep the corridor that goes into 10 NMSU clean and kind of stops the ingress of apartments that 11 tend to go downhill really fast. 12 I won' t show the pictures again, but what I will 13 probably do here is - - what we are proposing is something 14 like Arroyo Plaza. Everybody here is probably familiar with 15 that. That' s basically the style we are looking at here . 16 we are also looking at pueblo or mission style options . So 17 if we go back in there and talk to the tenants and they 18 don' t like the territorial we can go into the mission or 19 pueblo style and still remain within the architectural 20 restrictions. Everything in here, in the complex, has to be 21 tied in. So if you go into the mission style, that means 22 your signs, your free-standing signs , your monument signs, 23 all have to be styled in accordance with what the building 24 is . If you have a fence for your trash cans, they have to 25 be the same style also. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 66 1 Anyway, you can really see--and I won' t put the picture 2 of the apartments up again, the three-story apartments--but 3 you can see the difference in quality. And we are going for 4 the high quality. 5 One way we have addressed the home owner' s concern is 6 that we limited the commercial uses and specified the 7 intended uses . And I think they have been very fair with 8 us, too, because we did make ourselves vulnerable . Because 9 they could have gone through the list and crossed off 10 everything. And I think they are working with us real 11 fairly, as we are with them. We've already brought our 12 business PUD request 13 down from a C-1 to an 0-1 . 14 We have also embraced the University Corridor Plan. If 15 you read our PUD, we have taken everything out of the 16 corridor plan. Plus we have added signage in there . Now, 17 the way the signage came about, and it' s a little bit 18 controversial - - the monuments we want to put in there, the 19 numbers of them--to reduce the number of them on 20 these--doesn't meet the regulation. So we will have to deal 21 with that on the final plans . It' s something we put in 22 there because of their concerns after we met with them. 23 And we are also limiting everything to one story, which 24 should reduce , also, the visual impact of our development. 25 And also, 40 percent of the parking, as we have it laid out PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 67 1 here, is placed in the back of the center, so they won' t be 2 seeing this parking. 3 If you take a look here , any kind of drive-through is 4 placed either behind a landscape buffer or behind a building 5 so you won' t be seeing the cars from this side stopping off 6 and picking up anything out of a window. If it' s a 7 fast-food, very high quality restaurant, sometimes they are 8 going to have a window. I noticed that there are two 9 drive-throughs in Arroyo Plaza, also. And again, this 10 business planned unit development also provides for infill 11 development, which is the goal of the comprehensive plan of 12 Las Cruces . 13 Again, we want to look at the development schedule as 14 we have it styled here . Those may have to be adjusted. We 15 have got the site plan coming in May, the business PUD, May 16 1992 . Our meeting here in 1992 . The City Council meeting 17 in July, which will probably be August. We chose not to 18 market this particular center until we have worked out 19 everything with the neighbors, because we didn' t want to get 20 into a big fight and ruin a working relationship. 21 As we see it, the marketing will not take place for a 22 year . And then the final PUD approval will come December 23 1st, 1993 . And we will see , maybe , construction start May 24 1st . So the plans would probably be filed somewhere between 25 December 1st and May 1st with the permit and the final PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 r 68 1 completion March 1st of 1995 . 2 Then, again, our permitted uses here--and you can see 3 where the source of them is--say, for example , a little food 4 store on the bottom here , that comes from a C-2 zone, so 5 that would not be allowed in the normal 0-1 . 6 Now, I probably - - do you want me to go through these 7 one by one , or are we going to address that maybe later? 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : It' s not necessary. I think 9 we can address that at a later time . 10 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: And again, we did 11 adopt--to give you a basic idea--the University Corridor 12 Landscaping Plans . And landscaping shall be provided to 13 cover 20 percent of the parking area. Parking is defined as 14 that surface area of the parcel , excluding the building 15 areas and the fenced-in area . We provided about a 20-, 16 25-foot landscape buffer all along in here so as to remove 17 the visual impact to the Gustafson property, if they put in 18 townhouses, and also to remove the visual impact here . 19 To give you an idea, we would expect the landscaping to 20 be basically dry landscaping, is what we are looking for, 21 now. That would be fairly easy to maintain and not take a 22 lot of water. This is an example of basically how that 23 buffer would look in there . It' s about 20-foot wide . 24 Now, the signing standards . The best way to explain 25 them is that we are conforming to the Las Cruces signing PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 69 1 standard on this project, except that we are asking or will 2 at the final plan of this for these monument-style signs . 3 We are asking for three on Farney and three on E1 Paseo. 4 And these would go in the landscape buffer, approximately 5 here and here . Now, the proposal I have is that if a 6 business puts their name out on this sign, it' s subtracted 7 from the area that they are allowed on their building. 8 That' s so one project doesn' t get any more favorable 9 treatment than any other project, but it forces the people 10 to say, Hey, maybe I want to remove some of that signage on 11 the building and put it in this landscape buffer . 