Loading...
12-15-1992 1 1 2 3 4 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 5 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 7 8 MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 15, 1992 9 10 7 : 00 p.m. 11 12 AT THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 13 14 15 16 17 18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioner Eddie Perez , Chairman Commissioner Sharlyn Linard 19 Commissioner Kay Willis Commissioner Roger Lord 20 Commissioner Richard Killian Commissioner Harold Daw 21 Commissioner Pablo Montoya 22 STAFF PRESENT: David Weir Mark Simms 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 2 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, we will go ahead and 2 call the meeting to order . This meeting will be conducted 3 following Roberts Rules of Order . If any member of the 4 public has a comment or question that he or she wishes to 5 address to the Commission, they will be recognized by the 6 chair, and then they will state their name so that it may be 7 entered into the permanent records of these proceedings 8 Each person will be recognized once on each case at 9 issue for a time period not exceeding three minutes, if 10 someone has new or additional information, then that 11 individual will be given one additional minute to speak 12 after all citizens who wish to speak on the case have been 13 recognized. 14 When a large number of citizens wish to discuss a case 15 as a neighborhood group, then five minutes will be allowed 16 for a group spokesperson, if one has been selected by the 17 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 three zoning cases, one special 22 use permit, five subdivisions, one planned unit development, 23 and to make recommendations to the City Council to either 24 approve or deny the request for zone changes , annexations , 25 or amendments to the zoning code . The City Council will PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 3 1 make the final decision on these questions in February. 2 The Planning and Zoning Commission will be granting 3 final approval and denial on requests for all special use 4 permits, subdivisions and planned unit developments at 5 tonight' s meeting. Any person adversely affected by the 6 decision of this Commission may ,file a written appeal 7 stating the grounds for his appeal to the City Council 8 within 15 days of this meeting. 9 The City of Las Cruces will make every effort to 10 provide reasonable accommodations for people with 11 disabilities who wish to attend a public meeting. Please 12 notify the city at least 24 hours before the meeting. 13 Telephone 526-0000 or TDD number 526-1222 . 14 We have six items on the consent agenda that are all 15 under new business . Those items under the consent agenda 16 are case S-92-025 , S-92-030 , S-92-031 , 5-92-032 , S-92-034 , 17 and case PUD-92-006 . Those items on the consent agenda are 18 items that will be voted on in one vote . At this point, is 19 there anyone in the audience who wishes to remove any of 20 these items from the consent agenda. 21 Anybody in the audience wish to remove these items from 22 the consent agenda? 23 Anyone on the Commission wish to remove any items from 24 the consent agenda? 25 Commissioner Daw. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 4 1 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would like to have that 2 case, 025, the first one , and the last one , 006 , removed for 3 the purposes of hearing from those making the request about 4 the planned unit development and what that has meant to the 5 project. I would like to learn a little more about the 6 planned unit developments and what they have done and what 7 benefits that has had. S CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay. Then case S-92-025 9 and case PUD-92-006 have been requested for removal from the 10 consent agenda. May have a motion to do so? 11 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would so move . 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : All in favor? 14 ( The motion carried 7 to 0 . ) 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Now, we will go on to vote 16 on the remaining consent agenda items . 17 Do I have a motion to approve items. two, three , four , 18 and five on the consent agenda? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I move we approve items 20 two, three, four , and five on the consent agenda. 21 COMMISSIONER LORD: I second. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : All in favor say aye . 23 Opposed. 24 (Motion carried 7 to 0 . ) 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The next item under old PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 5 1 business is case SUP-92-006 , a request for a special use 2 permit for the existing Terrace Hill Mobile Home Park for a 3 40 year time period. The mobile home park is located on a 4 parcel of land continaing 18 . 954 acres, and is located at 5 1200 Del Rey Boulevard. The north part of the property is 6 zoned R-4 , high density residential, and the south part is 7 zoned C-2 , general commercial . Submitted by Marvin Sampson 8 for Ivan and Jean Ludington, the property owners . This item 9 was postponed 11-24-92 . 10 Do I have a motion to remove for consideration case 11 SUP-92-006? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I move that we remove 13 case SUP-92-006 . 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do I have a second? 15 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: I second. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present or 17 his representative? 18 MR. SAMPSON: Yes . 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would you care to make a 20 presentation at this time? 21 MR. SAMPSON: Yes . Point of clarification, 22 please . Would we fall under the 15-minute rule representing 23 the community? 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Yes . Would you please state 25 your name for the record? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 6 1 MR. SAMPSON: Certainly. My name is Marvin 2 Sampson. I am one of the the owners of the Terrace Hill 3 Mobile Home Park, and I wanted to thank the Commission for 4 giving us the opportunity to make this presentation and also 5 for the time you allowed us last week in going through a 6 working session with you and hearing all of the proposals 7 and adjustments that we were discussing and considering. 8 I know that this is a difficult process . I know it' s 9 not easy on any of these commissioners sitting up there to 10 have to act as kind of judge and jury on all of these items 11 that come before you. But it' s a difficult process for us 12 as well . I am sure you can appreciate that, and for the 13 residents of our community who are here this evening to hear 14 and support what' s going on. 15 I would like to give you just a quick review or 16 overview of what has happened so you understand what our 17 approach has been. We came to the City in order to get a 18 reissuance of our permit when it expired after 20 years. 19 And we found out that there were a number of things that the 20 City now requires since it was originally built in 1972 and 21 was approved under the codes and ordinances that existed at 22 that time . And since then some of the codes and ordinances 23 have changed, and we are now out of compliance . 24 And we have gone back and forth with different members 25 of the City, the fire department, David Weir and his PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 7 1 planning department, and we have discussed all of these 2 ramificationd with all the different people who would be 3 involved. And we have spent a lot of time coming up with 4 some proposals . And like I said, the commissioners last 5 week were very, very good and kind to listen to some of the 6 suggestions we had to make . And this evening what we have 7 is a formulation of ideas that have come from the planning 8 department, the fire department, and from things we heard 9 last week with the commissioners that were present. 10 With your approval I would like to present those to you 11 and let you look at these and peruse these for a moment, if 12 you would. 13 While you look these over and get this information, I 14 would just like to comment about a couple of things . We are 15 people who are looking at the best interests of our 16 community. It has been a very, very good community for the 17 residents over the last 20 years , and we believe it' s a very 18 high quality community. We believe it serves the purpose of 19 affordable housing which is so difficult nowadays to find. 20 We do feel that the park is very well maintained and 21 very well constructed. And our concern is that some of the 22 rules that have changed would require an enormous 23 dislocation of residents in the park . Some of the 24 suggestions that were made would require almost a complete 25 readjustment and realignment of the park as it is configured PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 8 1 now, resulting in probably a 30- to 40-percent loss of 2 residency. 3 Now, I know a lot of people say that' s a loss of 4 income, and that' s a concern for us as owners . But it' s 5 also a loss of private homes, a loss of a good community, a 6 loss of comfort and security that most of our residents now 7 have . And so we feel like some of those noncompliances, 8 some of those areas and rules that are out of compliance 9 need to be looked at very carefully and corrected, with your 10 approval , hopefully without dislocating the members of our 11 community. We would like to think that maybe because of the 12 way this particular park has been run that they could be 13 grandfathered in, and they could be considered as part of 14 the new permit. 15 We do recognize , according to the proposal that we are 16 making, that there are some things that are safety concerns 17 that the City has . We are concerned, too . We do not want 18 anything to befall our residents . We do not think that that 19 is in the best interest of the community, the residents , or 20 the owners . So we will do what we can do in order to 21 protect that. 22 And with the Fire Marshal ' s help and with the City' s 23 help, I think we have made some recommendations here that 24 would meet the objections that were originally raised. So I 25 would - - I would just say that we have made a real diligent PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 9 1 effort to present a proposal that we feel is fair and 2 reasonable, after hearing everybody' s concerns . 3 I guess I ' ll pat myself on the back a little bit, our 4 park, our community, I ' ll say, has probably done more in 5 terms of trying to work with the City in finding a solution 6 that would be acceptable for everybody concerned in terms of 7 going to people , walking the extra mile, trying to find 8 things that would be acceptable . And I think we have made a 9 real determined effort to present a program here that would 10 be reasonable and acceptable to all . 11 I would make just a couple of other quick comments 12 here . I don' t want to monopolize the time . I do have one 13 other person speaking on behalf of the community, that' s 14 going to bring some information to you. 15 One of the concerns that was raised last week at the 16 working session, which I felt was a legitimate concern, was 17 why ask for a 40-year permit? It seemed rather long. And I 18 went to our banker that we work with here at United New 19 Mexico Bank in Las Cruces , Jim Volk, whom I am sure that you 20 know. And he has indicated to me if we were to come to him 21 for some refinancing in the future, and he has a letter that 22 I brought up with me , and I may have just sent that along 23 with the packet, and some of you may have that, by the way. 24 There you go. 'You've got the banker right there . 25 Can I have that for a moment? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 10 1 One of the things that he ' s raised is the fact that 2 what they generally would require is a 30-year conditional 3 use permit on a 15-year amortization lien. And so if we had 4 a 15-year amortization loan, they would require a 30-year 5 permit in order for them to go ahead and give any kind of 6 institutional funding. And that' s one of the questions I 7 raised last week , about the fact that we would - - one of 8 your concerns was that you don' t want people to come in here 9 and run parks down, allow them to deteriorate , and we are 10 not that kind of owner . But looking to the future, we would 11 not want that for our residents either. And we feel that 12 the fact that Jim Volk and the bank would require a 30-year 13 conditional use permit if it was 15-year amortization, or a 14 40-year conditional use permit if it was a 20-year 15 amortization. That is just an indication of how difficult 16 you might make it by doing anything short of that in terms 17 of our ability to maintain at the level that this park has 18 been accustomted to. So we would like you to take that into 19 consideration as well . 20 I would also like to close with this remark, because I 21 don' t want to take any more time . And that is , mobile home 22 park communities are basically places in which--and I think 23 other city agencies have recognized - - that serve a useful 24 purpose in any community. And I think it' s unfortunate that 25 most of the mobile home park communities in Las Cruces have PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 11 1 to go through a special use permit or a conditional use 2 permit. They are places where people can get together , as I 3 said before, in security and comfort. And I think that they 4 serve a very useful purpose as far as affordable housing is 5 concerned. And I would like to have you take that into 6 consideration. 7 I would like to ask Randy McMillan to come up and give 8 you some facts and statistics and some information that may 9 support our proposal . 10 MR. MCMIMLLAN: At the work session the other 11 night, Mr . Daw asked a very good question, and I don' t think 12 any of us had the answer . The questions was, you are asking 13 for 40 years--and it was a little bit rhetorical--why not 14 50? Why not 100 years? Why not 500 years? And no one 15 really had the answer to that. So I have done some 16 homework, and I have tried to answer that question for you. 17 And hopefully I have . 18 To answer that, first, we need to go back to when the 19 park was built and when, 20 years ago, Mr . Ludington built 20 the park, why did he get a special use permit. The reason 21 why was because it was a special property back then. Mobile 22 home parks 20 years ago were special properties, they were 23 not the norm. I have a graph here that I would like to 24 show. May I use this projector? 25 This is a comparison between single family homes that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 12 1 have been built over the last four years and apartment units 2 that have been built, and new mobile home registrations each 3 year . 4 As you can see , if you combine the single family homes 5 and the apartments , you may be reaching a third of the 6 mobile homes that are coming into the community every year . 7 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: There is in Las 8 Cruces? 9 MR. MCMILLAN: No, this is Dona Ana County. 10 I have got to tell you I am comparing a little bit of apples 11 and oranges , because the homes and apartments are from Las 12 Cruces ; the registrations I could not get from the county, 13 so it' s a little bit apples and oranges . But even if you 14 were to double that, there are not that many apartments 15 built in the county. There are not that many homes built in 16 the county. But if you doubled it, you see the number of 17 new mobile homes coming into the community each year far 18 exceeds any other housing in this community. 