Loading...
05-27-1992 1 1 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 2 3 4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 5 May 27 , 1992 6 7 : 30 p.m. 7 City Council Chambers 8 9 10 11 12 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 13 EDDIE PEREZ , JR. , Chairman 14 ROGER LORD 15 ED BAILEY 16 KAY WILLIS 17 SHARLYN LINARD 18 19 20 STAFF PRESENT: 21 Vincent Banegas 22 Mark Sims 23 - 24 25 Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Carmission may 27, 1992 Minutes 2 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I will call to order the May 2 27 , 1992 , meeting of the Las Cruces Planning and Zoning 3 Board. This meeting will be conducted following Robert' s 4 Rules of Order . If any member of the public has a comment 5 or question that he or she wishes to address to the 6 commission, they will be recognized by the chair . They will 7 state their name so it may be entered into the permanent 8 record of these proceedings . 9 Each person will be recognized for a time period not 10 exceeding three minutes . If someone has new or additional 11 information, then that individual will be given one 12 additional minute to speak after all citizens who wish to 13 speak on the case have been recognized. 14 When a large number of citizens wish to discuss the 15 case as a neighborhood group, then 15 minutes will be 16 allowed for a group spokesperson, if one has been selected 17 by a neighborhood group as their representative . If this 18 spokesperson is elected, then all other citizens wanting to 19 speak on that case will be given one additional minute. 20 The Planning and zoning Commission is meeting tonight 21 to have a public hearing on two zoning code amendments, two 22 subdivisions, one planned unit development amendment, and to 23 make recommendations to the City Council to either approve 24 or deny the request for zone changes , annexations or 25 amendments to the zoning code The City Council will make Las Cures Planning and Zoning Cormission May 27, 1992 Minutes 3 1 the final decision on these requests at its meeting on 2 approximately July 6 , 1992 . 3 The Planning and Zoning Commission will grant final 4 approval or denial on requests for all special use permits , 5 subdivisions and planned unit developments at tonight' s 6 meeting. Any person adversely affected by the decision of 7 this commission may file a written appeal stating the 8 grounds for his appeal to the City Council within 15 days of 9 this meeting. 10 The following agenda will be considered by the Planning 11 and Zoning Commission. The City of Las Cruces will make 12 every effort to provide reasonable accommodations for people 13 with disabilities who wish to attend a public meeting. 14 Please notify the City at least 24 hours before the meeting, 15 telephone number 526-0000 or TDD number, 526-1222 . 16 Okay, we don' t have any items on the consent agenda . 17 We ' ll go on to old business , the first item being a case 18 under subdivisions 19 CASE 5-91-036 : A request for final plat approval of 20 Homestead Acres, #8 . The property is located south of 21 Highway 70 and east of Compas Road. The plat contains plus 22 or minus 3 87 acres , which will create 4 lots . Zone REM. 23 Submitted by Richard E. Madrid. 24 Is the applicant present? 25 MS . LINARD: Make a motion to remove from the Las Crices Planning and Zoning Cormission May 27, 1992 Minute 4 1 table . 2 MR. BAILEY: Second. Did you want to mention 3 about the university? 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Point of order, if I may. 5 For the public convenience , the City has requested to table 6 Case ZCA-91-003 and case ZCA-91-004 . 91-003 is an 7 amendment to the City of Las Cruces Zoning Code , Section 8 6 . 2 , special districts : 6 . 2G, University Avenue Corridor 9 Overlay Zone District. 10 Case ZCA 91-004 is an amendment to City of Las Cruces 11 Zoning Code , Article 13 , Sign Code, Section C.10 . 12 These are being asked to be postponed by the City. We 13 apologize for the inconvenience, but apparently there are 14 some issues that the City needs to clarify. 15 Is that correct? 16 MR. HILL : Yes, Mr . Chairman. If I may be 17 allowed to address the public? 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Certainly. 19 MR. HILL: If there are people here who have 20 received notice of this project for the first time, or would 21 like to have an update on how the planning process is going, 22 I can discuss the project with you in the lobby. And I will 23 give you as much update information as I can. Thank you. 24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr . Chairman, may I 25 ask him a question? _Tas Cruces Planning and Zoning Comr i ssion May 27, 1992 Minutes 5 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Certainly. 2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: From the standpoint of 3 procedure , since some of us are here for this particular 4 issue and it is being postponed, what is the next step? 5 When will we next be notified? What are we shooting toward? 6 MR. HILL : We are shooting to, if the 7 commission can resolve the issues that have been presented 8 to it, we ' re looking to have the ordinance discussed at the 9 June Planning and zoning Commission hearing. 10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So it would be another 11 presentation before this body? 12 MR HILL : Yes . 13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There won' t be 14 anything else discussed that the public would be interested 15 in before this commission? 16 MR HILL : There will be work sessions 17 between now and that hearing. 18 UNIDENTIFED SPEAKER: Pertaining to the 19 university project? 20 MR. HILL: Yes , there will be . And if you 21 wish, I can give you the date and time and place of those 22 work sessions . 23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We'd just like to see 24 a little more publicity to eliminate confusion so we can 25 follow the chain of events . Las Cruces Panning and Zoning Commission May 27, 1992 Minutes 6 1 MR. HILL • You should have received a 2 certified letter about this meeting. 3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We were unaware of 4 what was going to transpire when we got here , so we want to 5 know what' s going to happen next. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : One of the work sessions was 7 schedules for June 9th; is that correct? 8 MR. HILL : Yes , that' s correct . 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : There will be another 10 function that will be taking place at that time , and I and 11 one of the other members of the commission respectfully 12 would like to request that that be changed to another date , 13 if possible . 14 MR. HILL: Changed to the following Tuesday, 15 or later that week? What would be your preference? 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Whatever will be convenient 17 for the other commissioners . Whether that week or the 18 following Tuesday. 19 MR. HILL: I could call the commissioners 20 individually to find out what would be their preference . 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : If you would, please . 22 MS . LINARD: Mr . Chairman, we said table or 23 postpone . Do you need a motion to table or postpone the two 24 items? 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We need a motion to Las C-uCes Planning and Zoning Cormission May 27, 1992 Minutes 7 1 postpone . 