12 And again, those would be modified to fit the art-deco 13 style . And for the signage , it would also be allowed on the 14 parcel . And we are limiting these to 20 feet in height. I 15 think from what I understand, the City is twelve feet in 16 height, now, on these type of signs , free standing. From 17 the review they gave me , this would have to be, according to 18 city standards , moved down to 12 feet. So there would be 19 two of these . One approximately here and one back in here. 20 Now, the signing standards and monument signs are 21 something that we developed just for the neighborhood. And 22 we are not - - if you guys want to eliminate that from the 23 PUD, we will say okay. We will eliminate it. But it' s 24 something just to take their concern or to address their 25 concerns . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 70 1 And again, we can take a look up here with the little 2 arrows here being the monument-styled signs , and those signs 3 would be about my height, coming down like this . And then, 4 the beauty of those is that people driving by see them, and 5 the visual impact from the building is a lot less . I 6 originally took this particular standard from a sign 7 standard in California. It' s based on the square-footage of 8 the store, the amount of signage they are allowed to have . 9 Now, we have got two major buildings here . This is the 10 building height. It is restricted to 25 feet. We have got 11 two main buildings . It is about 32 , 000 square feet, with 12 7 , 200 square feet up front here . And this is designed maybe 13 so that they can do some outdoor dining here, or if they 14 want to move this and maybe build the building around so 15 they can have outside dining on this side . And we have two 16 landscape areas going through the parking lot here and here . 17 We have got several views of the building. This is a 18 view that is along Farney if you are looking into the center 19 here, looking north. And if you are driving along E1 Paseo, 20 this is a second perspective , to give you an idea what it 21 would look like out there on the land. 22 And again, we are really committed to this project in 23 trying to get it developed, and we have spent a lot of time 24 working with the neighborhood to really put this parcel in 25 use , because right now we are sort of stuck in nowhere land. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 71 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Staff input. 2 MR. WEIR: Mr . Chairman, commission members, 3 I would like to start my presentation by just explaining a 4 little bit of the PUD approval process . It' s a two-step 5 process . What you have before you tonight is a concept 6 approval . And that is pretty much what it says, concept. 7 It' s a concept of the proposed uses, a general idea of the 8 layout of the lot, a general idea of the structures, the 9 signing they are proposing, the landscaping they are 10 proposing. All of that that would have to be approved first 11 by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and then they would 12 have to submit what they call "for final approval . " And on 13 final approval , they would basically state all of their 14 standards that they would be requesting, the specifics of 15 how tall the buildings are going to be, how much area is 16 going to be in them, how many parking spaces are going to be 17 provided, how much landscaping is to be provided, and what 18 are the specific setbacks and signage requirements for the 19 subdivision. Excuse me, for the planned unit development. 20 The proposal that you have before you, the 21 architectural styles that they are looking at, is either a 22 territorial , a mission or a pueblo style . Those are the 23 basic styles they would like to develop their property in. 24 What the applicant has requested is that they get input from 25 the neighborhood and the commission. If there is one PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 72 1 specific sytle they would like for that area, then on their 2 final site plan, they would designate that for the 3 development of the property. 4 They also state that whatever architectural style was 5 picked, the signs , the design standard for that, and the 6 style that they are designed for would also match that 7 architectural style . 8 The landscaping requirements, if the commission feels 9 there is additional buffering needed, that would have to be 10 noted this evening, and then on their final site plan they 11 could prepare and make any allowances for that, what the 12 complex would look like . 13 Probably the biggest concept that' s before you this 14 evening is the use of the land. And you began to touch base 15 on that with the rezoning of the property. And I would like 16 to put those onto the screen, and then also give what the 17 neighborhood and Jim Erickson' s letter have stipulated be 18 stricken. And I feel that' s what the majority of your 19 conversation on this PUD will be over . This is a list of 20 the uses that they have proposed not to use within this PUD. 21 This is as far as the applicant. I don' t know if the 22 commissioners have any problems with those prohibitions . 23 The uses that they have requested be allowed within the 24 zone are these uses . And again, the chart that the 25 applicants have provided shows which zoning districts they PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 73 1 are taken out of . 2 Earlier this evening, Chairman Perez read the letter 3 from Jim Erickson describing the uses that he felt were 4 inappropriate for the development of this parcel . And I 5 remember noting that one was the upholstery shop, and one 6 was for residential use of the property. And the other was 7 the liquor issue, which Mark Simms is reviewing now. 8 That pretty much concludes my presentation. 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, fine . Now, going to 10 public participation now. What I would ask is, if there is 11 anyone who wishes to address the commission, please step up 12 to the podium, and please state your name. 13 MS. BENNETT: My name is Ruth Bennett, and I 14 was just wondering. These are additional uses on top of the 15 0-1 that are being considered. 16 MR. WEIR• If I might clarify on that. The 17 PUD process allows the uses . It' s a separate process from 18 the 0-1 zoning. It' s an overlay district of the property in 19 which they can propose uses out of the 0-1, C-1 and C-2 20 uses . So there is the possibility that they would be 21 allowed uses that are not permitted in a straight 0-1 zone . 