19 So, again, if you go back to why it' s a special use 20 permit in the first place, instead of zoning, it was because 21 it was a special property then. And I think the point that 22 this paints and that this graft makes, is that this is no 23 longer a special property. Mobile home living is no longer 24 a special property, it' s a norm. It' s overtaking any other 25 type of development And I think the special use process of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 13 1 20 years, 30 years , whatever was designed because we didn' t 2 know what we were doing, we didn' t know what was going to 3 happen and we knew we needed to relook at that, I think . 4 The next graph that I have here kind of goes along with 5 this one . And it compares the number of pads built in the 6 city with the number of new mobile homes coming into the 7 county. As you can see , we are nowhere near supplying the 8 demand. So what' s happening is this special use process 9 that we are under, of issuing special use permits, is 10 stiffling the investments in mobile home parks . It' s 11 stopping people from putting mobile home parks in. And 12 where are these people going? I totaled this on my sheet 13 here . We have got a total of 4, 975 over the last four years 14 that have gone some place besides the City. And you know 15 where they have gone? They have gone to the county, and 16 every mish-mash subdivision that' s out there . They have 17 gone exactly where you don' t want them to go . 18 And the reason they are going there is because this 19 special use process is stopping development. And you may 20 ask why is this stopping development? If you were a 21 developer, real estate developer, mobile home park 22 developer, and you were going to develop a mobile home park 23 and you could go to Albuquerque , where they have land zoned 24 for mobile home parks, or you could go to Tucson, or you 25 could go to E1 Paso and buy land that was zoned forever, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 14 1 this is a mobile home park , or you could come to Las Cruces 2 and try to get a special use permit for 20 years , 30 years , 3 where would you go? It' s stopping quality investment. 4 If you look in Tucson, they have - - some of the most 5 beautiful properties there are quality mobile home park 6 living. And this community doesn' t offer that on a large 7 enough scale . And I think these graphs let you know that. 8 So, again, they are sending those homes out into the 9 county. And in the future , we are going to have a problem, 10 you all know that real well . There are mobile homes 11 everywhere you look, and the county doesn' t keep track of 12 that as well as the City would like them to. If we started 13 zoning land for mobile home parks and giving them indefinite 14 periods of time, just like we do an office complex or an 15 apartment complex or your home, then I believe that more of 16 these would be built, and they would be quality 17 Again, in trying to answer the question of why not 50 18 years, why not 100 years? We did check with the other 19 communties around us . We checked with Albuquerque . We 20 checked with E1 Paso. We checked with Tucson. They zone 21 land. I asked Tucson, "Do you issue special use permits, " 22 and they said, Yes, we issue them, but we issue them for 23 swap meets and revivals and, you know, to issue them for a 24 mobile home park was totally foreign to them. 25 So the other concern that was brought up was , How can PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 15 1 the City make sure that this property is maintained if we 2 give them that long a period of time? And I believe that if 3 you give them a short period of time , then you are ensuring 4 that it won' t be as maintained as if you were to give them a 5 long period of time . 6 To illustrate that, I called Mr . Ikaard here in Las 7 Cruces, and I asked him if Loretto Center had required a 8 special use permit on it and he had 10 , 20 , 25 years left, 9 would he have bought it and done what he did to it? Loretto 10 Shopping Center was an eyesore--everybody knows that--right 11 in the center of town. 12 And he said, "Absolutely not. " 13 I said, "Can I quote you tonight?" 14 And he said, "There is no way I would have bought that 15 and done what I did if there was a special use permit on 16 it . " 17 Again, my point is that this is stiffling investment in 18 an area that we can' t afford to stiffle . Mobile home park 19 financing is usually for 20 years . Mobile home financing is 20 25 years today. If you can buy a mobile home, you can 21 finance it for 25 years . And indeed most people do. How 22 would you like to buy a home and put it in a park, financing 23 it over 25 years, knowing that a city agency can and might 24 tell you in the next 20 years, 25 years before your home is 25 even paid off, that you have to move . It' s not fair to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 16 1 them. And we don' t do that to apartments dwellers . We 2 don' t do that to single-family resident dwellers , and we 3 don' t do that to office buildings . We don' t do that to any 4 other form of real restate . And it' s not fair to them. 5 The other thing I just wanted to point out is that this 6 City has had a big push on economic development geared 7 toward a retirement community. The retirement community 8 comes in, and they spend money. They have money. They 9 don' t tax the school system, and they don' t tax the fire 10 department . They don' t tax the police department. They are 11 the people that this community wants here , and that' s who we 12 are going after . Tucson, Phoenix, these areas have gotten 13 those people by "mobile home park developments" that' s where 14 those people live . 15 If you will look out, we have residents here that are 16 retired. A lot of our residents are here , and they are 17 retired people . And so , are we going to do that as a 18 community? Are we really seeking to increase that in our 19 economic development? Then we have got to rethink this 20 special use permit. 21 No longer do we call these "trailers . " That' s a word 22 of the past. These are mobile homes . And the most 23 important word there is "home . " It' s a home . These people 24 have been here for , many of them, as long as the park has 25 been there . And over 70 percent of the park has been there PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 17 1 for longer than five years . So these are long term 2 residents. They don' t want to think that they might have to 3 move out before their home is even paid off. 4 Finally, I would just like you to put yourself in their 5 shoes . The homes that you live in, would you like to have a 6 special use permit and know that in 20 years , 25 years, 7 whatever, the City can come tell you to rip it out, they 8 don' t like it anymore? You wouldn' t like that. And I think 9 if we send the message that we are going to go with a 10 20-year or short term, we are telling these people, Look , we 11 really don' t accept your form of housing. We don' t. We are 12 not quite sure on that . You know, we are going to give you 13 a period of time . We are not going to give anybody else a 14 period of time . We are not going to give apartment dwellers 15 a period of time . We are not giving a single family home a 16 period of time , but we are going to give you a period of 17 time . And it' s not fair . And I don' t think it should be 18 done . 19 We know that to ask for a rezoning tonight - - that is 20 not what we are asking for . But we would ask that the 21 City--and I have talked to Dave about this, and I think he' s 22 in agreement with me--that the City needs to zone mobile 23 home land and promote quality mobile home developments . 24 We are not asking for that tonight, but that is why, 25 why not 50 years? Why not 100 years? Why not indefinite? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 18 1 Every other type of housing has it. Every other type of 2 real estate has it. It' s for an indefinite period of time 3 So that' s why we are asking for 40 years on our terms . And 4 I would ask that in the future , if you all can give us some 5 time, to relook at your policy on special use permits for 6 mobile home parks . Special use permits , again, entail a 7 special property, and mobile home parks are no longer a 8 special property. So thank you all for your time , and I 9 hope you' ll consider this . 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. 11 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez , commission 12 members, as the applicants have already stated, this is a 13 request for a new special use permit for a mobile home park. 14 The park previously had a special use permit approved 15 under the 1969 zoning code, in 1972 , for a 20—year period. 16 It expired in the spring of this year . 17 The new request has been reviewed under the 1981 zoning 18 code . And when staff reviewed this, we found eight items 19 that did not meet the requirements of the 181 code . Of 20 these eight, five of the items were not required under the 21 169 code, but the other three items that didn' t meet the 22 requirements were the spacing requirements between mobile 23 home and accessory buildings . 24 At the last Planning and Zoning Commission in November, 25 the Commission tabled and postponed this case to request PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 19 1 that the applicant work on the safety issues, and that the 2 fire department review the site to see if there was anything 3 that could be done to assure that adequate public safety was 4 being addressed on the site . 5 The Commission also requested that legal review be done 6 of the special use process to see if the Commission could 7 grant conditions or variances from the mobile home 8 requirements. Both of the items have been done . The fire 9 department did an inspection of the site and made 10 recommendations, also. Most of those have been included in 11 the submittal that the applicant handed you previous to this 12 meeting. 13 The review by the legal department stated that the 14 Commission does have the right to grant variances through 15 the special use permit process along with their 16 requirements, as long as it' s written into the special use 17 language and the language authorizing the mobile home park , 18 as a part of their approval . 19 Of the eight items that need to be addressed, staff 20 would rather you go through them on an item—by—item basis, 21 and ask staff if there is any input that they would like to 22 make on those items, and then we will provide that to you. 23 That' s all I have . 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Sounds fine . Anybody in the 25 audience wish to make any comments regarding this case? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 20 1 MR. MOY: My name is Jorge Moy. I am a 2 surveyor . My address is 414 North Downtown Mall- The only 3 reason I am stepping forward to talk about this particular 4 item is because I have seen that home parks are opening. I 5 happened to have been surveying this area since 1958 . And I 6 remember when they started that mobile home park . It has 7 been one of the best parks that I have seen around the area. 8 And the concern that I have is that you are trying to give 9 them a special use permits . I have been involved a lot of 10 times with the County, the Extraterritorial Commission and 11 with the City subdivisions, and these limitations certainly 12 will hurt the investment of these people as well as the 13 capacity to develop and maintain, like Mr . McMillan said. 14 I think he' s right in asking for, maybe, changing some 15 rules as to what you are doing with zoning. Let me give you 16 an example . In the County, we go and pass a subdivision. 17 And as long as the lots are the correct size , all we have to 18 do is ask for a building permit to put in a mobile home . 19 And there are no limits . There is no special use permit. 20 There is nothing, as long as you comply with the sanitation 21 and water rights and all that. So by limiting a park , where 22 there are several of them, you are just trying to say: We 23 don't want you altogether . We don' t want to have this kind 24 of development. And it' s as legal , as good on this here , as 25 I have seen in Washington and Florida . And I look at these PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 21 1 things, because that' s part of my business . And this is the 2 only city that I have seen that put so many limitations on 3 mobile homes right now. Thank you for your time . 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Moy. Anybody 5 else in the audience wish to make any comments? 6 MR. COLE: My name is David Cole , and I am a 7 real estate broker . I deal primarily with commercial real 8 estate . I am here on another matter, but I just wanted to 9 concur with what I have heard on 20 years . It' s very 10 difficult to finance real estate and deal with it as an 11 investment on a 20-year basis. And I just want to concur 12 with that. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Anybody else wish to make a 15 comment? Yes, sir . 16 MR. WHALEN: My name is Martin Whalen. I 17 live in the park , number 21 . I have been there for a little 18 over four years, since I retired from New Mexico State 19 University. 20 I went through almost every park in town looking for a 21 nice place to live, and I found it here . I have been there, 22 as I said, for four and a half years . We have had no 23 problems with security as far as I know, and no problem with 24 fire . 25 Now, I have never seen a police car in the park, other PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 22 1 than residents coming to and from, so I can only assume that 2 the City police don' t feel they have got a problem with our 3 park . I have never seen a fire truck or a fire car in there 4 looking things over . I don' t say they haven' t been there, I 5 haven' t seen it. So I can only assume that fire department 6 has felt that they haven' t got a problem. 7 We have got a good park . It' s the nicest in town. I 8 don' t think there is any question of that. It' s secure . 9 Some of the things that I see being proposed, like making 10 exits here and here and there , doesn' t do anything for our 11 security. A set of bolt cutters opening that gate , and boom 12 they are gone . 13 I understand there is a request for fire hydrants . I 14 don' t think I would argue with that, or anyone else , but 15 please , let' s not foul up the best park in town Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Anyone else from the 17 audience? There is a lady. 18 MS . GOLD: My name the Margaret Gold. I have 19 lived in the park since August of 1972 . I was the first one 20 to move in there, other than the owners . We have never had 21 a problem. It is the nicest park in town. And if, as some 22 of the things are proposed, like the cul-de-sac, I would 23 have to be the first one to move out. And after spending 21 24 years in the Army, I selected this area to retire . And if I 25 have to move out, it certainly will not be to another place PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 23 1 in this City. We have never had any problems, no fire , as 2 this gentleman just said. We have a well-maintained park . 3 I wouldn' t want to go any place else . It' s superb. It' s a 4 magnificent place to live . 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Anybody else? 6 Yes . The lady in green. 7 MS . SELMAN: I am Mary Selman. I am a 8 resident of the park , and I have lived there for four years . 