2 MR. BAILEY: We ' re already addressing one 3 now. We ' re already working on your first case . 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Yes, for the purpose of 5 advising the public in case they need to leave, we already 6 have a motion that is seconded for approval to remove from 7 the table Case S-91-036 . If we may continue with that, and 8 then when we finish with that, we ' ll do the postponement on 9 the other two cases 10 That was my mistake for not bringing that. So we' re 11 all set for the next meeting with the public on the 12 university corridor, right? 13 MR. HILL: Okay. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, continuing again with 15 Case 5-91-036 , it has been moved and seconded to remove from 16 the table , and is Mr . Madrid here? 17 Mr . Madrid, would you like to approach the podium, 18 please? 19 MR. CAMPOS : My name is Ernie Campos. I 'm 20 representing Mr . Madrid with Moy Surveying. To start off, 21 we decided that he will give the 10-foot right-of-way that 22 we had an agreement with the Planning Department, and they 23 will pay for the removal of the landscape at time of 24 construction within a three-year period. 25 If that doesn' t happen, the land will fall back into I,as Cruces Planning and Zoning Commission May 27, 1992 Minutes 8 1 the-- 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Will fall back into the 3 present possession? 4 MR. CAMPOS : Exactly. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Mr . Erickson. 6 MR. ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, for the record, 7 Jim Erickson, Director of Development Services . What we are 8 proposing, as City staff--and I visited with the City 9 Manager--is that we will draft an agreement between the City 10 and the property owner wherein the City will agree that if 11 we do not take action to improve the roads Pecan and Compas 12 within a three-year time period, commencing tonight, that 13 the land will revert to the property owner . Provisions for 14 relocation of fences and vegetation will be handled pursuant 15 to the direction we receive from the City Council , the City 16 paying for--depending on the total cost, but generally--all 17 of the relocation. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, at this particular 19 point in time, we ' ll go ahead and open it to public 20 participation. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to 21 address this particular case? If not, we ' ll go on to 22 commissioner input. Does anyone have any comments on this 23 case, or questions? 24 MR. LORD: We got a copy of your memo to the 25 City Council and the City Manager . Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Commission Mav 27, 1992 Minutes 9 1 MR. ERICKSON Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 2 Lord, it was a verbal discussion with the City Manager . The 3 City Council has established a consensus policy that on 4 relocations, the City will pay generally $500 , the first 5 $500 per lot , per street frontage . Above and beyond that, I 6 think it' s up to $1 , 000 , the City will split the cost 50/50 7 between the property owner and the City And then above and 8 beyond $1 , 000 , it becomes the property owner ' s 9 responsibility. 10 In reviewing the costs with my staff and with Mr . 11 Madrid, we believe that once he has resolved the plat and 12 gotten it approved, that the costs will be under that $500 13 per lot per frontage limit . The Council policy has been 14 extremely flexible on acquisition of right-of-way, and it' s 15 an ongoing process . We ' re making efforts to try and obtain 16 right-of-way on all roads . We ' re trying to concentrate on 17 major roads Pecan Lane is probably substantially more 18 important than Compas . While I can' t predict the future, my 19 prognostication would be that it' s much more likely that we 20 will acquire Pecan Lane right-of-way, probably within the 21 next 12 months , than it is that we will acquire right-of-way 22 on Compas . I would expect we would execute the provisions 23 of the agreement on Pecan within the next 12 months . 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments or 25 questions? Okay, then we ' ll go on to the vote on Case Las Cruces Panning and Zoning Commission May 27, 1992 Minutes 10 1 S-91-036 as agreed to between the City of Las Cruces and the 2 owner , Richard Madrid And we don' t have a written document 3 right now. That will be coming later, right? 4 MR. ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, that will be 5 approved, more than likely, by the City Manager at a 6 subsequent date . I believe pursuant to Council discussion 7 he does have authority to execute that type of agreement . 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay. 9 MS . WILLIS : Mr. Chairman, are they still 10 requesting postponement on this issue? 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We' re voting on--what they 12 have done is after we were advised that there would be a 13 possible postponement, they have just now come to an 14 agreement as to what the conditions are going to be 15 regarding this right-of-way. Mr. Erickson has just 16 explained to us the process that will take place , and what 17 we will be voting on in a recommendation to the Council is 18 either acceptance or denial of the recommendation of the 19 City staff and how they will arrive at the agreement with 20 Mr . Madrid. 21 And would you, for the record, so that they will 22 understand, would you please state what the agreement is 23 going to be . 24 MR. ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, the agreement 25 will be between the City and Mr . Madrid. Mr . Madrid will Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Ccmmission May 27, 1.992 Minutes 11 1 transfer to the City right-of-way equal to 10 feet along 2 Compas and 10 feet along Pecan at such time as the City 3 begins the improvement process on those roads, where we 4 actively undertake widening them. 5 In the agreement we have a provision that if the City 6 does not take action to execute the agreement, i .e . , move 7 the vegetation and the fence , then after a three-year 8 period, the agreement would, in essence , expire, and Mr . 9 Madrid would have no obligation under that agreement to 10 provide right-of-way And the City would have no claim on 11 that right-of-way under that agreement. That would not 12 preclude some future action by the City in a separate deal 13 with Mr . Madrid, but under this subdivision, we would have 14 no claim. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do you understand the issue? 16 So what we will be voting on is either acceptance or denial 17 of the proposal . 18 MR. ERICKSON: Of the subdivision. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Of the subdivision. 20 MS . LINARD: Mr . Erickson, is there any 21 provision for drainage between the lots of the subdivision? 22 MR. ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 23 Linard, there has been some discussion at a past meeting on 24 whether or not a drainage easement is necessary. My 25 understanding, and Vincent can correct me if I 'm wrong, but Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Commission May 27, 1992 Minutes 12 1 I don' t think that we 've decided to require those . I would 2 stand corrected if he has other information. 