22 MS . BENNETT: Is the neighborhood going to be 23 able to have input as far as what these extra uses are going 24 to be over the 0-1? 25 MR. WEIR: Yes, I believe that' s the intent. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 74 1 I know Mr . Erickson submitted a list, but this was not gone 2 over by quite a few of the neighbors . 3 I can xerox those and pass them out this evening, if 4 you would like to review them. 5 MS . BENNETT: I would like to see , just have 6 the time to look at it rather than have a vote tonight. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : That' s the first thing we 8 wanted to point out is, these are, first of all , the 9 prohibited uses in the PUD. 10 Now, let' s go to the uses that would be permitted but 11 are subject to deletion or restrictions . 12 MS . BENNETT: I know everybody is talking 13 about Mr . Erickson' s list, but I haven' t seen it myself. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, we will get that to 15 you now. 16 MR. HOWARD: My name is Gene Howard, and I 17 live at 2005 Crescent . I would like to say that I feel a 18 little bit fooled and hoodwinked here about this 0-1 . I 19 mean when I heard tonight about 0-1 , I thought, okay, we are 20 going to have physician' s offices or real estate offices, no 21 shopping, no restaurants , no cars . And now I am finding out 22 that a business PUD can include all of these kinds of 23 things. So I would just like to state my position that I 24 don' t want shopping, and I don' t want a big restaurant. I 25 mean I don' t want any of these things , either; but I want PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 75 1 only 0-1 . If that' s not, you know, too rigid. I mean, 2 maybe we can compromise if we are talking about a 3 transitional shopping center or center between shopping and 4 neighborhood. If we are talking about this no-shopping kind 5 of place , we are talking about doctor' s offices and real 6 estate and that kind of thing, that' s fine . 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, for clarification, you 8 have to keep in mind that we are talking about two different 9 situations here . One was the zoning. Now is the PUD. And 10 now we are considering the PUD concept right now for that 11 piece of property. All we have recommended for approval to 12 the counsel is 0-1 zoning. We have not approved PUD 13 designation to this property, that is still under debate . 14 And this is what we are trying to explain so that you will 15 understand what the concept is, okay? 16 Anybody else from the public wish to comment on this 17 application? 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Mr . Chairman, you 19 know there is a lot of confusion on the uses that can be 20 allowed under a PUD, and I don' t think that the people out 21 there have really had the time and the information they need 22 to review all the possible uses that can be allowed under a 23 PUD. And I think if we made available these lists that we 24 are looking at up here . And we may just have to come back 25 one more time on the PUD. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 76 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I agree with you. We are 2 now going into - - I am going to close it to public 3 participation and go into commissioner input so that we can 4 address that particular part there . And you had the very 5 same idea I had, that perhaps we should consider--at the 6 risk of imposing a hardship to the applicant--postponing the 7 issue to allow the residents a chance to look at this . I 8 think it would be in your best interests to communicate with 9 the residents . 10 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: Can I say something. 11 One thing that I wanted to point out is, we were directed at 12 the last meeting to work with Jim Erickson as the head of 13 the neighborhood group. 14 Okay, we came up with this list, and we put a lot of 15 work into it and getting their input into it. Our problem 16 is , these people are circumventing that process, and it 17 makes a complication on our part. They were notified 18 according to your laws of the PUD going in with these 19 existing uses, the uses we have in here today. 20 Now, after a concentrated effort of working with Jim so 21 tough and hard, and we come up with this list that we now 22 have, you are asking me to go and renegotiate . Is this 23 going to be another neighborhood group? This process has to 24 end sometime . I mean I am getting a little frustrated about 25 the process, because we specifically have been working with PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 77 1 Jim' s group. And you know, I don' t know if we were directed 2 to work with his group, and I am frustrated in that sense . 3 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: If I can correct a 4 statement. At our last meeting, I think Jim was just one of 5 the speakers at that point in time . 6 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH. If you look at the 7 minutes of that meeting, we were directed, David and I , to 8 work with Jim and other citizens of the community, at Jim' s 9 house , on this particular project with him. And he was the 10 group head. 11 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: It' s become apparent, 12 whether everybody was notified or not, that not everybody 13 quite understands what was going on. And I don' t think we 14 would be fair to everyone here if we proceeded with this . 15 What we would do is be here until three o' clock in the 16 morning going through every single use , and trying to 17 explain it. And I think it would be more productive - - 18 MR. KRIVOKAPICH: If we are going to do this 19 again, we need to focus on how we are going to do it. This 20 is a totally different understanding from what we had last 21 time . The last time--can you back me up on this?--we were 22 supposed to be working with Jim Erickson' s neighborhood 23 group. 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I think what we have to 25 understand here is that I don' t think that the City can tell PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 78 1 you to specifically work with one individual , because they 2 are recommending to you that you work with that individual , 3 because he apparently - - he was the only one that was 4 recognized at the time . 