9 It' s a safe park . We have had emergency vehicles in and out 10 with no problems . There is just no nicer park . If some of 11 these proposals do go through, our rent will have to go up 12 and you will have to evict people . There are many of us 13 retired people that will just have to move . And as with Ms . 14 Gold, if this is the way Las Cruces treats people who live 15 in mobile home parks, we will not live in the City. Thank 16 you. 17 MR. PLATT: My name is Howard Platt I moved 18 to Las Cruces in 1963 with Mountain Bell Telephone Company. 19 I retired in 1977 . And we lived on Avondale for 17 years, 20 1018 Avondale, and then we chose to live in Terrace Hill 21 Mobile Home Park . And we moved there in 1979 and it' s 22 probably the most comfortable living that I have ever 23 experienced. And I see no reason whatsoever - - if it ain' t 24 broke, don't fix it. And I appreciate your help. Thank 25 you. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 24 1 MR. LANDON: My name is Harry Landon. We are 2 the newest of the new. We just arrived last Friday and that 3 was the result of four years of planning to come to Las 4 Cruces for our retirement . During that period of time , we 5 researched every mobile home park in this City carefully. 6 We talked to the owners . We talked to the managers . We 7 talked to residents . We decided on this particular park for 8 the following reasons . 9 One is cleanliness . It was very important to us that a 10 park be clean. And secondly, that it be well maintained, 11 that there not be garbage in the streets and blowing papers 12 and leaves like that. We came from Colorado, a rather 13 densely populated area, and we were familiar with some of 14 the things that could happen in parks that are not well 15 maintained. 16 We also found that the management was concerned. And 17 more than a community--which I have heard it referred to 18 as--we found a neighborhood. And for us that was very 19 important, because we came from a community that wasn' t a 20 community, and wasn' t really a neighborhood. And we have 21 been looking for that for some time. 22 So, I guess our plea is , please consider the 23 presentation that' s been made this evening, because we have 24 just involved ourselves in the financial expense of a 25 brand-new mobile home, which we just moved in on the 6th of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 25 1 the month. And we are fixing it up, and planning on putting 2 carpet down and all the rest of it. And we planned a long 3 stay in Las Cruces , the place we have wanted to be for 4 sometime . So we beg of you to please look at these 5 presentations in a positive manner . 6 Thank you. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Anybody else in the 8 audience? Anybody else? Once more, anybody else? 9 If not, we will close it to public participation and go 10 into commissioner input. 11 Anyone on the Commission wish to make any comments or 12 observations? Commissioner Linard. 13 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Since we first had this 14 before us a month ago, I have done a lot of checking into 15 it, because I couldn' t believe a mobile home park would have 16 to have a special use permit. I have been to Mesa, Arizona, 17 where they have miles of mobile home parks that are very 18 nice . And I think - - I can' t find out why, but I think a 19 few years ago people were buying mobile homes and sticking 20 them all over town in lots . And there became an uprising 21 against that. And somebody long before my time insisted 22 that they have more control over mobile homes . I think we 23 have a new one which is south of the University that was 24 granted for 30 years, is that right, and it conforms to all 25 of the standards that we have set fourth at this time? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 26 1 MR. WEIR: Commissioner Linard, that mobile 2 home park you are describing was approved in 1988 . So the 3 approval was - - it met all the requirements of the 1981 4 zoning code for mobile home parks . 5 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Okay. I also talked 6 with a banker , a commercial loan banker, and I can' t 7 understand why we are calling this real estate . To me it' s 8 a commercial investment. If the two people who say they are 9 buying it are going to be taking in something over $20 , 000 a 10 month from this community, it would be a commercial venture, 11 I would think . And commercial loans are a max of 15 years 12 according to the banker with whom I spoke . 13 And speaking of the county, I don' t think we have any 14 control over the mobile home parks in the county, and we are 15 just the City Planning and Zoning Commission, and do not 16 understand any of that at all . 17 How many employees are there of this mobile home park? 18 MR. SAMPSON: There are three . 19 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Three employees? 20 MR. SAMPSON: Yes . 21 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Thank you, very much. 22 Now, when we are looking at those graphs, we can hardly 23 compare county development of mobile homes and apartments 24 and residences to those in Las Cruces . That' s really apples 25 and oranges. And you now have , I thought, you had 144 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 27 1 spaces . And now I find out you have 170 something. 2 MR. SAMPSON: No, 144 is correct 3 They are numbered up to 174 , but there are numbers 4 missing. 5 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Oh, I see . And in 1972 6 when this mobile home park began, I am sure mobile homes 7 were not 70 , 80 , 90 and 100 foot long. What was the - - 8 excuse me, may I ask Mr . Ludington a question. 9 Mr . Ludington, how long were mobile homes in 172? 10 MR. LUDINGTON: The majority were 60 foot. 11 There were a few 65' s coming out. 12 COMMISSIONER LINARD: And you had the spaces 13 set for 60 foot, and along came these manufacturers and made 14 them 90 foot, and you don' t know what to do with them. 15 MR. LUDINGTON: I haven' t seen 90 foots . 80 16 are common. 17 COMMISSIONER LINARD: And do most of your 18 people, when they decide to leave there, do they sell the 19 mobile home as it is rather than to move it somewhere else? 20 MR. LUDINGTON: I don' t know what percentage, 21 but it wouldn' t be a majority either way. It' s more like 22 half and a half. 23 COMMISSIONER LINARD: At Encantada Park, I 24 know a lot of people , when they move , they just sell their 25 mobile home as it is , and I was wondering if that was the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 28 1 case with yours . 2 I understand from the assessor that the taxes on the 3 mobile homes are from $60 to $150 for the individuals . 4 MR. SAMPSON: I wish that were so . And I 5 think affordable housing is getting way out of hand when a 6 person has to pay $50 , 000 for a mobile home and then $200 7 for a space to rent. 8 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I have no more 9 questions . I think David has answered those, and I really 10 think that we should do something about trying to find out 11 why we have special use permits for mobile home parks . They 12 should be like a subdivision, and you follow the rules and 13 that' s it. 14 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Anybody else on the 16 Commission wish to make any comments? 17 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Thank you, Mr . 18 Chairman. I received a call at my home , and the individual 19 who called was concerned to the point to where it was fear. 20 It had been presented to her - - or pardon me, I shouldn' t 21 have mentioned it was a lady. But as far as she was 22 concerned, it was our intention - - she had been led to 23 believe that our intention was to make sure that this park 24 was destroyed. And I will speak personally for myself that, 25 of course , is not what we are doing. And I explained to her PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 29 1 that our intention was not to do any damage to that park or 2 to make any major changes--at least that was my opinion--but 3 that our main concern was safety. And I think if you will 4 look at any of these things , or all of these things that 5 were requirements or are now requirements, they are 6 primarily for safety of the residents . I don' t know of a 7 thing on there--maybe one item--that could be considered for 8 aesthetics . 9 My concern is safety only, because I have personally 10 experienced a fire in a park . And at the time that 11 happened, a fire started in a high wind and within 25 12 minutes three units were destroyed. Primarily, this park 13 had one entrance, and that entrance was the exit . And it 14 was basically a U, like that. It was an old oilfield camp 15 that had been converted to a mobile home park . And it was 16 beautiful, with large trees and stuff. 17 The emergency vehicles , however , had difficulty getting 18 in because of the s.peed bumps . That was one of the 19 problems . But by the time they got there, all three units 20 were destroyed and all they wanted to do was save the 21 adjoining units . And they managed to do that. That' s my 22 fear, and I told her that was my only concern, because that 23 park, as you all have said, is magnificent. It' s beautiful . 24 It' s quite secure . It' s got everything that I would want if 25 I were going to retire in that situation. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 30 1 But my concern would be for your safety in those units 2 and for your personal safety. And I feel that some of the 3 items that are proposed would be added safety items, some of 4 them, I think, are a little bit too stringent . I don' t even 5 think that should be considered. 6 The other statement that was made here tonight that 7 really concerned me is that with our restrictions we 8 force an individual to worry about their 25-year loan. I 9 have a question for the realtor. What if, let' s say, not 10 these owners--I realize these owners are concerned about 11 keeping this park just as it is, and they have expressed 12 that, and I feel that' s very sincere . But let' s assume for 13 some unknown reason they have to sell it within ten years 14 and the next individual says, "I want to develop it. " What 15 would you suggest that the residents do to prevent that from 16 happening to them, and they are forced to move out. How 17 would you stop that? How would you stop an individual from 18 saying, I am going to sell this to a developer for a major 19 apartment complex because I can make more money per square 20 foot. How would you protect their 25 year mortgage in that 21 case? 22 MR. MCMILLAN: I think it would be by zoning 23 that. I think by zoning mobile home park land. 24 I think we can do it by what we are doing here . I 25 think we would have some control if you zoned it mobile home PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 31 1 park land. So he couldn' t develop it as anything else . So 2 that' s another good reason why we should do that . 3 As a point of clarification, you wanted to know how 4 many there were the County. There were 262 new homes in the 5 County in 1991 , and no apartments . If you add that to the 6 91 homes and businesses , you are up to about 500 . There 7 were 1200 mobile homes in the County. 8 So that' s apples and apples and - - 9 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Well , sir, I don' t 10 check out the numbers of mobile homes in the county, nor the 11 number of apartments . I imagine sewage, gas , electricity, 12 water would control a lot of how many are developed 13 apartments . 14 MR. MCMILLAN: Well , just so you can compare 15 apples and apples, I do have that. 16 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Thank you. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : As Commissioner 18 Killian, we are all concerned about the safety of the 19 residents in this mobile home park . And I think it would be 20 beneficial if there was a representative from the fire 21 department here , if we could hear his comments on this . 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have someone from the 23 fire department? 24 MR. ZUBIA: You caught me off guard. I am 25 Lt. Zubia with the Las Cruces fire department, and I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 32 1 attended your prior work session. 2 My concern - - I know you want to keep the park as it 3 is, because as far as you are concerned you have lived there 4 for years and years, and nothing has ever happened. As 5 Commissioner Killian has addresed, what we are concerned 6 with is your safety. I don' t know if you know all the 7 details as to what is being planned for your park , or what 8 was proposed by the owners , but my concern is being able to 9 get water to our units , having access roads and exits, if we 10 need to . We try to protrect mobile homes a little bit 11 differently than we do residences . We fight structure fires 12 by mainly controlling and confining it to that building. 13 But when it comes to a mobile home, one of the first things 14 we are planning en route to a scene is who or what engine 15 companies are going to protect the exposure, meaning the 16 other mobile homes . 17 By having one access, it might limi.t us being able to 18 protect other mobile homes . And we don' t view that as 19 anything positive . It probably provides you with some 20 security from burglaries or stuff like that, but it doesn' t 21 give you the protection that you deserve . We need to have 22 at least a second way in. And that way, we can provide a 23 second unit not only to help in extinguishing the fire on 24 the first mobile home , but also to provide protection to any 25 additional mobile homes that might require it. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 33 1 We discussed adding hydrants . If it was up to me , I 2 would like to add about four or five hydrants in the park . 3 But if we can have access to hydrants outside of the park, 4 it' s probably just as well . 5 Now, we can maintain the security, I believe , and still 6 have those gates . If a burglar or something is going to use 7 bolt cutters to open the gate in order to have a quick 8 getaway, the rock walls are probably not going to slow them 9 down either. That' s my personal opinion. 10 There ' s a couple of other questions in reference to the 11 spacing in between trailers . I have reviewed our code 12 requirements, and I have no problems with them as I have 13 told you before . Your mobile home ordinance is a little bit 14 more stringent. I don' t have anything else to say, other 15 than that the park is currently in keeping. It' s 16 cleanliness of its structure , its storage sheds , I have no 17 problems with it. 18 If there are any particular questions that I might be 19 able to address from the Commission or the audience . 20 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I guess I am still on. 21 You did mention that one of your concerns are additional 22 exits or entrances . 23 MR. ZUBIA: Yes, sir . The proposal as it' s 24 written now stipulates having three or four emergency 25 accesses . As we discussed in the work session, I want four . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 34 1 For some reason they decided to put three . I want four 2 access gates , or as we discussed earlier , and I have 3 discussed with them in private, if they don' t want to have 4 the exits, if they could give me a hydrant in there and an 5 ability for our apparatus for our fire trucks to be able to 6 gain access, in a sense come in from different ways, that' s 7 what I would prefer . With that requirement, it would 8 require the removing of either two or four mobile homes . 9 And, of course, I don' t consider cost, but costs are a 10 concern that the owners brought up to me . 