3 MR. BANEGAS : Mr . Chairman, for point of 4 clarification, there was an issue at the last meeting 5 involving the need for a master drainage study. Staff at 6 that time , and of course following the review process, had 7 felt that doing a master drainage study on such a relatively 8 small parcel of land would be rather difficult to do. They 9 feel that providing the necessary drainage easement between 10 the lots themselves should suffice in the transfer of water 11 that already crosses the property at this point in time , to 12 let it continue through the property without any detriment 13 to any adjoining lots . So that was one of the issues that 14 was brought up, that they do provide the drainage easement 15 between these properties . 16 MS . LINARD• Mr . Chairman, do you have that 17 resolved before we vote? 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Resolved by the staff? 19 MS . LINARD: By the owner, that he will allow 20 easement between each of the lots for drainage . 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Mr. Madrid, or your 22 representative . The issue of the drainage--would your 23 client be in agreement to allow the drainage to occur as it 24 presently is occurring through the lots in lieu of a master 25 drainage plan? Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Comissior Ma_,r 27, 1992 Minute. 13 1 MR CAMPOS : At the time when we spoke with 2 David Weir , one of the agreements was that he was to provide 3 a 35-foot building setback line along Compas Road. That the 4 drainage easement that he was requesting would be 5 eliminated. Now, it just came back right now as we ' re all 6 speaking. And when we spoke with Mr . Erickson, they were 7 going to eliminate it . 8 There is no need for a drainage--well , these drainage 9 easement lines to go in between a property line . At the 10 time the electric company put a 10-foot easement on the rear 11 of the lot, where the client won' t be able to put a rock 12 wall or any kind of wall along that easement. So I don' t 13 see any need for a drainage easement if there is nothing 14 going to be passing through there in the first place . 15 Where there is going to be on-site ponding, in case he 16 sells any of the lots , there will be an on-site ponding area 17 per lot . As far as the drainage easement goes , it' s 18 according to the hydraulic engineer . We also spoke to Marty 19 Pillar . He stated there is no use for a drainage easement 20 along those property lines because it was just a small lot. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Does that answer your 22 question or your concern? 23 MS . LINARD• Mr . Chairman, my concern is "he 24 said, they said and somebody else said. " But we don' t have 25 it in writing we don' t have an agreement with the City Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Comnissior. Mav 27, 1992 Minutes 14 1 Manager . We don' t have an agreement that the drainage 2 easement is unnecessary. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Perhaps we can refer it back 4 to staff. Mr . Erickson. 5 MR ERICKSON: With respect to the agreement 6 on the road acquisition, that' s really an administrative 7 issue that would not come to the planning commission and may 8 or may not get to council , depending on what the manager 9 feels he has been given as far as authority. Again, my 10 understanding is that he has been given the authority to 11 execute that type of agreement, so it wouldn' t go to 12 council . It would be purely an administrative decision. My 13 recommendation on the drainage issue would be to approve the 14 subdivision contingent upon City staff signing off on 15 whether or not there will be a drainage easement. The mere 16 fact there is or isn' t is merely a drafting function of 17 having the engineer put it on the plat before it' s filed. 18 The City does control the filing of it. If the City staff 19 believes it' s critical and you've approved it with that 20 contingency, the applicant would have to come back to get 21 you to override the staff. And I think, rather than delay 22 the applicant another month, I think we can resolve it 23 within a two- or three-day period with just discussions 24 between the applicant and staff. 25 MS . LINARD• Mr . Chairman. Thank you, Mr . Las Cru�-es Planning and Zoning Corsi i SSior. May 27, 1992 Minutes 15 1 Erickson. I understand Mr . Zaldo can do that . Then we 2 should redo our denial or acceptance in an amendment that 3 it' s contingent upon the City staff doing whatever they need 4 to do. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Right. This approval or 6 denial of this case would be subject to the conditions as 7 entered as an amendment to the proposal to the subdivision. 8 MR. ERICKSON: Yes, that' s correct. The 9 conditions would be an executed agreement between the City 10 and the property owner on the road right-of-way and 11 agreement or concurrence by the City staff on whether or not 12 drainage easements are required. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So do we understand all the 14 issues? Any further discussion? Are we ready to vote on it 15 as amended? Let ' s call the vote . 16 MR LORD Aye 17 MR BAILEY No 18 MS . WILLIS : Aye . 19 MS . LINARD: Aye . 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Chair votes aye . Motion is 21 three to one in favor . 22 MS . LINARD: Four to one . 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Four to one . That' s right, 24 I 'm sorry. 25 MS LINARD Mr . Chairman, I move that we Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Cc -Mission May 27., 1992 Minutes 16 1 postpone the items ZCA 91-003 and ZCA 91-004 . 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second? 3 MR. LORD: Second. 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any discussion? All in 5 favor? Opposed? Motion carries . ( 5 to 0 ) 6 Then we ' ll go on to our second case under old 7 business Zoning Case PUD 92-003 , a request to amend the 8 planned unit development standards for Las Colinas PUD. The 9 amendment is to clarify the setback requirements for lots 10 located on T and Y cul-de-sacs within Las Colinas PUD. The 11 property is located generally north of US 70 and west of Las 12 Alameads Boulevard. Submitted by Roger Cox, Western Land 13 Developers . 14 May I have a motion to remove from the table? 15 MS . WILLIS • So moved. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Do I have a second? 17 MS LINARD: Second. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present? 19 MR. THURSTON: Yes , sir . 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would you care to make a 21 presentation at this point? 22 MR. THURSTON: Yes , I would. My name is Ken 23 Thurston. Again, for those that were not here last month, 24 the reason for this request has come about as a result of 25 the changes that the City administration has asked us to Las Ci-uc e s Planning and Zoning Commission May 27, 1992 Minutes 17 1 pursue , and that being to create a document that could be 2 put in--a drawing document--that could be put in our PUD 3 document so that when changes occur at City hall in staff, 4 that it is clear , the setback location, front yards, side 5 yards , and so forth, in T and Y cul-de-sacs . 6 Since last month, we have met with staff again 7 regarding clarification of the setbacks and basically have 8 talked about all of the safety reasons as to the setbacks 9 and so forth. We would, after that conversation, request a 10 change in our proposal . 