5 What you have to do is , on your part, to identify all 6 the groups within that area . You may have two or three 7 different groups that are being represented by a different 8 individual . And in this particular case I don' t think it 9 was meant for you, or we shouldn' t assume that Mr . Erickson 10 represented everybody in that area. And that' s what we are 11 suggesting at this particular point in time--and that is to 12 attempt to identify if there are other groups and other 13 spokesmen for other groups, that you identify them and 14 explain what the concept of the PUD is . 15 We understand it. But as one individual stated, it' s 16 confusing because , first, they felt they were being misled, 17 and that was not the case . You have to understand that you 18 are talking about two different types of applications 19 here--one is zoning, and now that has been approved--and 20 that is the only designation that property carries. 21 Now, we are considering the PUD. The PUD has, by 22 right, its allowed uses in two or three other zoning 23 classifications . This is what they don' t understand. This 24 is what we need to clarify to them. And as Commissioner 25 Ferreira stated, if we do that, we are liable to be here PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 79 1 until two or three o' clock in the morning. 2 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Mr . Chairman, I don' t 3 know if that would be a good suggestion. But perhaps since 4 we do a lot of work in work sessions which are held about 5 5 : 45 p.m. downstairs , or here in this area, that perhaps we 6 could have a work session specifically on this issue and 7 invite everybody to come then. And that way we can address 8 some of those issues . 9 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: We don't mind meeting 10 with them, but it' s like we don' t want this process to 11 continue every time we meet . Again, we have another set of 12 people here protesting with another set of concerns, because 13 sometime you have to say, okay, we met with everybody and 14 everyone has to funnel in. I thought in the other process 15 we were funneling through with Jim on this other process. 16 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: This is the first 17 time we've had an opportunity to deal with the PUD. 18 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: I mean we would be 19 willing to come back for the staff meeting. 20 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: It' s a work session. 21 We could set aside a work session where - - Mr . Weir , would 22 it be the City' s responsibility to contact these people and 23 make them aware that there would be a work session regarding 24 this application? 25 MR. WEIR: We have the addresses of people PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 80 1 within 200 feet of the site , and we would send letters to 2 them or possibly contact three or four persons in the 3 neighborhood, and if they would spread the word when you 4 desire to have a work session, they could attend. That 5 could be worked out to take care of that, if that' s your 6 desire . 7 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: The sooner the 8 better. 9 MR. BOSCO KRIVOKAPICH: Now, you are saying 10 the people within 200 feet. How many of you people live 11 within 200 feet? 12 MS . BENNETT: I wasn' t even notified of the 13 meeting tonight because our address isn' t on the - - I have 14 to get together with you. That' s a problem we had. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : If I may suggest to the 16 neighborhood group--and I know you are genuinely concerned 17 about this application--that you try and spread the word 18 within your neighborhood, and we will set up a work session 19 and contact you, so that we can sit down and explain the 20 process of the PUD application, and then we can work out 21 something that would be compatible to both sides of the 22 issue . 23 Is that fair? 24 Okay, at the time you set a date for the work session 25 on this issue , please contact the applicants and the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 81 1 neighborhood and inform them when you are going to be here . 2 Well , okay, on the 21st of July. Set up a work session 3 for the 21st of July at 5 : 45 . 4 Now, we have told you. 5 MR. WEIR: And I ' ll probably send out a 6 notice to where the location will be . 7 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Okay, Mr . Chairman, I 8 would move to postpone any action on the PUD until after the 9 work session scheduled for July 21st. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second. 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? All in favor? 12 All opposed? 13 (Motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0 . ) 14 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, I have a 15 suggestion. 16 We have two cases that we postponed until the end of 17 the meeting, but I don' t believe the applicants necessarily 18 have to be here for us to approve those . Couldn' t we just 19 go ahead and do that? 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Staff, we postponed the 21 extension of the trailer park on South Main, but - - it 22 isn' t necessary that the person be here in order for us to 23 postpone it, is it? 24 MR. WEIR: No, you can postpone it to the 25 next meeting without them. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 82 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We can postpone it, but can 2 we go ahead and pass it? It was just a routine-type thing, 3 wasn' t it? 4 MR. WEIR: The subdivision code requires that 5 the applicant be present before you take action. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So we will have to postpone 7 that and Las Colinas until the next meeting also? 8 MR. WEIR: Yes . 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, we have got case 10 22194 , a request for a zone change from R-2 , medium density 11 residential, to 0-1 , office , to utilize property for a 12 proposed professional office and proprietor residence . The 13 property is located at 833 North Alameda Boulevard, is a 14 parcel of land containing . 