11 I told them if you want to work out a different option, 12 there is what the options are . And that was having those 13 accesses or gates put in. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Mr . Weir, do we have an 15 overhead of the map? 16 MR. WEIR: Yes . 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Mr . Zubia, would you go into 18 detail . At the work session, you expressed your concerns 19 about the exits and the accesses in detail . Would you go 20 into that now please, as to lining up your water lines and 21 everything. 22 MR. ZUBIA: The way the park is set up, the 23 only hydrant that' s currently available for the fire trucks 24 to use is located about here across the street on Mars . Our 25 fire units carry 800 feet of hose . Our code requires , and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 35 1 we prefer to have hydrants located no longer or no further 2 than 500 feet away from whatever structure we are going to 3 possibly fight a fire at. So that gives us an extra 300 4 feet of hose in case the general public, which they kind of 5 like doing, runs over our hose , damaging it. When we lay it 6 down and connect it to a hydrant, we like to have a safety 7 cushion when it comes to additional line that we have on the 8 truck . 9 Currently, this hydrant that' s located here, the 10 distance from it is - - we have it on our map, and we have 11 prepared for the trailer park - - for the person who says he 12 hasn' t seen us, we have a map with numbers of trailer park 13 and the fire hydrants in that locations . This one here is 14 approximately 800 feet from this hydrant into this park . So 15 we are concerned. That' s one of our biggest concerns, that 16 we are going to have at least two trucks just supplying us 17 with water, and that not everyone is fighting it yet. 18 We normally, on mobile home parks--and I hate to say 19 this, because it' s not in our SOP--because I am kind of 20 exposing ourselves, but we like to attack mobile home fires 21 a bit quicker than residential . And what we end up doing 22 is, we determine which of the trucks will go straight in to 23 hook up to the truck' s water supply and try to fight that 24 structure fire, mobile home fire , with the water we carry on 25 our truck . And then we will depend on backup units to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 36 1 provide us with a water supply or to protect exposure . So 2 our big concern is that the second truck is going to be 3 probably delayed And in this case, it probably won' t have 4 enough hose to supply the first engine company. And that 5 condition doesn' t give us much leeway, or any kind of option 6 to operate in. 7 The hydrant that I am proposing and that we discussed 8 that gives us some flexibility is this hydrant here . If we 9 are going to get one hydrant in the park itself, that' s 10 where I want it, this little Christmas tree-looking thing 11 here , it gives us a lot of options . The first engine, if it 12 wants, may lay lines and go and fight the structure fire 13 while the second unit will lay line to that other truck, if 14 needed. 15 The four entrances that I -recommended are in these two 16 two areas here and should have gates . And the hydrant 17 should be provided here . That way the engine companies 18 could tie up to it and give us that 500-foot distance that 19 we like to work with. 20 The other access road would be here . There is an 21 option if they want to consider it. We could move the third 22 opening to this area here . We are still looking at the 23 feasibility here due to the grade in this area here , and 24 there are some utility lines here that might interfere with 25 this access point. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 37 1 There is a hydrant that is currently located in this 2 area here that the engine companies could utilize and tie 3 into it and lay lines from that into the facility. There is 4 also an access, a recommended access point here which gives 5 us the ability to use this hydrant here . If the fire engine 6 wants to, it can not only gain access to that by tying to 7 that hydrant, but we can come through here . That gives a 8 lot of flexibility there . 9 If there is a fire in this structure here, in this area 10 here, it could be attacked from this entrance or this 11 entrance and this one . And that' s what we are looking for, 12 the options, because we don' t want to be limited as to the 13 possible ways of gaining access to this park or the 14 particular structure involved. The gates should be locked 15 at all times, and it should be cleared and marked as a fire 16 lane, so it allows us access for the fire units . That' s 17 basically it. I don' t know if I have covered the points you 18 wanted to cover . 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Yes, sir . Any other 20 comments from the commissioners? Questions? 21 MR. PASQUALI : I am Joe Pasquali , and I am 22 one of the present owners of Terrace Hills . And we also are 23 owner-residents . 24 Our residents all want safety, and we as owners are 25 betwixt and between. As we address this conditional use--I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 38 1 call it a conditional use permit--special use permit, we 2 want the safety. And as we looked at all of these points , 3 safety was the big thing in our mind as we sent back these 4 proposals incompliance , as we saw that, so that we could 5 possibly do it with the least amount of disruption of 6 community. And yet in the last week, in talking to some of 7 the residents that have now been exposed to the options , we 8 are betwixt and between. Yes, if we open a wall , this 9 mobile home, this home here, has a parking space right here . 10 Now we are talking about adding land in this area, so that 11 the truck doesn't drop off of the curb. So we get into the 12 complication of, yes, we are opening up the park, but they 13 would rather not have the option. Where am I going to park 14 my vehicle? How is it going to affect me? I have been here 15 all this time, am I going to lose my availability to get 16 into my driveway? And so, yes, we continue to want to open 17 it for safety, but we wonder if it should be three or four 18 openings . And the more I think about it, we can get a truck 19 in from the upper end and a truck in through the lower end 20 with 500 foot hose, isn' t that enough? 21 We don' t want a delay time of putting out a fire, God 22 forbid. But what is the solution? Four openings and having 23 residents concerned about what you are doing to our park , or 24 two openings and still complying with the specialists? The 25 experts that know how to put fires out, would that do it, or PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 39 1 not? We have said yes, two hydrants, fine . Supply the 2 water but do we need to break as many walls down as we are 3 talking about? I am not sure what the solution is . We have 4 proposed three or four after talking to them, but it' s 5 almost like you want to say one or two . 6 But we we don' t want to do anything to cause more 7 complications with your decision, and we will try to accept 8 what we are presented with. I want a fine place for these 9 people to live, and we want to do it as safe and as 10 conveniently as we possibly can do it. 11 Thank you. 12 MS. WITTENBURG: I am Carol Wittenburg, and I 13 have lived in Terrace Hill , space 171 , which is the last 14 row. They have just in last year black-topped a drainage 15 ditch in here that supports traffic. I am sure it would 16 hold a truck . And it' s just by Highway 70 . If there is a 17 fire hydrant for them to hook up to on Venus , wouldn' t that 18 probably eliminate one gate, as a suggestion? 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : At this point in time, any 20 more comments from the Commission? 21 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Yes . Them asking for 22 40 years, well , it' s what they want. But the problem is, if 23 safety' s now a thing, how big are the fire engines going to 24 get in 40 years? The last 20 years we didn' t have those big 25 snorkels . Won' t they be even bigger ones, and will they be PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 40 1 able to get in there? 2 MR. ZUBIA: I wish I could foretell the 3 future . The access roads that I am asking for, or the 4 gates, should be at least 40 feet wide . Our snorkels or 5 ladder truck should be able to gain access through there . 6 But those bigger vehicles are mainly used for large 7 structure fires--First National Bank Tower, and large 8 commercial buildings . 9 The apparatus that would be used on a mobile home fire 10 or incident would probably be our normal engine company, and 11 those are the regular-sized trucks that you are probably 12 familiar with, and not the big units . If there was a 13 commercial building built next to there , then I don' t know. 14 That' s a ,possibility then, and we might be considering a 15 snorkel . But there would be no reason why one of those 16 large vehicles should be required to go in at this time, the 17 present time , unless something that I am not aware of in the 18 future were built. Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments from the 20 Commission? 21 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Thank you, Mr . 22 Chairman.i I would like to ask the lieutenant to respond to 23 the lady' s suggestion in the audience about the fire hydrant 24 on Highway 70 and laying your hose over a wall or whatever . 25 MR. ZUBIA: First of all , I want to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 41 1 address - - you mentioned the hydrant that' s way down the 2 road this way on Highway 70 , in lieu of this one here . The 3 distance from that hydrant - - we could lay links from that 4 hydrant, but the truck would probably run out of hose before 5 we could utilize it for any purpose . And we don' t want to 6 be parking out here, jumping over with hose and fighting a 7 structure fire in here . That' s an obstacle we don' t like to 8 deal with. 9 I don' t know how you could eliminate this gate when we 10 are talking about a 500-foot limit, because we measured this 11 distance here , and the mobile homes in this area here are 12 not within the 500 feet limit that we like to set. And the 13 only way you could get to these would be from this hydrant, 14 laying lines this way. I know you want to eliminate access 15 gates, but that' s the only option, other than possibly 16 providing hydrants instead. 17 This was my initial recommendation, and I ' ll tell you 18 what I recomended. I would like to have hydrants here, I 19 believe here and maybe in between here . The cost was going 20 to be too great. And we also wanted some turnaround area 21 here . There is some code requirement for our equipment that 22 we shouldn't have dead-end streets longer than 100 feet, but 23 in lieu of having to remove one or two trailers , maybe 24 four--depending, I am not sure of the area here--for the 25 turnaround. But that' s what we were looking at, as a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 42 1 possibility. Those were other proposals that I had. Hope 2 none of those were your trailer 3 MR. KILLIAN: If you have a dead-end and you 4 go in in an emergency, and then if you happen to have to lay 5 line, it would be difficult to back out, wouldn' t it, if you 6 don' t have that capability. 7 MR. ZUBIA: Any time we are - - 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We are discussing the point 9 you made at the work session, that if you go into a street 10 and you have a dead-end and you lay lines, it would be 11 difficult to back out. 12 MR. ZUBIA: Our trucks, once we lay line, as 13 it is, are fairly restricted as to what they can do. But 14 one of the things we hate to do is definitely tie ourselves 15 in when we lay line . In a sense we are saying, we can' t go 16 back and lay that five-inch hose lines , which is pretty big, 17 and it limits us as far as what we can do 18 If we can' t back up and we can' t go forward, the unit 19 itself is going to be blocked. And one of the things we try 20 to avoid is making--no offense to your mobile homes now, and 21 this applies to residences, too--our truck can become an 22 exposure problem, meaning it can burn. And in some places 23 it has burned. And the last thing we want to do is lose an 24 apparatus that costs $100 , 000 . And sometimes our trucks are 25 placed in danger when we are fighting those fires , and we PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 43 1 want to have the flexibility, too, of saying we are drying 2 up, or we are moving out of the way. And just as 3 Commissioner Killian pointed out, mobile homes present a 4 problem because you not only fight the fire that' s currently 5 taking place , but we are always planning ahead and making 6 sure it doesn' t spread. Spreading to other mobile homes is 7 always a concern. And also, spreading to our units is 8 something we have to be concerned with. 9 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. 10 Any other comments from the commissioners? 11 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I was watching 12 television one night years ago and I saw a truck destroyed 13 just like you are talking about. There was an explosion in 14 the small building like you are talking about, and they 15 didn' t know what this building was, but it destroyed the 16 fire truck, burning them badly. 17 MR. ZUBIA: I believe it was a mobile home 18 building that was being used at a construction site, and it 19 had dynamite in it, supposedly. I believe that' s the 20 incident. That shouldn' t be anything that' s related to 21 here . 22 There are a lot of things that can happen, and that' s 23 one of the precautions that we take, not only to protect 24 ourselves and protect the units but ourselves . As far as 25 the gates , one of the concerns was the ability to cut in PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 44 1 with a bolt cutter . If a thief wants in, he is going to get 2 in, and that short wall won' t stop that. 3 The other factor would be that stray cats, stray dogs 4 would come through a wrought-iron gate . I think an 5 attractive gate could be designed that would be solid and 6 still be the some height as the fence and be attractive and 7 still be as secure as the fence . 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments from any 9 of the Commission? If not, we will go ahead and consider 10 each item. And I think the staff will be commenting on each 11 item as we vote on each issue . 12 Issue number one is the lack of adequate vehicle 13 turnaround for an emergency vehicle. After discussion from 14 the fire department, it has also been determined that there 15 is inadequate water access for the fire department. 16 It is felt that the City should bear some 17 responsibility as to supplying fire hydrants to the park . 18 The owners would be willing to open up four new entrances to 19 the park for access by the fire department. It would be the 20 intent of the owners to have two fire hydrants installed to 21 service the park and ask the City to contribute in .some 22 manner towards that end. 23 The fire department has agreed with this approach and 24 feels that it could safely provide protection on the 25 completion of these improvements . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 45 1 If the applicant requests approval , then the following 2 conditions would apply: create an additional three to four 3 emergency accesses up to 20-feet wide in coordination with 4 the Las Cruces Fire Department, installation of an 5 additional two fire hydrants in coordination with the Las 6 Cruces Fire Department . Staff? 