11 We had proposed to you last month a 15-foot minimum 12 from back of curb on the T and the Y. We would now request 13 that we change that to a 20-foot minimum back of curb versus 14 15 . Part of the reason for that is to meet the clear sight 15 triangle regulation that is now present in the City of Las 16 Cruces . 17 When Dave and I and Vincent drew out the clear sight 18 triangle requirements in the T cul-de-sacs , it was very 19 close to the 15 . But in order to eliminate any confusion, 20 we said, "Let' s go to the 20-foot, " thereby meeting that 21 requirement. 22 Basically, we ' re here tonight to ask for your approval, 23 either of our proposal that we submitted with that change, 24 or the staff recommendations . I think Vincent has called it 25 staff recommendation number two . So I would request your Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Commis,ion Mav 27, 1992 Minutes 18 vote for approval of our PUD amendment, and I would be 1 from the commission or from the 2 willing to answer questions 3 staff . CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Staff . 4as Mr . Thurston MR. BANEGAS : Mr Chairman, 5indicated , this case specifically has relates to the T and Y 6 There had been some 7 cul-de-sacs found in Las Colinas PUD. 8 confusion in the past regarding the interpretation on setbacks for lots that front along those T and Y g ears -sacs . The letter that was drafted a number of y 10 cul-de Staff has ago today presents problems in its apP lication. 11 the terms had trouble interpreting that letter and applying 12 we have put and conditions that are stated. As a result, 13 staff option one and 14 together two staff options , those being two . And those are offered for both the T and Y packet . 15 our p 1 cul-de-sacs . And these have been included in y And then, of course , also included in there is r • 18 17 relates to the Thurston, s drawing, which basically 19 interpretation letter as it stands today. The difference , and two is 20 major difference , between staff options one basically option one . what we tried to do is provide you 21 tions and with a means of comparing some of the various op 22 , approaches we could take to resolve this . ! 23 ent than staff 24 Staff option one is a bit more string 25 option two . In terms of the lots that are immediately Cruces Planning and Zoning Cormis,ion La ma7v 27, 1992 Minutes 19 1 adjacent to the curbs there on both the T and Y, they open 2 up, on staff option one , they open up the front yard as a 3 result of being more stringent A little bit more so than 4 staff option two would. It would require a bare minimum of 5 15-foot setback from the back of curb, and then at the T 6 itself. And a 20-foot setback prior to the curb. If you 7 refer to your layout there on page 2-7 , which is listed at 8 the very bottom of the page . I 'm sorry, 2-6 . Excuse me . 9 You can kind of follow along. We don' t have the benefit of 10 an overhead today, but anyway, you can begin to see that the 11 opening up of these front yards spaces is occurring with 12 staff option one . In terms of the larger rectangular lots 13 that are immediately adjacent to the top of the T, once 14 again, the front yard setback along these lots is again 15 opened up and it would require also a 20-foot setback . And 16 that basically would constitute staff option one . 17 Staff option two, which staff is at this time prepared 18 to go forward with in terms of recommendation, is a middle 19 ground, if you will , between what the interpretation letter 20 appears to be saying and what staff option one is saying. 21 And you can see and flip to both T and Y pages in both staff 22 option two and see there is some middle ground being 23 achieved here . We ' re not opening up the front yard as much 24 in staff option two as we did in one, but yet we are still 25 ensuring that clear sight triangle issue is not a factor Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Cormission May 27, 1992 Minutes 20 1 And we ' re also ensuring that there is not as much 2 encroachment on structures , and so forth, that may occur as 3 a result of adhering to the interpretation that was handed 4 down a number of years ago . 5 If I may, Mr Chairman, turn that back around to you, 6 and I ' ll be more than happy to answer any questions that you 7 might have concerning either of the options . And I ' ll take 8 those at this time . 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay. Then I ' ll go ahead 10 and open it up to public participation. Does anybody in the 11 audience wish to address this case , PUD 92-003? If not, we 12 will go ahead and open it to commissioner input. 13 Commissioners , any questions or comments on this case? 14 MR BAILEY. Ken, I 'm a little confused. Is 15 staff option number one the one you indicated that you 16 preferred? 17 MR. THURSTON Number two. I prefer my own 18 or staff option number two . 19 MR. BAILEY: I see . I got you. Thank you. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comment? 21 MS . WILLIS : I have a question for staff. 22 Could you explain why the City is willing to alter the 23 setbacks for this subdivision? 24 MR. BANEGAS • Staff has generally, in the 25 past, as a result of PUD development, relaxed standards . Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Cormission Mav 27, 1992 Minutes 21 1 Actually, it' s not staff It' s through the process of 2 approving planned units development there have been 3 standards in the past that have been relaxed to allow 4 certain things that typically would not be allowed in your 5 typical subdivision. 6 In this case , one of the biggest issues that came about 7 as a result of the approval of PUD here in Las Colinas was 8 the width of the roadway. That was probably one of the 9 largest issues that came about. What staff is trying to do 10 now is mitigate in terms of the consistency issue between 11 what was handed down in the past as far as an interpretation 12 of setback goes . And we' re trying to mitigate that idea, 13 that concept, and kind of turn it around and find the middle 14 ground whereby we ' re not giving away the farm, if you will , 15 but we are still applying the issues of front yard space; 16 the setback issue is there still ; the openness of the front 17 yard is still there Not to the extent that a typical 18 subdivision would allow, but we feel that the agreement or 19 the interpretation that was handed down to some degree has 20 some merits to it But it is a compromise ; there is no 21 doubt about it . And in PUD developments , there is always 22 that give and take on development standards . 23 MS WILLIS . Would you happen to know why the 24 City was willing to make these compromises when this PUD was 25 approved? Lias Cruces Planning and Zoning Cormission May 27, 1992 Minutes 22 1 MR. BANEGAS • At that time , Commissioner 2 Willis , the PUD that was submitted to the Planning and 3 Zoning Commission occurred probably at the time I was first 4 hired on. I 'm not privy to some of the discussions that 5 occurred at that time in terms of the actual interpretation 6 letter of the staff. Back when that letter was drafted, it 7 appeared as if there was some hardship in terms of the 8 development of the lots that were immediately adjacent to 9 the T and Y cul-de-sacs . 10 MS . WILLIS : Do you know what that hardship 11 was? 12 MR. BANEGAS : I sure don' t . I would imagine 13 the actual construction of structures or homes , if you will , 14 could have been a problem for the developer or possible 15 contractors and so forth, and that ' s why they came forward 16 to see if they could seek some relief to those typical 17 setback requirements , those that were mentioned in the PUD 18 document to begin with. 19 MS . WILLIS : So up until now, the City has 20 been approving these T and Y cul-de-sacs as are shown? 