684 acres of land, more or less, 15 and is currently occupied by a single-family dwelling. 16 The property is generally located at the southwest corner of 17 Picacho Avenue and Alameda Boulevard. Submitted by Jeremy 18 and Joan Borrett. 19 Is the applicant present? 20 MS . BORRETT: My name is Joan Borrett. And 21 my husband and I , along with Judge Wanek, are requesting 22 this zone change . 23 There are a couple of things that I might say before I 24 turn this over to someone else . And that is that because 25 this is a lovely, old historic home, we plan to keep it that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 83 1 way, and the professional office will generate probably five 2 or six people a day maximum, very low key. 3 Our plans are to keep up and preserve this beautiful 4 home as is . The part of it that will be used for an office 5 is the entryway and the office which is just off the 6 entryway, plus a restroom. That' s all that will be used for 7 the professional office . 8 We would like to use a sign, but a very small 9 unobtrusive sign, right on the corner, within the required 10 distance from the corner . And I can' t think of anything 11 else to tell you. 12 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez, commission 13 members, the request before you is a zone change from R-2 to 14 0-1 for the property located on the southwest corner of 15 Picacho and Alameda Avenue . The zone request, the 0-1 , is 16 appropriate for this area. The 0-1 , as you are aware of 17 now, is a transitional zone between residential areas and 18 commercial areas, and that' s what the property will do. The 19 proposed use is for a professional office and residence for 20 the proprietors, which is alluded to within the zone code. 21 The proposed use will also generate less traffic than 22 the highest use of an R-2 property, which would be multiple 23 housing units on the properties . 24 There are several comments that staff had that the 25 commission needs to be aware of. One is, during the US-70 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 84 1 study, this portion of Picacho Avenue was targeted as 2 needing widening sometime in future . And at a future date, 3 15 feet of additional property would need to be condemned 4 for widening of Picacho Avenue . 5 The other item the commission needs to be aware of is 6 the applicants are requesting to purchase the property as 7 is . As it currently stands , they would need to replat that 8 property. In your packets is a letter from the applicant 9 stating that they are going to replat the parcels , but they 10 want to get a decision - - get a recommendation from the 11 Planning and Zoning Commission before they proceeded with 12 that. If it were denial of the zone change, they were not 13 going to proceed with the replatting of the property or 14 going through with the purchase of the property. 15 As far as staff recommendations, the zoning fits into 16 the neighborhood. It is a transitional zone, and staff 17 feels this is appropriate zoning for the property and 18 recommends approval 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Any comments 20 from the public? 21 No comments? Now we will go into commissioner input. 22 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr. Chairman, I would 23 like to ask Mr. Weir a question. Under R-2 special uses, it 24 says office in historic districts and structures, so it' s 25 not necessary to change the zone at all . All that' s PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 85 1 necessary is to give them a special use permit; is that 2 correct? 3 MR. WEIR: That is correct. 4 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Was the applicant aware 5 of that? 6 MS . BORRETT: Well , in discussing the 7 differences in the special use permits and the zone change, 8 the special use permit, to my understanding, could not be 9 issued until the property is secured. And we are securing 10 the property for the - - I can' t justify - - as they were 11 talking about taking another twelve feet, was the last word 12 I heard, off of the property, it makes it very 13 non-residential . So to me, that' s what justifies buying a 14 piece of property on that type of corner would be to use it 15 as an office. So by getting the zone changed in advance, 16 then we are assured that that' s what we can use the property 17 for . 18 Also, there were other things, to my understanding, 19 that with the special use permit or the special whatever, 20 that things like the parking would have to be paved in 21 advance before you request that. And some of it - - it was 22 a matter of financial consideration as well , too many things 23 coming at one time . 24 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Thank you. 25 Another question, Mr . Weir . We just got through PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 86 1 opening a can of worms with 0-1 , where you can put anything 2 from a funeral home to what have you. This is supposed to 3 be a historical district . The things that she has 4 mentioned, are those things required, that they have to pave 5 the parking lot? She says she is only going to have one to 6 two three people there . How many must - - they must have 7 some parking there already. 8 MR. WEIR: Currently the house is a 9 residential area, and residences are not required to pave 10 their parking lots . But businesses and offices and 11 industrial uses are required to provide paved parking lots . 12 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Even special uses - - 13 MR. WEIR: That is correct. 14 COMMISSIONER LINARD: And for how many 15 places? 16 MR. WEIR: It would depend on use and how 17 much of the house would be used as office space . It would 18 be based on that criterion. 19 COMMISSIONER LINARD: If we go to 0-1, they 20 can put everything there from a funeral home to a pet shop 21 or whatever? 22 MR. WEIR: Those would be uses that would be 23 permitted uses within that zoning district. 24 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Any other comments from the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 87 1 commissioners? 2 No more comments? Okay. Then we will go on to vote . 3 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Aye . 