7 MR. WEIR: On this issue , the basic issue is 8 dead-end streets within the park . And by making it a 9 condition of opening the three access points and also 10 working to install two new hydrants , that would go along 11 with the condition of approval on the special use permit, 12 and we would be willing to work with it. 13 On the map, the third access , staff would rather that 14 be off of Mars Street, because it would be easier to tie 15 into there . But there is no grade difference , and it really 16 presents no problem on Venus . 17 MR. SAMPSON: I would prefer it where it is 18 currently located, but if they want to go with the second 19 option, which is off Mars , I see no problem with it . 20 MR. ZUBIA: One of the reasons is, it really 21 takes the use of the other hydrant on Venus and number three 22 out for the most part. We hate laying lines across Venus, 23 and we would have to lay lines across Mars if we were going 24 to lay lines into that park . But we would have less 25 concern, like I mentioned before , with the general public PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 46 1 running over our lines as we hit a hydrant and then proceed 2 to the fire . It' s something that we try to work out with 3 DPS, but sometimes we can' t coordinate our responses . And 4 that' s a problem. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. 6 We are going to be voting on each issue as a variance . 7 And at this point, I would like to have a motion for 8 approval or denial of issue number one as stated. And we 9 need to decide whether we want three or four emergency 10 accesses . 11 May I have a motion? 12 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would move on issue 13 number one that it be approved with four emergency accesses. 14 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Second. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any discussion? If not, 16 Commissioner Linard? 17 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye 18 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 19 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye . 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Aye . 21 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Aye . 22 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye . 24 The motion carries for issue number one, as stated, with 25 four emeregency accesses . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 47 1 (Motion carried 7 to 0 . ) 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Issue number two, minimum 3 mobile home space area of 3 ,200 square feet. 4 At the time of construction, the minimum space 5 requirement was 2 , 000 square feet. All lots meet the 6 minimum requirement of 2 , 000 square feet. Approximately 71 7 of the 144 lots meet the current requirement of 3 , 200 square 8 feet. In order to increase the approximately 63 lots that 9 are not 3 , 200 square feet, it would be necessary to remove 10 some currently existing homes . We would displace 35 family 11 units . 12 The applicant on issue number two, minimum mobile home 13 space area 3 , 200 square feet, request approval be granted as 14 is . 15 MR. WEIR: Staff has no problem with this 16 request either . There are 73 mobile home spaces with less 17 than 3 , 200 square feet due to the requirement of only 2 , 000 18 square feet in 1969 . And due to the fact that nearly half 19 of the spaces do meet the requirement. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. 21 May I have a motion for approval or denial on issue 22 number two, and the request for approval to be granted as 23 is? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I ' ll move that we 25 approve issue number two . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 48 1 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I second. 2 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, the 3 motion would have to contain the variance , wouldn' t it? 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I am sorry, it' s a motion 5 for a variance . 6 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Okay, I didn' t hear it 7 that way. 8 COMMISSIONER PEREZ : I am sorry, I didn' t 9 make that clear . Any further discussions? 10 If not, Commissioner Linard? 11 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 12 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 13 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Aye . 15 COMMOSSIONER MONTOYA: Aye . 16 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye . 18 ( The motion carried 7 to 0 . ) 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Issue number three, a 20 minimum of ten feet between structures. Discussion: Under 21 the original special use permit, storage sheds were not a 22 requirement. The option can be to, number one , remove the 23 storage sheds or, two, control what is stored in them. 24 The park would require that no more than two gallons of 25 gasoline or flammable liquid could be stored in the storage PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 49 1 shed. The park management could inspect the sheds 2 semi-annually and would be agreeable to allowing the fire 3 department inspect the sheds at any time they may wish. The 4 fire inspector has also agreed to the alternative of 5 firewalling or removing the sheds 6 The City requirement is ten feet between structures . 7 The park meets the initial requirement for manufactured home 8 communities as stated in the National Fire Protection 9 Assocation' s publication. The applicant proposes a minimum 10 of ten feet between structures and requests approval be 11 granted with the following conditions: implementation of a 12 regularly monitored park policy calling for a limited amount 13 of stored flammable liquids in the storage sheds, with no 14 more than one gallon of gasoline and one gallon of other 15 liquids stored in approved metal containers . 16 MR. WEIR: Due to the alternatives and the 17 fact that accessory buildings are located at a distance that 18 meets the national fire code, staff would recommend approval 19 of this variance also . 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : May I have a motion for 21 variance to issue number three . 22 MS . LINARD: Mr . Chairman, I don' t think we 23 should put "metal containers, " because those approved 24 gasoline deals that you get your lawnmower gas in, certainly 25 aren' t metal . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 50 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Point of order . I am asking 2 for a motion so that we can discuss that. 3 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I would make the 4 motion, but I would like to check about the metal container 5 before I make the motion. 6 MR. ZUBIA: The reason I specified metal , if 7 I could clarify that, they are approved, and I couldn' t call 8 them plastic containers . But if you end up saying plastic, 9 you' ll end up with people putting it in a Clorox jar . I 10 hoped to avoid that by specifying metal . 11 MR. WEIR: We could clarify the language and 12 say "an approved gasoline inflammable liquid container, " 13 that would be more vague . 14 COMMISSIONER LINARD: All right. Thank you, 15 Mr . Chairman. I move that we grant issue number three as 16 requested with the conditions requested 17 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Second. Any 18 discussion. 19 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 20 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye. 21 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye . 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . 23 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Aye . 24 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 51 1 (The motion carried 7 to 0 . ) 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Issue number four , site 3 coverage exceeds the 40 percent allowable of impervious 4 materials . Discussion: The park site coverage is 43 5 percent due to wide streets . We feel this to be minimal and 6 feel wider than required streets are a benefit to the 7 community. This requirement was also instituted after park 8 construction. Applicant proposes site coverage exceed the 9 40 percent allowable of impervious materials . Request 10 approval be granted as is . 11 MR. WEIR: Staff would recommend approval . 12 This condition, also--the 40 percent impervious surface--was 13 not a requirement in the 1969 code when the park was 14 originally approved as a mobile home park . 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. May I have a 16 motion for a variance on issue number four , to be approved 17 and be granted as is . 18 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Mr . Chairman, I would 19 move that we would grant the variance for issue number four 20 to the applicant. 21 COMMISSIONER DAW: Second. 22 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 23 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 24 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye . 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 52 1 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Aye . 2 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye . 4 ( The motion carried 7 to 0 . ) 5 MR. WEIR: Issue number five does not meet 6 the requirement of storage yard for recreational vehicles . 7 Discussion: At the time of the initial approval , it was not 8 a requirement for the permit. Within one mile of the park 9 is a source facility where RVs can be stored. It is not 10 required that the park give this service at no cost to 11 tenants . The only way of providing space would be to 12 eliminate four homesites in the park, and thereby displacing 13 these tenants. At this time, there are approximately six 14 people in the park who own RVs and require storage . 15 Applicant proposes that it does not meet the requirement of 16 storage yard for recreational vehicles, but requests 17 approval be granted as is . 18 Due to the fact that there was not a requirement in the 19 169 code, staff does not feel strongly about providing an RV 20 storage park within the park. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr. Weir . At 22 this point, do we have a motion for a variance that issue 23 number five be approved and granted as is . Do I have a 24 motion? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I ' ll move that we PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 53 1 approve issue number five and leave it as it is . 2 COMMISSIONER LORD: Second. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? 4 COMMISSIONER DAW: Mr . Chairman, if there are 5 currently six residents that store their recreational 6 vehicles within the park ; and if this is granted, does it 7 mean that later on there may be 20 or 30 or 40 people 8 storing their recreational vehicles in the park? I don' t 9 quite understand what we are approving if we grant the 10 request as is . Does that mean it is limited to six 11 recreational vehicles? 12 MR. WEIR: I believe the applicant' s request 13 is not to provide any area for RV storage . Basically, the 14 park would not have an area for RV storage . And anyone who 15 owned an a RV would have to have it stored offsite at some 16 other storage area. 17 MR. SAMPSON: As a point of clarification, 18 there are no storage spaces in the park. The six residents 19 do have RVs and store them somewhere other than in the park . 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : They are not parked on the 21 streets is what we are saying. These RVs are not parked on 22 the streets . Any further discussion? If not, we will go on 23 to vote for item number five to be approved and granted as 24 is . 25 COMMISSIONER LINARD. Aye . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 54 1 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 2 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye , 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . 4 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Aye . 5 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye . 7 ( The motion carried 7 to 0 . ) 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Issue number six, mobile 9 homes do not meet the minimum 20 feet side-to-side 10 separation distance . The NFC requirement is ten feet 11 side-to-side, and the park meets that. There are 12 approximately six homes that do not meet the 20-foot 13 requirement based on a measurement from one home to another. 14 And we feel that over a period of time , attrition will take 15 care of this situation. They could be removed upon the home 16 moving out and selectively placing another home in that 17 area. 18 The applicant proposes or requests approval be granted 19 with the following condition, implementation of a park 20 policy to be incorporated in the park rules mandating that 21 all future overhang structures be constructed of a 22 noncombustible material . 23 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez , on this issue, 24 just to keep conformance , staff would rather see that the 25 20-foot be met, but due to circumstances of this park and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 55 1 the safety issues that have been brought out, staff would 2 rather see, over time , ten foot side-to-side requirements be 3 met as mobile homes are replaced in the park . But we have 4 no problem with a reduction in the side-to-side to ten feet 5 to meet the National Fire Code requirements . 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. At this point, 7 I ' ll ask for a motion for variance to issue number six. Do 8 I have a motion? 9 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, I would 10 move on item number six, as Mr. Weir stated, that the six 11 homes that do not now meet the requirement, but that they 12 will through attrition. The next one in meets that 13 requirement of 10 foot from overhang to overhang. 14 COMMISSIONER DAW: Second. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? 16 COMMISSIONER LORD: Mr. Weir, you stated that 17 they all met the ten foot side-to-side , and six of them 18 don' t meet the 20 feet. 19 MR. WEIR: That' s what the applicant said. I 20 haven't done a survey out there myself to check that, but 21 what I would propose is that through time they bring it in 22 and meet that spacing, the ten foot. We could live with 23 that. 24 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: That incident I 25 mentioned awhile ago where I saw the three units destroyed PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 56 1 was a park where it was closer than that. It was just a 2 little more than ten feet . That' s my concern with the 3 gates . 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any further discussion? 5 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 6 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 7 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye . 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Aye . 9 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Aye . 10 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye . 12 (The motion carried 7 to 0 . ) 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Issue number seven, the 14 majority of mobile homes do not meet the minimum 20 feet 15 back-to-back spacing. Discussion: The original special use 16 permit stated a 15-foot back-to-back spacing. The park 17 meets the national requirement for fire safety separation 18 requirements of six feet . Each home is separated 19 back-to-back by a five-foot rock wall . It is felt that the 20 rock wall acts as a fire break and therefore reduces this 21 risk. It is felt through attrition and selective processes 22 that the spacing could be corrected and minimized. Note the 23 NFPA 4-2 . 