21 MR. BANEGAS • To my knowledge , there are 22 three cul-de-sacs , if I 'm not mistaken, in the current 23 phases that are out there . There are three of these type of 24 cul-de-sacs , and if I 'm not mistaken, all of these have been 25 developed on the lots So this interpretation or the Las Cruces Punning and Zoning Cc mission May 27, 1992 Minutes 23 1 interpretation letter has been used in the past for the 2 development of these lots . 3 What we are saying as staff is the wording of that 4 letter , the wording of the interpretation is very confusing, 5 convoluted, and it has posed problems for contractors coming 6 in to obtain building permits . And it has posed problems 7 for staff in applying the terms and conditions of that 8 interpretation. So we are coming here to see if we can' t 9 clean up the language a little bit and see if we can agree 10 to a setback requirement that both parties could work out or 11 be happy with. 12 MS . WILLIS : So the City' s willingness to 13 suggest an option that doesn' t comply with the normal 14 setbacks is an attempt to compromise? 15 MR. BANEGAS : Yes . 16 MS . WILLIS : Because of the letter that Mr 17 Dearing wrote? 18 MR. BANEGAS : Because of, basically, the 19 interpretation letter and the development that has occurred 20 in the past. 21 MS . WILLIS : Mr . Simms, is that letter 22 something that has legal merit? 23 MR. SIMS : Actually, yes . There are a couple 24 of different angles . I wish Bea was here and she could help 25 you look at it . The things about the letter is that at the t Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Ccmission May 2.7, 1992 Minutes 24 1 time the director who wrote the letter--and it' s valid 2 It ' s a good letter . The problem that you run into is the 3 concept of estoppel . You may have heard of it. There is 4 estoppel . It' s promissory estoppel . The idea is , if you 5 break down the elements, if the person has relied upon this 6 letter to do something, and they have done that thing, we 7 call it a change of position. If they have had a change of 8 position and they have relied upon it, on the letter, and 9 they have had a reliance that is to their detriment--not to 10 their benefit, but to their detriment--then you would have 11 estoppel . 12 If he has estoppel , according to his facts, we would 13 have to honor the letter , the present-day value of the 14 letter . A new director can come in and say, "We ' re not 15 going to follow that policy anymore . We ' re going to have a 16 new policy " 17 Then he could set out what the new policy would be 18 under his authority as the new director , but all the persons 19 who relied upon the old letter can still say estoppel , that 20 I relied upon this . 21 MS . WILLIS : Let me make sure I understood 22 you. Did you say that that applied when it worked to his 23 detriment and not to his benefit? 24 MR SIMS That' s the concept of estoppel . 25 He must have relied to his detriment. Las C-ruces Planning and Zoning Commission May 27, 1992 Minutes 25 1 MS WILLIS So if he was relying to his 2 benefit, that wouldn' t apply? 3 MR. SIMS : But detriment is a term of art. 4 All he ' s got to say is , I 've had a change of position and it 5 cost me $30 , 000 to work up plans to do this , and I 've 6 already invested in this , and that loss of money is to my 7 detriment. He just happened to buy the land, and someone 8 else came in and said, We ' ll give you a million dollars for 9 it. 10 well , he would actually benefit from that, but the new 11 person would not have relied to their detriment . They 12 simply would have bought up whatever he had started. So 13 that would be a benefit to him, and he wouldn' t be able to 14 follow through. But his detriment is, I 've lost some money. 15 I 've invested something. He could even say something like 16 time I 've been planning this , and I 've done this . But if 17 he could prove something, some loss Usually it' s monetary 18 because most people are interested in money. Once he has 19 done that, then he could start screaming, Estoppel , 20 estoppel . And I think he would be justified. 21 Of course , you'd still have the concept of consistency. 22 You want to be consistent . But if you want a bright line 23 rule--you know, the bright line rule would be the former 24 director said one thing and then the new director has 25 established a new policy, then everyone prospectively will Las Cruces Punning and Zoning Commission May 27, 1992 Minutes 26 1 have to follow the new policy But the ones prior to that, 2 well , they have to prove estoppel . 3 When this came up, I promised to write them a memo, and 4 too many things came up . But I did discuss it with the City 5 Attorney and we hit on the same legal issues and started 6 saying the same things . And it comes down to estoppel . 7 MR. BAILEY: How many cul-de-sacs does this 8 affect? 9 MR. THURSTON: If I understand, based on the 10 communication we had last month, the three cul-de-sacs that 11 are presently basically in place , it has no effect on those . 12 And I think Mr . Lord asked how many more we were planning 13 out there, and I would say, you know, we still have 14 approximately 140 acres to go . I 'm just going to roughly 15 get probably 15 to 20 additional cul-de-sacs with the T and 16 Y concept being used. So you' re talking probably in the 17 area of 60 to 80 lots that truly are affected by that 18 particular piece . 19 MS . LINARD: Mr . Chairman. The question I 20 have is you said option number two was the one you' re 21 recommending, Vincent? 22 MR BANEGAS • Yes , Commissioner . 23 MS . LINARD- For both the Y and T? 24 MR BANEGAS . Yes 25 MS LINARD. In that case , I move we pass it Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Ccrmission May 27, 1992 Minutes 27 1 with the compromise , a drawing plan. 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, we have a motion to 3 accept the staff option number two . Do I have a second? 4 MR. BAILEY: I ' ll second. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, any discussion? 6 MR. LORD: I don' t understand the compromise . 7 When I read the letter it says 15 feet twice . When I look 8 at staff option two, I see two or three places where it 9 looks like 10 feet from back of curb. And I don' t know if I 10 understand what this compromise is all about . 11 MR. BANEGAS : If I may, Mr . Chairman. 12 Commissioner Lord, let' s refer first of all to the T 13 cul-de-sac. Staff option one , if you look at the lots that 14 are immediately adjacent to where the T starts its 15 curvature, and I wish I had these numbers . It would be 16 easier to follow. But you will notice that front yard 17 setback is quite a bit larger in staff option one than in 18 staff option two, which would indicate that there has been 19 some, I guess, agreement, if you will , to relax that 20 requirement for the front setback . And you will also notice 21 that staff option two applies a 10-foot setback from the 22 right-of-way, not necessarily the back of curb. 23 The back of curb is delineated by the interior line , 24 not the outer heavy line that demarcates the street itself 25 or the right-of-way. So there is a bit of a setback issue Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Corrnission May 2-/, 1992 Minutes 28 1 there that is being adhered to in terms of that piece of the 2 corner of the proposed building or any building that could 3 be built there . Staff option one does not have that. Also, 4 the larger rectangular areas . 