4 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye. 6 COMMISSIONER LINARD: No. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The chairman votes aye . 8 ( The motion carried, 4 to 1 . ) 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The next item on the agenda 10 is case ZCA-92-002, a request to amend Section 2 . 5, 11 Administrative Variance of the Las Cruces Zoning ( 1981 12 Amended) . Submitted by The City of Las Cruces . 13 Mr . Weir . 14 MR. WEIR: The case before you is an 15 amendment to the zoning code. It deals with Section 2 . 5, 16 the administrative variance . At a work session held during 17 March of 1991 , the Board of Adjustment met with the City 18 Council, and one of the issues that came before them was the 19 administrative variances by staff. And the question became 20 does that process still want to be or does the City still 21 want to utilize an administrative variance process . And 22 part of the problem was , it wasn' t any quicker to grant an 23 administrative variance . And there was also a question of 24 the use of the administrative variance . At this work 25 session--I believe there is a copy of the minutes--the City PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 88 1 Council directed staff to eliminate that portion of the 2 zoning code . And that' s the reason it' s before you this 3 evening. What the effect of eliminating this will be is 4 that all variances to the zoning code will be heard by the 5 Board of Adjustment . There will no longer be a procedure by 6 which staff would have the authority to grant a variance . 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. We will go on to 8 public participation. No comments . 9 We will go to commissioner input. Any comments from 10 the commissioners? 11 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Mr . Chairman, I move 12 that we pass this . 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I second. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? All in favor, 16 aye . All opposed. 17 ( The motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0 . ) 18 MR. SIMMS: Point of order. You should 19 renumber the sections that follow it. It' s not noted in the 20 amendment, but it is obvious that without it you would be 21 out of numerical sequence . 22 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, after we 23 passed that motion, I make a motion now that we direct them 24 to renumber the sequence of paragraphs that follow what we 25 just deleted PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 89 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I second. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? All in favor, 4 aye . All opposed. 5 (The motion carried unanimously 5 to 0 . ) 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Next is Case ZCA-92-003 , a 7 request to amend Section 9 . 5, Size of Parking Spaces and 8 Aisles, Section 9 . 6 , Joint Use of Parking Areas, and Section 9 9 .7 , Construction and Maintenance of Parking Areas of the 10 Las Cruces Zoning Code ( 1981 Amended) . Submitted by the 11 City of Las Cruces . 12 MR. WEIR: Mr . Chairman, commission members, 13 these are two - - well , it' s really one amendment to the 14 parking section to deal with parking lots . 15 The first one is to deal with parking aisles and their 16 joint use , similar to the subdivision you heard this 17 evening. The language that has been proposed for you will 18 fall into Section 9 . 5 . From 9 . 5, there will be a sentence 19 deleted. Currrently, the code states, "Aisles shall not be 20 shared by two abutting lots . " The amendment is to delete 21 that section. 22 And then the second portion of that is to add language 23 to Section 9 .6 , Joint Use of Parking Areas . The language 24 for that, "Abutting lots may share parking aisles, provided 25 there is a written agreement establishing conditions of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 90 1 joint use, of maintenance requirements, and of ingress and 2 egress requirements . The joint use of parking aisles does 3 not exclude the minimum parking requirements for the 4 abutting lots . When the agreement has been properly 5 executed by the owners of all affected property and approved 6 as to content and form by The City Attorney and Planning 7 Director, a copy of the executed agreement will be submitted 8 with an application for a building permit. " 9 And the effect that that change in the zoning code 10 would have is it would allow abutting lots to share access 11 aisles and parking aisles . The agreement would make sure 12 that the maintenance of the parking area would be insured 13 and that ingress and egress to all lots is assured, and that 14 everyone is aware of the joint use of the property. 15 I have been informed by the City Attorney that when 16 those agreements come through, that we need to make sure 17 that anybody who buys the property is aware of these 18 conditions on the property and that they are taken care of. 19 And that would be a portion that would have to be reviewed 20 with the agreements when they come through. 21 And then the other section that would be amended is - - 22 the City Council has directed time delays in construction of 23 parking lots be granted currently before businesses can open 24 if they are required to pave their parking lots . The 25 language that' s been suggested for Section 9 . 7 , which is PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 91 1 Construction and Maintenance of Parking Areas , would be to 2 allow businesses or offices that have fewer than 20 parking 3 spaces up to a two-year period to construct their parking 4 lots . 5 The proposed language , "The City Council may approve 6 delays in construction of parking areas which require one to 7 twenty parking spaces . A delay in construction of a parking 8 area shall not be granted without a written agreement 9 establishing the conditions for the delay and the length of 10 time for delay. No delay shall exceed 24 months from the 11 approval of the agreement. The agreement has to be executed 12 by the City of Las Cruces and the owner of the property 13 containing the parking area, that the contents and the form 14 of the agreement have been approved by The City Attorney and 15 Planning Director . The agreement may be only extended for 16 an additional time period upon affirmative vote of City 17 Council . " 18 Again, this was reviewed by the City Attorney. And his 19 comments were that there should be a stipulation of an 20 additional time period for granting of an additional time 21 period, and that could be some type of date possibly up to 22 another 24-month period. 