1 . Any portion of a manufactured home , excluding 24 turning shall not be located closer than ten feet 25 side-to-side , eight feet end-to-side or six feet end-to-end PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15, 1992 57 1 horizontally from any other manufactured home or community 2 building to another . Now, the park will agree to limit the 3 size of mobile homes to the following spaces : 1 through 145 4 to be limited to no larger than 80-foot homes in length. 5 Spaces 146 to 174 to be limited to no larger than 90-foot 6 homes in length. And double-wide homes , not to exceed 28 7 feet in width, would only be permitted on the spaces 8 designated here . 9 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez , Commissioners, 10 staff would recommend six-foot intervals end-to-end be 11 approved for this variance, and this issue would meet the 12 national fire code requirement for spacing. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : May I have a motion for 14 approval or denial of staff' s recommendation? I am sorry, 15 approval for the variance . 16 COMMISSIONER LORD: I move we approve the 17 variance and issue number seven to be granted with the 18 conditions that the owners have put on it. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Second. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? If not, we will 21 vote . 22 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 23 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 24 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye . 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIS.. Aye . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 58 1 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Aye . 2 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye . 4 (The motion carried 7 to 0 . ) 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Issue number eight, the 6 majority of the lots do not meet the minimum 100 feet depth. 7 Discussion: This was not a requirement at the time of 8 construction. The only specification was as to the total 9 size of the lots , which the park met. Lengthening the lots 10 would require a total displacement of 50 percent of the 11 tenants due to construction and a 30-percent loss in 12 permanently displaced tenants . For issue number eight, the 13 applicant requests approval be granted as is . 14 MR. WEIR: Since the requirements of the 169 15 code when this mobile home park was initially approved 16 didn' t require a 100-foot depth, staff would recommend 17 approval of this variance . 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a motion for 19 approval or denial of staff' s recommendation for this 20 variance? 21 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would move approval of 22 staff' s recommendation. 23 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Second. 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? We will go on 25 to vote . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 59 1 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 2 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 3 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye . 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . 5 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Aye . 6 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye . 8 ( The motion carried 7 to 0 . ) 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, issue number nine is a 10 request for a special use permit for a period of 40 years . 11 Applicant requests approval . Mr . Weir? 12 MR. WEIR: Staff doesn' t have a 13 recommendation on this issue, but we will state that the 14 last mobile home park that was granted a special use permit 15 was granted one for a 30—year period. And staff would just 16 give that to you for a reference point. 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. 18 At this point, may I have a motion for approval or 19 denial for a special use permit for a period of 40 years? 20 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, I 21 disagree with 40 years . And as I know commercial loans are 22 only 15 years, I don' t know about having to have a special 23 use permit for twice as long as the loan is . That seems a 24 little weird. And inasmuch as as they don' t conform to 25 everything, and the other one with new construction got 30 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 60 1 years , I move that we approve it for 30 years and do 2 something about studying the special use permit for mobile 3 home parks . I think we should bring that up in our work 4 sessions . 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do I have a second? 6 COMMISSIONER DAW: I ' ll second. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? If not, we 8 will go on to the vote . 9 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 10 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 11 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye . 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . 13 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Aye . 14 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye . 16 ( The motion carried 7 to 0 . ) 17 COMMISSIONER DAW: Mr Chairman, I would like 18 to second Commissioner Linard' s comment relative to looking 19 at getting a zoning for mobile home parks . That will be a 20 way of putting the appropriate restrictions into a mobile 21 home park that will be of benefit for a long time into the 22 future. And I am sort of surprised that that hasn' t come up 23 before . That may only be because I am so new in this 24 operation. It may have come up before and there may be 25 reasons for turning it down. But I sure think it ought to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 61 1 be looked at . 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I think this particular 3 issue needs to be addressed, and we can certainly request 4 the staff to, at some time in the future, put it on our work 5 session agenda. 6 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I think those other 7 mobile home parks just grew like topsy, and we didn' t have 8 anything in this town to regulate it, so the special use 9 thing was created. I think we do need to address it as a 10 zoning issue, though, and then we can get fire hydrants and 11 other safety features into these places on a long-term 12 basis . 13 MR. WEIR: I think you need to approve the 14 special use permit for the entire park . I think you just 15 decided on - - you approved each of the conditions, but then 16 you also need to reach a consensus on the time period. But 17 I think it would be okay just to go ahead and make a motion 18 to grant the special use permit as a mobile home park . 19 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Would you like for 20 me - - we have already voted on my motion. 21 COMMISSIONER PEREZ : The next thing I was 22 going to do is ask if there was something else that we 23 needed to do on this thing. Thank you very much, Mr . Weir . 24 May we have a motion to approve the special use permit 25 for case SUP-92-006 with the approved variances? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 62 1 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: So moved. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion. 4 COMMISSIONER DAW: I believe we 've already 5 approved it for 30 years . 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : But now we need to make a 7 motion to accept all of the variances . 8 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would like to be clearer 9 on what we are voting on. Did I misunderstand or did we 10 complete the process? 11 MR. WEIR: I believe the motion you made is 12 inclusive of everything you have done . It' s just concluding 13 it now. 14 COMMISSIONER DAW: And what does the motion 15 need to say? You granted a special use permit for a mobile 16 home park with eight conditions for a 30-year period? 17 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I thought that was my 18 motion. 19 MR. WEIR: I believe it was just for the 20 30-year period. 21 COMMISSIONER DAW: Mr . Chairman, I ' ll make 22 the motion that Mr . Weir has just stated, that we approve it 23 for a 30-year period, a special use permit for 30 years 24 subject to the conditions we have just voted on. 25 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I ' ll second it. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING December 15 , 1992 64 1 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Aye. 2 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Chair votes aye. Motion 4 carries. 5 The next case is Case Z2198, a request for zone change 6 from R-4, High Density Residential and Limited Office to 7 C-2, General Commercial or otherwise. The property is a 8 part of a parcel of land and is 0.350 acres. The proposed 9 use is for restaurant and gallery and gift shop. The 10 property is located at 949 and 955 South Melendres Street. 11 Submitted by Mary Jane Sak for Melvin and June L. McGuire, 12 the property owners. 13 This was an issue that was postponed on 11-24-92. 14 At this point in time, may I have a motion to remove 15 for consideration? 16 COMMISSIONER LORD: So moved. 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is there a second? 18 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Is the applicant present, or 20 its representative? 21 MS. MCGUIRE: I'm June McGuire, and this is 22 our property. It' s really three parcels, but it' s one 23 unit. Our property has one of the most unique buildings in 24 Las Cruces. People frequently stop in because they think 25 it' s so charming from the outside. We would hope whoever PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 65 1 buys it will try to preserve the ambience it projects. 2 Now, we've had people consider having a restaurant 3 there. The first man was killed, and the current 4 prospective person is appalled at the building costs, so 5 we' ll see if it falls through. 6 She wants to have an Italian restaurant with patio 7 tables and umbrellas out in the garden area. Recently we 8 had some people say we should preserve the building and make 9 it similar to Vargo' s restaurant in Houston. I have some 10 pictures here. It'll never look like this, ever, but 11 anyway, this is the idea. Because we have the trees and 12 things there. 13 You know, it' s a beautiful corner. It will never be 14 that lovely, of course, but it is an adobe building, and it 15 could be historical, but we've never had it designated as 16 such. But anyway, everybody thinks the best use would be a 17 restaurant or gallery or something like that. 18 So in order to have that, we have to have the C-2 19 zoning. A kitchen and restrooms would have to be built 20 behind the office. So that' s why we have to get the whole 21 thing zoned C-2, so we can have parking and everything right 22 there. We would go for--I think we are going for a C-2 23 Conditional so that only the restaurant will be in C-2. The 24 rest of the property will be C-1 for the C-1 uses. Do you 25 understand what I mean? Just the restaurant in C-2, but you PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 66 1 have to have C-2 zoning for a restaurant for over 16 2 people. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay. Mr. Weir. 4 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez, Commissioners, the 5 request is for a zone change to C-2C. The current zoning of 6 the property is R-4, but it is on one parcel of land. The 7 front portion that fronts on Main Street is zoned C-1, and 8 approximately the back third is zoned R-4. 9 You have another zone request after this one to place 10 the same zoning on the front parcel. I see puzzled looks. 11 What the condition on the zoning is is to allow that 12 restaurant; and then all the other uses will be just those 13 permitted in the C-1 zoning district. Since the property is 14 one property and there currently are two zones, a 15 consolidation of zones would make it easier to track from a 16 staff level. And since the only increase in density would 17 be the potential for a restaurant on the property, staff 18 would recommend approval of the zone change. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Thank you, Mr. Weir. At 20 this time we'll open it up to public participation. Anybody 21 in the audience wish to comment on Case 22198. 22 We' ll close it to public participation and go into 23 commissioner input. Any comments from any of the 24 commissioners? Commissioner Daw. 25 COMMISSIONER DAW: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 67 1 hear quite clearly what was being said. The proposed change 2 is to C-2. Is it general C-2? 3 MR. WEIR: No, it' s a conditional zone 4 change, and what the condition would be, it would be C-2 and 5 then all other C-2 uses, other than the restaurant, would 6 not be allowed. The only additional uses are those that are 7 permitted with the C-1 zone, which is the neighborhood 8 commercial. So basically what it will be will be a C-1 zone 9 change that would allow a restaurant with more 10 than 16 seats within the restaurant. 11 MS. MCGUIRE: Do they know the front is 12 already C-1? 13 MR. WEIR: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: David, let' s say they 15 got C-1. I know that' s not what they're requesting, but say 16 they got that, and then they came back in and said, Look, we 17 want to put in a special restaurant that needs more than 16 18 seats. How could they go about that in a C-1 zone? 19 MR. WEIR: Currently they wouldn't be 20 allowed. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: There is no variance 22 process or anything that they could use, or special use 23 permit? 24 MR. WEIR: There is currently not a procedure 25 through special use for that. This would tread on the thin PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 68 1 line between a use variance and numerical variance. 2 The Board of Adjustment has the authority to grant 3 numerical variances, but they don't have criteria to judge 4 use variances. So from a staff level, it would be easier to 5 grant a C-2 Conditional and eliminate those uses that aren't 6 in the C-1. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: But if they were to be 8 granted the C-2 Conditional, then it is conceivable that 9 Burger Time could go in there. I mean, if they could make 10 it fit. It kind of leaves that open. 11 MR. WEIR: I would say yes, that use would be 12 permitted. 13 MS. MCGUIRE: A restaurant, though. I guess 14 that is a restaurant. We're really planning on 15 something--well, of course, as you say, you can't tell. But 16 I don't think Burger King could get in there. The traffic 17 is too horrendous there. They could never allow it. I 18 don't think we could get it. 19 Could you get a building permit for something like 20 that? They can't really turn off Main, actually. They have 21 to turn in Melendres. That' s why we have to have it so they 22 can come out the second little house, because you can't 23 hardly turn in there. I mean, it' s too much traffic. I 24 don't think a Burger King would be interested in that at 25 all. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 69 1 An Italian restaurant is what they planned with the 2 patios out in the yard with the little umbrella things over 3 them and stuff. I mean, this is the only kind of thing I 4 can see there at all. I could not imagine why anybody--the 5 traffic would not allow them to turn off Main, and I don't 6 see how you could have a Burger King there. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Well, using the word 8 Burger King was a gross exaggeration. I would love to see 9 that go in, what you're talking about. I think it would be 10 fantastic. 