5 Notice in both staff options one and two , the only 6 difference there is , that in staff option two the area where 7 the possible building pad could be located there is a corner 8 at the very top of the T where it comes in closer proximity 9 to the right-of-way--in this case , approximately 10 10 feet--than in staff option one , which follows the 20-foot 11 setback boundary all the way around. And you can see the 12 differences in these two options . The original submittal 13 that was a result of the interpretation letter strictly 14 adheres to a 15-foot setback from the back of curb on all 15 those lots , whether they are the ones immediately adjacent 16 to the curvature of the T or the larger rectangular lots . 17 So there is some middle ground being achieved there 18 It may not be much, but we ' re trying to open it up a 19 little bit, but at the same time ensure that the front yard 20 setback is maintained to some degree and to ensure that the 21 clear sight triangles are not impinged upon in any way. 22 MR. LORD: So staff' s idea of strict 23 interpretation of the letter is staff option one? 24 MR. BANEGAS : It would be the one that 25 is--not the very first one It ' s not labeled staff option Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Corm►ission May 27, 1992 Minutes 29 1 at all It' s just "T road turnaround" is what it' s titled, 2 the very top. That was the submittal by the applicant based 3 on the interpretation letter . Staff at this point in time 4 is having some trouble interpreting what that letter is 5 implying You should have three T options and three Y 6 options . 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So in essence what you' re 8 saying, this dispute comes about in interpreting and 9 determining the intent of the letter that was written by Mr . 10 Dearing in 1988? 11 MR. BANEGAS : Yes . 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : To try and determine what is 13 going to take place today, the compromise that you' re 14 talking about is what the applicant is submitting versus 15 what the City is proposing in either option one or option 16 two? 17 MR. BANEGAS : Right. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And in this particular case , 19 Commissioner Linard has made a motion to adopt staff option 20 number two, and that would then do away with the 21 interpretation of the letter of 1988? 22 MR. BANEGAS - Right. That' s correct. 23 MS . WILLIS : Mr . Thurston, as we talked 24 before , I feel just as strongly, I think , as you that you 25 have every reasonable right to rely on what you've been told ?was Cruces Planning and Zoning Commission Mair 27, 1992 Minutes 30 1 in the past by the City staff on this issue . I don' t think 2 any of us question that at all . The thing that I think that 3 we ' re trying to come to terms on is what to do in the 4 future How many acres did you say you have to develop? 5 MR. THURSTON We had a total of 200 acres in 6 the process , and we have 144 remaining. 7 MS . WILLIS : And there is 80-some-odd lots? 8 MR. THURSTON: When you' re saying how many 9 are going to be T and Y, I 'm getting, on the master plan 10 that we had done--I think I counted out 22 subject to 11 change , plus or minus , you know, in the final design 12 process . But when we had the approval and presented it back 13 in 1987 , that was one of the tools that we wanted to use 14 heavily. We had looked at various uses of that in other 15 cities and liked it, and liked the concept 16 MS . WILLIS At what stage are you now in 17 terms of planning the development of these other areas? 18 MR. THURSTON: Right now we ' re trying to 19 finalize the submittal for phase number six. No, I 'm going 20 to call it phase number five because we changed on a replat 21 to number four . So it will be phase number five . And that 22 will be coming in in probably three to four months to the 23 City. And in that plan there is probably four or six of 24 these particular type of cul-de-sacs being used. 25 MS WILLIS : Would you consider the T' s or Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Commission May 27, 1992 M-inutes 31 1 Y' s that we have here to be good subdivision design, good 2 design? 3 MR. THURSTON: Would I consider-- 4 MS . WILLIS • Would you label this good 5 design, any of these options? 6 MR. THURSTON: Yes , I would. The use of T 7 and Y cul-de-sacs versus all round cul-de-sacs? Yes , I 8 would say that has some good design characteristics . 9 MS . WILLIS : Do you feel they merit ignoring 10 our setback requirements on these areas that we ' re talking 11 about? 12 MR. THURSTON: Do I feel that--say that 13 again. 14 MS . WILLIS : What I '.m asking you is if you 15 feel this is such a good design--so good and so good for the 16 community and this subdivision--that it warrants ignoring 17 our setback requirements? 18 MR. THURSTON: To answer that, I 'm going to 19 to have to say that you have to take the entire PUD process 20 and the entire document and see what we were trying to 21 accomplish based on our design goal . 22 MS . WILLIS : Which was? 23 MR. THURSTON: When you asked that of 24 Vincent, then I quickly referred back to the actual 25 document. And it was interesting. What we were trying to Las Cruces Pianning and Zoning Commission May 27, 1992 Minutes 32 1 accomplish there was eight items that we stated as our 2 purpose and intent . And one of these was to encourage the 3 flexibility in site design with respect to spacing rights 4 and density of building, open space and circulation. 5 That' s the very first one we had tried to address . And 6 based on that, yes , I think this accomplishes it. It gives 7 us flexibility that is not in the current planning and 8 zoning regulations . And that' s one of the reasons that I 9 think the PUD document was adopted by the City several years 10 ago, was to allow the developer to come into the City, 11 propose his own rules and regulations , and then have the 12 administration, the planning and zoning, and the City 13 officials look at his design, look at his proposal in its 14 entirety, and then say yes or no . 15 You know, in other words , the City, when we first came 16 down here , we felt the standard planning and zoning rules 17 were too restrictive in certain areas, not restrictive in 18 certain areas . And so that' s why we created our own 19 document. 20 And when you look at the entire document, then yes, I 21 think I can stand here and tell you that the T and Y, 22 designed the way they are and built the way they are , are 23 very acceptable to the City and to the people that are 24 buying them 25 MR LORD: I have an idea, and it might not Las Cruces Planning acid Zoning C=ission May 27, 1992 Minutes 33 1 fly, but it' s to staff . If we could go to some of the 2 people that live on some of these T' s and Y' s already in 3 existence and find out what' s going on and how they feel 4 about it and if they've lost their front yard, and if they 5 don' t--maybe get some public input . Because we ' re going to 6 live with this for a long time . And maybe we can find out 7 how some of the people that are living on these T' s and Y' s 8 feel about that setback before we approve that. Is that 9 possible? Is it a good idea? 