23 And those are the amendments to section nine, 24 concerning parking, that are being proposed. I would be 25 happy to answer any questions that you may have? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 92 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any public participation? 2 If not, we will go on to commissioner input. 3 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, Mr . Weir 4 did mention that it was the property owner , because we had 5 some question about that in a work session, because somebody 6 only stayed six months . 7 MR. WEIR: That' s correct. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : It' s in there . It addresses 9 that. The agreement has been executed by the City of Las 10 Cruces and the owner of the property containing the parking 11 area. 12 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other input? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : In that work session, 15 we discussed if a piece of property keeps changing hands 16 oftner than 24 months, that would necessitate language that 17 would indicate that there is one 24-month extension, 18 regardless of how many times it changes hands . I didn' t see 19 that in here. Did I miss that? 20 MR. WEIR: It wasn' t in there . That' s what 21 Mark suggested, that any extension that we put a time period 22 on that. We could basically add that into one of the 23 sentences. In the last sentence , was it a one-month period 24 or a two-year period you suggested in additional extensions, 25 if they were granted a 24-month period for delay of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 93 1 construction of their parking area, and they still hadn' t 2 done it, that they could come in for an additional time 3 period, and it would go to the City Council . Do you have, 4 as a commission, a feeling for how long that extension 5 should be? Was there a maximum period? 6 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I think if after 12 7 months you sold it, they would have another twelve months to 8 fulfill that obligation. 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The extension goes with the 10 property. 11 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Yeah. Maybe Mark can 12 shed some light on this issue . 13 MR. SIMMS : I didn' t write it. Although I 14 see your point. You are saying like in the first year you 15 had 24 months , but in 12 months you sold it, does the new 16 owner have 24 months now or does he have a year . 17 And my interpretation would be that a person has one 18 more year, unless he goes to the council at the end of that 19 period, and they take a look at it, and he says, I only got 20 one year because the original owner had the first 12 months, 21 would you give me more time? That would be a good reason 22 for him to get an extension. 23 COMMISSIONER LINARD: But I think we said we 24 wanted to tie it to the property, not the owners. 25 MR. SIMMS : If it' s tied to the property, the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 94 1 original person gets 24 months . But I am saying, after the 2 end of the original 24 , if he goes to the council and says, 3 Look I bought this when it only had one year, can you give 4 me another year? Something like that would be fair. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : The purpose of that 6 extension is to alleviate a financial hardship on these 7 small businesses that are going into these places, so not to 8 grant an additional extension would be contrary to that 9 intent, don' t you think? 10 MR. SIMMS : I don' t think it would be 11 difficult for them to make that case at all . 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : So that would be in the 13 form of a variance kind of thing? 14 MR. SIMMS : No. The way that is set up, it 15 says go to the council for an extension. Right, the 16 original approval of the delay would have to go through the 17 City Council . And then any extension would also go to the 18 City Council for their approval . So it would be directly 19 the council making the decision. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So do you agree to an 21 extension beyond the 24 months? 22 COMMISSIONER LORD: The word "conditions, " 23 and the conditions for the delay really leave this thing in 24 a lot of gray area. I mean you can have flooding problems, 25 you can have financial hardship - - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 95 1 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Which I am having 2 right now. 3 COMMISSIONER LORD: Who is going to call it 4 an appropriate condition versus a non-appropriate condition? 5 And when is it going to stop? 6 MR. WEIR: That would be a decision of City 7 Council, and it would be a policy decision. 8 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So it' s going to be 9 left totally discretionary upon the City Council to decide 10 what a financial hardship is , or what it isn' t, or whether 11 there are other safety considerations or health 12 considerations, or whatever? 13 COMMISSIONER LORD: How can someone prove 14 financial hardship? How are we going to find out how much 15 it costs to have a parking lot paved? And do we have them 16 bring a financial statement in to find out if they have the 17 money or not? This seems kind of crazy to me. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : So you are saying, 19 going back to the property, that it' s a 24-month period of 20 time, and once that 24 months is up, regardless of whether 21 the property changes hands , the new owner has no more than 22 12 months, so that would go - - 23 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: You are dealing with 24 time periods, and it depends on the conditions . Who decides 25 what the conditions are, even in the first 24 months? The PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 96 1 conditions have to be raised - - 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I say, eliminate those 3 conditions . Just give them 24 or 36 months, or 24, plus 4 12 - - 5 COMMISSIONER LINARD: They shouldn' t have 6 bought the property if they couldn' t afford the parking lot. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : - - as a maximum with 8 the property. 9 COMMISSIONER LINARD: What is that saying, If 10 you can' t do the time, don' t do the crime? 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So are we all in agreement 12 to a 24-month extension that goes with the property? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Let' s see how that 14 works . 15 MR. SIMMS: Commissioner Lord, were you 16 stating that anyone who asks for a delay in construction 17 should be granted it, and you don' t want the language as to 18 a statement of their conditions? 19 COMMISSIONER LORD: I don' t think so. Yeah, 20 that' s what I am saying. I don' t think we should be dealing 21 with conditions, because it' s going to be real arbitrary. 22 And we can set ourselves up for lots of problems , and the 23 City Council would not appreciate that, I don't think. 24 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Where did that come 25 from anyway? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 97 1 MR. WEIR: This was directed by the City 2 Council to be incorporated. This language was not their 3 specific language . 4 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Who directed it on 5 the City Council? 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : There are several issues 7 that are coming up like that, and people are coming in and 8 asking for extensions . And they are getting them. But they 9 want to put a little bit more - - 10 MR. WEIR: Part of the problem is you have a 11 very strict parking requirement and a very rigid parking 12 requirement, and you know the improvements are quite 13 expensive, you know either two inches of asphalt or five 14 inches of concrete . 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And we conditioned it so 16 that would be 20 parking spaces or less? 17 MR. WEIR: The only problem you might have if 18 you take the condition language out is, it' s like automatic 19 for anyone . At least this way they would have to come up 20 with some type of justification to receive the time delay. 21 If they couldn' t come up - - 22 COMMISSIONER LORD: I also see a problem 23 where if there are some extremely legitimate conditions--and 24 you have to have conditions sometimes--this could be very 25 difficult. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 98 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Which language specifically 2 are you concerned with in the paragraph? 3 COMMISSIONER LORD: In the first line down on 4 the last page . 5 MR. WEIR: "A delay in the installation of 6 parking area shall not be granted without a written 7 agreement establishing the conditions for the delay and 8 length of time for the delay, " is the sentence, I believe, 9 in question. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Well , I don' t know. I think 11 there was one situation that the counsel extended it for 18 12 months, in which the applicant came in and posed his dilemna 13 quite well, so that the council did give him that 18-month 14 extension, and it was due to financial hardship. 15 The council wants us to do this because they are having 16 some problems , and they want to have the right to allow some 17 people to have some delays ; is that correct? 18 MR. WEIR: I believe they are just wanting to 19 build in some flexibility. 20 COMMISSIONER LORD: They are trying to build 21 in flexibility for the council to be lenient in certain 22 situations. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : When we originally worked on 24 this a few years ago, the intent was to try to eventually 25 get the paving done . What the interpretation, as it came PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 99 1 down, was that at the time the permit was issued or, for 2 example, the change of use came about--let' s say, for 3 example , you had a residential home here in the central 4 business district that they wanted to change to a lawyer' s 5 use . The parking area of the driveway was dirt. It wasn' t 6 improved. And so before they could get their business 7 license, they had to go in there and pave the parking lot. 8 And in some cases, that proved to be a hardship. 9 And then there was this case I was telling you about, 10 the 18 months or so. There are several of these cases, now, 11 that are having to be addressed. 12 COMMISSIONER LORD: So maybe "conditions" are 13 appropriate . 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Conditions, I think, would 15 be appropriate . I think you would have to find that they 16 would probably have to be taken into consideration. 17 Any more discussion? Okay, let' s go on to the vote 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I'll abstain since I 19 haven't been here for the work sessions. 20 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Aye . 22 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The chair votes aye . 24 ( The motion carried, 4 to 0 with one 25 abstention. ) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992 100 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And there is one more issue 2 to take care of before the end of the meeting. PUD-92-003 3 and Case 5-90-026 , which we postponed until the end of the 4 meeting, because of the failure of the applicants to appear. 5 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr. Chairman, I move we 6 postpone these for the July meeting. 7 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? All in favor, 9 aye. 10 ( The motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0 . ) 11 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I move that we 12 adjourn. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : All in favor aye . 15 ( The motion carried unanimously 5 to 0 . ) 16 ( The meeting adjourned at 10 : 40 p.m. ) 17 18 19 20 Chairman PeRg Commissioner Linard 21 22 23 Comm' i et Ferreira ommi sioner Willis 424 25 Commissioner Lord PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF LAS CRUCES June 23 , 1992