11 MS. MCGUIRE: They have to get a building 12 permit and stuff. I don't know how you can restrict them 13 from that. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: I am concerned, though, 15 about leaving that wide open, you know. Just giving a 16 blanket restaurant use. 17 MS. MCGUIRE: Well, I don't know what to tell 18 you except that I don't think--you can't. The traffic 19 people would not let you turn off Main. I 'm sure they 20 wouldn't. They would have too many accidents there. It 21 would be unreal to have to come off Melendres. It' s not 22 that big of a corner. It' s an acre. 23 Now, David, is there any other way to-- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Are there other 25 options? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 70 1 MR. WEIR: The only thing they could add to 2 the condition would be to prohibit drive-through windows so 3 that you would assure they would have to park and go into 4 the restaurant. There wouldn't be the, quote, fast food. 5 MS. MCGUIRE: I would go for that. No 6 drive-ins. That would limit it for sure. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: I don't think you would 8 have the stacking lane space there anyway for it. 9 MR. WEIR: It would be difficult to meet all 10 your requirements for that. 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Taking, for example, the 12 stacking lane. What is it, 150 feet? 13 MR. WEIR: I believe it' s like 200 feet. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: 200 feet. 15 MS. MCGUIRE: We haven't got that kind of 16 room. That' s why I say you can't come off Main there at 17 all. 18 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: There is an ordinance 19 there on Melendres that no trucks bigger than, I don't know, 20 six wheels can go through Melendres. Would that affect 21 anything with the deliveries coming in and out. 22 MS. MCGUIRE: They come all the time. 23 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Still, there is an 24 ordinance there. 25 MS. MCGUIRE: There is an ordinance, yes. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 71 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is that a problem? 2 MR. WEIR: Back to the enforcement issue, 3 someone would have to complain, and then they would cite the 4 person--watch for it and cite the person if they failed to 5 meet that requirement, staying off the street. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Would that compromise 7 anything at this particular point in time, assuming that the 8 Commission would approve it? And there is that ordinance 9 that prohibits that kind of activity. Would it be going 10 counter, going against odds? 11 MS. MCGUIRE: It wouldn't be through traffic 12 anyway. They just go there and come back. 13 MR. SIMS: Let me answer that. I was reading 14 a case on something else. Yes, theoretically if they were 15 made aware of the situation, the officers or whoever would 16 cite codes would cite on that. The truck would be cited 17 every time it went through there. 18 So if they were thinking ahead, they'd realize that the 19 truck would not be permitted. They would have to use 20 something smaller. But the ordinance would apply to them 21 automatically. They would be cited. They'd keep going to 22 court until, I guess, they got tired of doing it that way. 23 Unless they changed the ordinance. 24 So I guess it would be a situation where it would have 25 to be worked out so that smaller vehicles would have to make PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 72 1 deliveries in there. 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay. Any further 3 discussion? 4 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would like to know if 5 all of the adjoining property owners were notified of this 6 proposed action? 7 MR. WEIR: Yes. Certified letters were sent 8 out, and it was advertised in the Las Cruces Sun News. 9 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would also like to know 10 if any protest letters or letters in favor of the 11 proposition were received? 12 MR. WEIR: There were two protest letters 13 received on this case. One of them was when it was 14 initially requested for a straight C-2 zone, and that was 15 the potential uses within the park. That was one of the 16 reasons the applicant postponed the case last month, was to 17 request the conditional zoning. And- then in your packet 18 this month, there was a letter from a resident who was 19 concerned about potential traffic and noise from a 20 restaurant use on the property. 21 COMMISSIONER DAW: Thank you. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any further discussion? If 23 not, we'll go on to vote on case Z2198. 24 May I have a motion for approval or denial of Z2198, as 25 conditioned? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 73 1 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: The indication was 2 that if a drive-in window was restricted, that was 3 acceptable to you? 4 MS. MCGUIRE: Yes, that' s fine. 5 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Then I move that this 6 be approved with the zone change with the exception that a 7 drive-in window be restricted, not allowed. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Point of clarification. Mr. 9 Weir, you stated there was another condition that this was a 10 conditional. 11 MR. WEIR: Yes, it would be a restaurant use 12 and then all the rest of the uses would be those permitted 13 in the C-1 zone. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So we would be moving on a 15 motion as conditioned for restaurant use only and that the 16 drive-up window would not be allowed. Is that it? 17 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: That' s correct. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Do I have a second? 19 COMMISSIONER LORD: Second. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Discussion? Commissioner 21 Linard. 22 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye. 23 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye. 24 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Aye. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 74 1 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Aye. 2 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Chair votes aye. Motion 4 carries. 5 Next case is case 22199, request for a zone change from 6 R-4 High Density Residential and limited Office to C-2 7 General Commercial or otherwise. The property is a part of 8 a parcel of land, and it is 0.566 acres. The proposed use 9 is for a restaurant and gallery and gift shop. The property 10 is located at 1960 South Main Street, submitted by Mary Jane 11 Sak for Melvin and June L. McGuire, the property owners. 12 This was postponed 11-24-92. 13 May I have a motion to remove for consideration? 14 COMMISSIONER DAW: So moved. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Do I have a second? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Second. 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present? 18 MS. MCGUIRE: Yes. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would you like to make a 20 presentation? 21 MS. MCGUIRE: This is really where our office 22 is now, and it' s really zoned C-1 already, you know. I 23 don't know where this R-4 came from. It is already zoned 24 C-1, and this is the main part of the property up front. 25 You all have maps. If you went by, you know, it' s the three PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 75 1 on Melendres, and this is the front part. That' s where the 2 restaurant would be. It' s that building. And that' s the 3 one I 'd like to preserve, because it' s that pretty one in 4 front. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, Mr. Weir. 6 MR. WEIR: Basically this is the same 7 request, and staff would recommend approval of the 8 conditions and also adding the condition of no drive-through 9 windows for the property. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Okay, at this point we' ll 11 open it to public participation. Anybody in the audience 12 wish to comment on case Z2199. We' ll close it and go on to 13 commissioner input. Any comments? 14 COMMISSIONER DAW: I have a question. Why 15 was it broken into two packages rather than one? 16 MS. MCGUIRE: I can tell you it was the P&Z 17 Commission years ago. It was their idea. I don't know 18 why. It' s one parcel of land. I mean we've never divided 19 it, but at that time that' s what they wanted, and so we just 20 went along with their request. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Commissioner Willis. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: So you're saying it has 23 had a zone change in the past? 24 MS. MCGUIRE: A long time ago it was Mrs. 25 White' s residence. Yeah, that was in the sixties or PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 76 1 something like that. It was all residential. Where you 2 are, it was residential, too. So I mean, yeah, it had a 3 zone change at that time because we wanted our office 4 there. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: And you're asking for 6 the same conditions? 7 MS. MCGUIRE: Yes, the same. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Any other discussion. Okay 9 if not may I have a motion to approve or deny case 22192 as 10 conditioned. 11 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would move that it be 12 approved with the same language that was on the plot, which 13 I don't understand why it was separated. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second? 15 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Second. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? 17 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye. 18 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye. 19 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Aye. 21 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Aye. 22 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Chair votes aye. The motion 24 carries. Okay, the next item under new business is the item 25 that was taken off the consent agenda. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 77 1 Case S-92-025, request for final plat approval of 2 Cheyenne Park, Unit 2. The property is located east of the 3 intersection of Cheyenne Drive and Cloudcroft Circle. The 4 plat contains 3.233 acres and 11 parcels of real property. 5 Zoned PUD, Planned Use Development, submitted by Florence 6 Muller and Karen Muller. 7 May I have a motion for consideration of case 8 5-92-025? 9 COMMISSIONER DAW: So moved. 10 CHAIRMAN DAW: May I have a second? 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Second. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Is the applicant or its 13 representative here? 14 MR. SCANLON: Both of us. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would you care to make a 16 presentation at this time, Mr. Scanlon? 17 MR. SCANLON: I didn't really have a 18 presentation to make regarding the subdivision, but when 19 Commissioner Daw requested it be removed from the consent 20 agenda, he asked for some explanation as to the PUD. So I 21 have prepared a real brief presentation to you about the 22 PUD, the High Range Planned Unit Development. And so I ' ll 23 just go through that real quickly, because I 'm not real sure 24 what your concern is. So I ' ll explain that, then answer any 25 questions you may have about it. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 78 1 High Range Planned Community District was originally 2 approved as a planned community district under the rules 3 about 12 or 13 years ago when the property was annexed into 4 the City. High Range is approximately a 560-acre planned 5 unit development. Now, when the zoning ordinance changed in 6 1988, I believe it was changed from planned community 7 district to planned unit development. 8 A PCD or PUD does basically several things. It allows 9 the City and the developers to get together and agree on how 10 a large area of land is going to be developed. And it lets 11 them address the issues related to impact on traffic, 12 utilities, drainage, design standards, open space, land use, 13 and allows them to answer the questions about how the 14 property is going to be developed with respect to all these 15 aspects. 16 It also ensures that the City will have an idea as to 17 how the land will be developed, what to expect in the way of 18 densities, and what to expect in the way of impact on 19 infrastructure and utility systems, transportation network, 20 and so forth. 21 It also, in turn, ensures back to the developer that he 22 knows what the rules are going to be for the development of 23 that property as he goes along in developing it. It also 24 provides for some flexibility in design standards and some 25 things like that that you can't do under the strict zoning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 79 1 or the design standards or the subdivision regulations, 2 whatever may happen to govern the issue at hand. 3 The High Range is a mixed land use PUD comprised of 4 some single family, some multi-family, some neighborhood 5 commercial, and some open space. The particular planning 6 unit that this subdivision lies within conforms exactly to 7 R-1 design standards, R-1 zoning requirements, except for 8 the building setbacks. And the deviations in the building 9 setbacks are that in this subdivision, 25-foot front yard 10 setback is required instead of the 20. So this was more 11 restrictive than R-1 zoning. 12 And it allows for a five-foot side yard setback and a 13 15-foot rear yard setback, both of these being less 14 restrictive than the R-1 would allow. All of the High Range 15 is zoned to conform exactly to the subdivision reqs and 16 exactly to the design standard as far as street right-of-way 17 widths, drainage requirements, those types of things. And 18 this subdivision conforms exactly to the requirements of the 19 PUD as it was approved by Planning and Zoning Commission and 20 City Commission at that time. 21 Do you have any questions? 22 COMMISSIONER DAW: I apologize to both of you 23 for pulling these items off. I know your time is valuable, 24 and I worried about that. But I thought, If I don't pull 25 them off, I can't have you tell me about PUDs. And since PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 80 1 the--whatever that board is, I can't remember. Adjustment 2 Board or something--has said that you can't put in a PUD, 3 anything, I mean, depending if you put commercial up here 4 and residential down here, that you can't put in anything 5 that sort of reaches above the zone, but only below the 6 zone. I 'm not so sure we need PUDs anymore, okay, because I 7 don't really know what they do. And I wanted to hear in a 8 sense what you have done and what the PUD allows you to do 9 and what it doesn't allow you to do. 10 And I have a specific question to start with. How much 11 acreage--this talks about 2.232 acres, but this is a part of 12 a much larger acreage that came under the PUD, didn't it, or 13 is it on a 3.233 acre PUD? 14 MR. SCANLON No, it' s a 560-acre PUD. 15 COMMISSIONER DAW: Okay. Now, what does the 16 PUD let you do? What are you able to do in line with this 17 Board of Adjustment ruling that you couldn't do? 18 MR. SCANLON: The development plan for the 19 High Range divided the 560-acre tract up into a number of 20 planning units. And within those planning units, certain 21 standards for the development of these units were 22 established. 23 In other words, densities, dwelling units per acre, 24 type of development, type of land use, whether it would be 25 neighborhood commercial, whether it be designated as open PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 81 1 space or park land, whether it be designated as only single 2 family detached dwelling units, and how many of these per 3 acre. It' s quite a lengthy document. It' s comprised of 4 many, many pages of drawings and much narrative, written 5 narrative. 