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Staff? 11 MR. BANEGAS : In terms of actually doing 12 that, that' s very doable . we could easily access the 13 property ownership information for these lots and actually 14 go out there and pose a few questions to them. That' s fine . 15 MR LORD: Do you think it' s a good idea? 16 MR BANEGAS : It might give us some gauge as 17 to whether or not the people buying the property feel these 18 setbacks are appropriate . Short of doing anything here in 19 this meeting, trying to hammer out some agreement in terms 20 of how to handle the setbacks, that might be a logical way 21 of going about it . Getting another opinion, another view on 22 the issue from those people who actually live out there . 23 MR. LORD: It' s the people that really have 24 to live there It ' s not us 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, that would then entail Las Cnices Planning and Zoning Commtssion May 27, 1992 Minutes 34 1 another postponement 2 Then, Mr . Thurston, would that create a hardship for 3 you? 4 MR. THURSTON: We' ll have to refer to my 5 attorney now before I answer that one , right? So that I can 6 still practice my rights . That' s just a joke . As far as 7 anything that is imminent today, this does not have to be 8 answered. You know, in other words, if I had the phase five 9 in front of you and this was holding me up, then I would 10 scream about my rights . But I don' t want to drag on because 11 it is a time issue each time I have to come here and you 12 guys have to come here . But that' s all I can say about it . 13 It' s a time situation now. It' s not something that is going 14 to keep me from getting approval . 15 Last month I think we resolved the pressing issue , and 16 I think that has been resolved So that' s how I 'd have to 17 answer that. 18 MS LINARD: Mr . Chairman, when I made my 19 motion I thought it was to rectify a situation which 20 occurred in 1988 , and he was already operating under this 21 theory, and we had a compromise from that situation to what 22 the City would really like to have . And I understood Mr . 23 Thurston to say he would accept the compromise . 24 If you feel it is wise , I will withdraw my motion But 25 I thought this is not to set a precedent for the entire Las Cruces Plarming and Zoning Comm,i scion May 27, 1992 Minutes 35 1 City. This is just for someone ' s subdivision which was 2 approved. Let' s face it, I don' t like my house 20 feet from 3 the street and 200 feet from the back . In those days they 4 wouldn' t let you put it in the back of the yard. It had to 5 be 20 feet from the street . Or you couldn' t turn it 6 sideways so you wouldn' t get the sun in your house . it had 7 to be square , no matter how. So if you think it' s wise, I 8 will withdraw my motion. 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay. Well , obviously what 10 we ' re trying to do here is to try and determine the 11 interpretation of the letter . That' s the ultimate thing. 12 And so, Mr . Thurston has given us in his T turnaround--and 13 correct me if I 'm wrong--what you interpret the letter to 14 mean with this document. 15 MR. THURSTON: Yes . 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • And so, I don' t think that 17 Mr . Thurston is trying to, in this compromise , change 18 anything that the City was approving in the past. It' s just 19 a matter of interpretation. So I have no objection either 20 way. If you feel like you would want to have a survey 21 conducted and the staff is willing to do it, is capable of 22 doing it, and it doesn' t pose a hardship for Mr . Thurston, I 23 have no objection to it, if that' s the desire of the 24 commission. 25 MS . LINARD: Mr . Chairman, I withdraw my Las Cruces P'_ann:Lng and Zoning COMM iss ion MaV 27, 1992 Minutes 36 1 motion. 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Mr . Bailey, would you 3 withdraw your second? 4 , MR. BAILEY: You bet 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Then we come down to a 6 motion for postponement until such time as the City can 7 conduct a census or survey as to the feasibility of, the 8 desirability of the setbacks in staff option number one or 9 two or the T road turnaround. 10 MR. LORD: Currently, are there homes built 11 with this interpretation, the one that' s not an 12 option--that' s the way the development is right now? 13 MR. BANEGAS : Yes , Commissioner Lord. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Do I have a motion to 15 postpone? 16 MS WILLIS . I so move to postpone 17 MR. LORD: Second. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : All in favor? Opposed? 19 (Motion passed 4 to 1 . ) Motion carries to conduct a census 20 as quickly as possible . 21 We ' ll get to see your friendly face one more time . 22 MR. THURSTON: Thank you. 23 MR. BAILEY: Before we go on to the next 24 matter, Jim, was the letter from the acting director 25 appropriate at the time? Las Cruces Kanning and Zoning Commission Ma,; 27, 1992 Minutes 37 1 MR. ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 2 Bailey, my recollection of this issue is it did give us 3 fits . It is hard to interpret . I think that the planning 4 director, having been the planning director for about two 5 years , is called upon to make some calls . I don' t think 6 that it was inappropriate . I think that in hindsight it 7 should have been done as a graphic, and I think that it' s 8 clearly a lesson for us as staff, that when we make an 9 interpretation, particularly if it' s a design issue , we 10 should do it in a graphic layout stating that, Here' s what 11 we mean, say what we mean and draw what we mean. 12 And also, something we 've talked about--the credit 13 should go to former chairman McGuckin, establishing an 14 actual loose-leaf binder of previous opinions . Over time 15 we 've had major, major problems in contradictory opinions or 16 opinions that were made and then lost . So I think that 17 whatever you come up with in this, I think it' s a step in 18 the right direction 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I think in the future we' ll 20 probably continue to see many of these interpretations that 21 need to be clarified. We have had a large turnover in 22 staff, especially in the last couple of years . And the 23 interpretations vary from one person to another . And I 24 think the sign code was a good example . That' s why it had 25 to be overhauled completely, and still it wasn' t done Las Crus.-es Planning and Zoning Comission May 27, 1992 Minutes 38 1 exactly the way everybody wanted it. But it' s something 2 we ' ll be dealing with from time to time . 3 Okay, let' s then go on to new business . Case 5-90-032 . 4 MR. BANEGAS : At approximately 4 : 30 this 5 afternoon, the applicant came into my office and requested 6 that this item be withdrawn from the agenda . 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So we don' t have to act on 8 it in any capacity? 9 MR. BANEGAS : That' s correct. 10 MS . NOLEN: Mr . Chairman, may I ask for what 11 reason it was withdrawn? 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would you please come up to 13 the podium and state your name just for the record. 14 MS . NOLEN: Lewcile Nolen. I would just like 15 to know for what reason it was withdrawn. Of course , I 'm a 16 resident of that subdivision 17 MR. BANEGAS : Mr . Chairman, Ms . Nolen, I 18 asked that very question of the applicant to try and 19 arrive--perhaps fears or so forth that he may have had in 20 pursuing this issue . I tried to quell any concerns that he 21 may have had . Although I was told was that he has other 22 ideas in terms of the property usage , and he' s going to look 23 into that. So I don' t know what that means exactly. I 24 don' t know whether he ' s scrapping the whole idea, or if he ' s 25 rethinking. Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Cormission May 27, 1992 Minutes 39 1 MS NOLEN. So by withdrawing, he ' s required 2 to develop it within the August 28 date unless some 3 else occurs? thing 4 MR. BANEGAS: That's correct. He ' s got a 5 letter of credit and so forth to do the improvement. 6 MS . NOLEN: As a matter of record I had no Opposition to the time extension. I had no problem 8 that . with I was just wondering what the reason for withdrawal 9 was . 10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, may I 11 speak about that? 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Certainly. Would you please 13 come up to the microphone . 14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I had a registered 15 letter, and that was supposed to take place toni ht 16 the gentleman here knew about it, I would appreciate And if 17 you would have told us earlier . PP ate it that I have a lot to say about 18 this subdivision, and it should be of interest to 19 people .eo le , And iyou nasmuch as what he' s postponing it for-- 20 MR. BANEGAS : Withdrawing. He still has 21 approval for the subdivision as previously approved. The 22 deadline for the final plat filing is, I believe 23 of this August 28 year. So it ' s still a valid subdivision up until 24 this time. Whether he seeks another extension is 25 another issue . Las Cruces Punning and Zoning Commission May 27, 1992 Minutes 40 1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well , I 'm not here to 2 be controversial , but you used up my time . And also on this 3 paper , I want somebody to verify where this subdivision is . 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Sir, I guess if anyone needs 5 to be chastised, it' s myself, because staff did advise me 6 that the applicant was probably going to withdraw this case . 7 I wasn' t sure whether or not he was going to come in at a 8 later time or not tonight because I didn' t--was that 9 official? 10 MR. BANEGAS : Mr . Chairman, the applicant 11 requested that I wait until he arrived. He was going to 12 deliver the message himself . He apparently had some issues 13 to discuss , or at least relay on to the commission. And I 14 do have his letter asking for the withdrawal . But again, he 15 did come to my office 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . So we were aware there was a 17 possible withdrawal to take place , but he was still possibly 18 going to show up. Obviously, he didn' t. So at this 19 particular point in time, we are formally stating that it' s 20 being withdrawn. 21 We apologize for the inconvenience, but it was just one 22 of those things 23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Could I ask you to indulge a 24 little bit. It says located west of Mesa Drive Do you 25 mean Mesa Grande or Mesa Drive? Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Commission May 27, 1992 Minutes 41 1 MS NOLEN: Mesa Grande . 2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well , the letter says 3 Mesa Drive , and I 've been getting less than a full deck from 4 the planning department in all the letters I received I 5 don' t like to say this, but it' s the truth . And this 6 definitely says Mesa Drive . And it is west of Mesa Drive, 7 but it' s more accurate if it was on Mesa Grande , west of 8 Mesa Grande , because that' s where it borders, does it not? 9 MR. BANEGAS : Mr. Chairman, the subdivision 10 itself is west of both Mesa Drive and Mesa Grande . We 11 typically highlight or point out major thoroughfares that 12 are adjacent to areas where it is rural in nature in terms 13 of development. So it is west of both. 14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well , it' s also. west 15 of the town of Organ, if you want to use that criteria. 16 MR. BANEGAS : The nearest thoroughfare to 17 that in terms of north-south route would be Mesa Drive . 18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well , I had some 19 information for you. I 've got an appointment with the 20 planning department Monday at 11 : 00 , so I ' ll let it go . 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : That will be fine . 22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But I think you would 23 have been wise to hear , but if you don' t wish to, I won' t 24 give it to you 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . I think the issue is moot . Las CI-uces Pianning and Zoning Ccxrmission Mawr 27, 1992 Minute 42 1 We apologize for the inconvenience . 2 MS LINARD• Mr . Chairman, I didn' t see Mr . 3 Simms over there earlier, or I would have asked this 4 question. I am aware that I have not seen the latest 5 ordinance on appointments , boards , commissions and 6 committees , and I thought this position was vacated on March 7 31st . And I just wanted you to know that I 'm aware I may 8 not be legal tonight, and I wanted that in the minutes . 9 MR. SIMS : You are one of the most legal 10 persons on the commission. The intent, even if it' s not 11 clear , since I helped to father ,this big boards ordinance, 12 is that no one was to leave office until someone would 13 replace them. ordinarily, we needed a date because there 14 was some bond requirements for some of the other boards . So 15 they wanted a specific date And that' s why there is a date 16 in there . But if they read on, the next section would have 17 said--and the intent clearly, without ambiguity, is that you 18 would remain in office on whatever boards until someone came 19 to replace you. If no one was appointed to replace you or 20 you weren' t reappointed, then you would simply continue, 21 even though it was past a specific date . 22 MS . LINARD: Mr . Chairman, Mr . Simms , thank 23 you very much. I saw about four drafts of the ordinance , 24 but I haven' t seen the final thing. So I just wanted you to 25 know I was aware of that . Las Cruces PI_anning and Zoning Com:lission May 27, 1992 Minutes 43 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. 2 Just for the record, Mr . Banegas just handed me a 3 letter from Mr Roy Moore , and it states, "I , Mr . Roy Moore , 4 applicant for Case S-90-032 , would like to withdraw from 5 consideration my request for final plat extension. This 6 case was to be heard on 5-27-92 at the May Planning and 7 Zoning Commission meeting. Sincerely, Roy Moore . " 8 Any other issues to come before this commission? Any 9 discussion or comments from the commission? If not, can we 10 have a motion for adjournment? I 'm sorry, before I do that, 11 any comments from the staff? 12 MR. BANEGAS : There is nothing at this time , 13 Mr . Chairman. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : In that case, do we have a 15 motion for adjournment? 16 MS . WILLIS : I move we adjourn. 17 MR. BAILEY: Second. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : All in favor? 19 ( The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 55 p.m. ) 20 21 f Eddie Pe , J Chm. Sharlyn Linard 22 , 23 e7 24 Ro r,,,9o,d Ed Bailey 25 Xk", Kay Willlys Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Cormissiol May 27, 1992 Minutes