6 It basically allows the development of the area within 7 those guidelines, but it doesn't allow you to deviate from 8 any of the other laws or rules, so to speak. I mean, it 9 establishes certain rules and regulations for the 10 development of that property. And like I said, it ensures 11 that it will be developed within those ranges that were 12 defined in the original development plan unless you all 13 choose to modify it. 14 If we wanted to modify it, we would have to come to you 15 and ask for a modification to that development plan. 16 Otherwise, we have to develop within the requirements. And 17 it outlines things for phasing of utilities, outlines things 18 for the control of drainage. It outlines requirements for 19 the arterial streets, collector streets, just all manner of 20 design elements. 21 COMMISSIONER DAW: But suppose that you had 22 chosen to develop that acreage in the ordinary manner and 23 not with a PUD. How would the development differ, 24 particularly if you had in mind sort of what you wanted to 25 do? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 82 1 MR. SCANLON: Well, this particular 2 subdivision, if it had been zoned R-1, for instance, this 3 particular subdivision wouldn't have probably changed at 4 all. It would look exactly like it does under this rule. 5 There are other areas within High Range that allow, for 6 instance, apartment buildings like the High Range Village 7 Apartments. That' s part of the High Range PUD, also. 8 That was a planned unit that allowed a maximum of, I 9 think, 144 dwelling units per acre. Some amount that would 10 allow apartments. If it had been R-1, this subdivision 11 basically conforms to R-1, to R-1 standards. 12 Like I said, it was an attempt to--and it' s worked very 13 well over the years--it' s an attempt to plan a significant 14 area of new development for the City early on so that the 15 City could ensure how it was going to develop and the 16 developers could be assured as to what rules they were going 17 to be operating under. Because as we know, rules change 18 from time to time. 19 COMMISSIONER DAW: If you had to do it over 20 again, would you find the PUD a useful vehicle for what you 21 wanted to do? 22 MR. SCANLON: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER DAW: It' s better for you than, 24 say, just going residential? 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Excuse me just a minute, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 83 1 please. If I may, so we can get to the point of discussion, 2 we can leave this part of the question and answer so that I 3 can go through the normal procedure. If you could hold your 4 questions until we go into commissioner input. This way 5 we' ll get-- 6 COMMISSIONER DAW: I 'm sorry. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is that your presentation 8 Mr. Scanlon? 9 MR. SCANLON: Yes, other than that I would be 10 happy to answer any questions any of you may have. 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We' ll have that under 12 commissioner input. Mr. Weir. 13 MR. WEIR: The case before you is for final 14 plat approval for an 11-parcel subdivision. About two 15 months ago, you approved an amended site plan for the 16 subdivision. This final plat conforms to that site plan, 17 conforms to the requirements of the subdivision regulations, 18 and staff would recommend approval of the final plat for 19 Cheyenne Park, number 2. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : At this point we'll open it 21 to public participation. Anyone in the audience wish to 22 comment on S-92-025? 23 We' ll close it and go into commissioner input. 24 Commissioner Daw, now you can finish your questions. 25 COMMISSIONER DAW: Well, I 'm sorry. I think PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 84 1 I 'm about through with the questions that I wanted to ask. 2 MR. SCANLON: To answer your question 3 regarding whether or not we would use a PUD again, I would. 4 At the time this was developed, it was the vehicle--I mean, 5 we had a zoning ordinance that had R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and 6 C-2. That was it. Those were our choices back then. And 7 0-1. We had the office, and then there was the agricultural 8 and flood plain zones. 9 What the PUD allowed us to do was to go in and create 10 areas, planning unit for, say, neighborhood services, 11 convenience stores or a small shopping area, or something 12 like that. And to define exactly what type of uses could be 13 put in there. 14 Otherwise, we would have been stuck with going to a C-2 15 zone, which may have allowed some things we didn't want or 16 may have allowed things we did want, and it would have 17 become practically impossible under the zoning code to 18 accomplish the planning of over 560 acres that we wanted to 19 do. 20 Since that time, then, the zoning code has become more 21 comprehensive and would be easier now, perhaps, to 22 accomplish that with the zones that we have now. But it 23 would still be difficult to do. It' s just a real nice way 24 to ensure to the City what would be done and to ensure to 25 the developer what rules he' s going to be operating under. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 85 1 COMMISSIONER DAW: That' s all the questions. 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other discussion? 3 COMMISSIONER LORD: What we've been under the 4 impression of is that PUDs have been used to circumvent 5 certain zoning situations, and what we're learning is that 6 sometimes you're going to use a PUD to kind of zone 7 everything to make a nice development that doesn't try and 8 cut any corners. You're just trying to get the job done 9 quickly and smoothly, and it' s the quickest, smoothest 10 vehicle to get the job done. 11 MR. SCANLON: That' s correct. 12 COMMISSIONER LORD: Other than going the old 13 zoning way. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Any other discussion? If 15 not, may I have a motion to approve or deny 5-92-025 as 16 stated? 17 COMMISSIONER DAW: I move we approve. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Second. 20 COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Discussion? 21 Commissioner Linard. 22 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye. 23 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye. 24 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Aye. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 86 1 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Aye. 2 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Chair votes aye. Motion 4 carries. 5 MR. MULLER: Commissioners, my name is 6 Gerhard Muller. I 'm one of the originals of High Range. If 7 it meets with your approval, I would love to sit down with 8 you and show you all the documentation that went into the 9 High Range just for, quote, purposes of enlightenment or 10 whatever you might call it. Any time that you might be 11 available or would like to do so, I am available. I live in 12 town. I enjoy Las Cruces, and we probably have the best 13 damn subdivision up there in High Range that you have here 14 in this town. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. We may take you 16 up on that suggestion at a future work session. 17 MR. MULLER: I would be more than happy. 18 David knows how to get ahold of me. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : What was your last name? 20 MR. MULLER: M-U-L-L-E-R. I worked with 21 Albuquerque Fed. I was not an employee of Albuquerque Fed, 22 but I had a joint venture with them. Thank you very much. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The next case is Case 24 PUD-92-006, A request for a minor amendment to the site for 25 Parcels 1, 2, and 4 of the Las Colinas PUD (Las Colinas PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 87 1 Phase 4 Subdivision) . The parcels consist of plus or minus 2 18.053 acres of land located west of Las Alamedas Boulevard 3 and north of Las Colinas Drive. Submitted by Roger Cox 4 Western Developers. 5 May I have a motion for consideration of case PUD 6 92-006? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: I move we approve. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second? 9 COMMISSIONER DAW: Second. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present? 11 Would you like to make a presentation? 12 MR. THURSTON: Well, I was hoping I didn't 13 have to do this, so I 'm not really prepared. Basically we 14 came before you two years ago and received approval of our 15 PUD phase 4A and 4B. We have just completed the 16 improvements on 4B. And in our final inspection with the 17 City, we were informed that we had changed the approved plan 18 for cul-de-sac planning on items one, two, three and four. 19 What we had originally come and gotten approval before 20 most of you were on the board, I think, with the exception 21 of two of you, was that we had a landscape median. We had 22 put them in Crystal Place and Emerald cul-de-sacs. And with 23 the disagreement with Larry Rodriguez at the City. 24 And so, when we did one, two, three, and four, while I 25 was out there doing the improvements, I simply paved over PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 88 1 those areas like he wanted originally, thinking that I was 2 doing a favor for the City. And I got chastised severely 3 for doing so. So I am here before you to ask for an 4 amendment to our original PUD document allowing us to pave 5 that particular area. It was done at our expense versus the 6 City' s expense. So I ' ll gladly answer any questions. 7 Except next time turn on the heat at this late hour. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Mr. Weir. 9 MR. WEIR: This case is just a minor 10 amendment to the PUD as Mr. Thurston has already stated. 11 When they got their site plan approved, the approval was for 12 landscape islands within their cul-de-sacs. At this time, 13 he' s now requesting that that condition be removed from the 14 site plan. Staff has no problem with this for four 15 reasons. The landscape islands are not in any of the first 16 three phases of Las Colinas. When phase four came in, the 17 City didn't require or recommend that the landscape island 18 be provided. The City will not maintain these landscape 19 areas, and from a maintenance standpoint it could be more 20 easily accomplished and more cost effectively done without 21 the landscape island. So we recommend approval of the minor 22 amendment. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr. Weir. At 24 this time we' ll open it to public participation. Anybody in 25 the audience wish to comment on case PUD 92-006? We' ll PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 89 1 close it to public participation and go on to commissioner 2 input. Any comments? 3 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would like the developer 4 to address the same questions that I asked of the other 5 person representing a PUD. I would like to know in a sense 6 whether it is good to have PUDs, what one has been able to 7 do under PUD that is better than without a PUD, whether one 8 would do it again that way, or whether they would go 9 regular. I 'd like that sort of discussed by-- 10 MR. THURSTON: I 'm going to have to ask you 11 to readdress some of those. I didn't write them down fast 12 enough. As far as our personal belief in the PUD, the 13 concept of the planned unit development is without question 14 the way we prefer to do all of our developments. The reason 15 is because we can come in, and on a large tract, we feel 16 that we have a specific target market in mind as to what 17 we're trying to do and certain things that we think that the 18 public will appreciate and purchase. 19 And generally, when we go into either Farmington or 20 Albuquerque or Las Cruces, we found that the, quote, zoning 21 code and the approved standards are generally not totally in 22 agreement with what we think. And a PUD document allows us 23 some flexibility. 24 In 1986 and 1987, when we originally came down and 25 purchased Las Colinas, which is about 203 acres, a set of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 90 1 documents was presented to the then current Planning and 2 Zoning Commission and also to the City commissioners. And 3 the only thing that I regret about a PUD, in my opinion, is 4 that staff changes from time to time, and then it' s a 5 re-educational process back to the new commissioners, back 6 to the new staff, and back to the new commissioners and City 7 Hall. 8 That document is really placed on file, and Dave knows 9 it' s there, and you guys know it' s there. But in the second 10 and third and fourth year or the fifth year or sixth year, 11 however long that goes, I don't know how many of you 12 commissioners actually take the time to go back and read the 13 High Range document or go back and read the Las Colinas 14 document and so forth. 15 But when you see the comprehensive plan, then you can 16 kind of see how the whole picture fits into play. And 17 that' s the only negative I see, is when we're having to take 18 that over a five-year period or 10-year period. And most of 19 those projects are big projects. They're not the little 11 20 lots or three acre parcels here. They're the bigger 21 parcels. 22 So that' s my only regret. As far as the rest of it, 23 it' s a great program, and I think every--in fact, every 24 municipality that we've developed in has that document 25 available to us. So we like it. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 91 1 COMMISSIONER DAW: Well, I appreciate that 2 comment, because as I see it, we get little tiny pieces of 3 that overall PUD that we never see. Like you say, someone 4 else saw it sometime back. And we get a little tiny piece 5 of it. But if you had gone in to develop it, I think all of 6 that' s residential. Isn't it all R-1? 7 MR. THURSTON: There is a little--I can't 8 remember. There is a segment that is--all that you see 9 there on the drawing is, I think it was R-1 PUD with the 10 exception of this area right here. And I think that was R-3 11 on the original zone. And this over here was C-2. But the 12 rest of it was mostly residential. And then I guess we got 13 some flood zone there in the Sandhill Arroyo. That' s part 14 of the zone. Is that A-1 zone? I think flood zone is A-1. 15 COMMISSIONER DAW: You said that if it had 16 come in under the regular zone, it would have made things 17 much more difficult for you, you might not have come in? 18 MR. THURSTON: Well, it limits your 19 flexibility. 20 COMMISSIONER DAW: Could you point out what 21 are some of the features that you have been able to do that 22 you could not have done under R-1? 23 MR. THURSTON: R-1--and you're asking me to 24 speak off the top of my head, which is sometimes troublesome 25 for me--but in an R-1, I think the minimum lot size is 6, 000 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 92 1 square feet. 2 MR. WEIR: 5, 000. 3 MR. THURSTON: 5, 000, with a side yard 4 setback of seven and seven, and a 20-foot front setback and 5 a 25 rear. And then I think the minimum frontage is 60-foot 6 frontage. So for example in Crystal Place, on lot 13, and 7 12, and 11, and 10, and 9, we have a minimum frontage there, 8 probably a 40-foot on the actual width in the front of the 9 street there. So that wouldn't be allowed in a pure R-1 10 zone setting. 11 Then the setbacks out there that we requested and got 12 approval on was 20-foot in the front, 15 in the rear, five 13 and five on the side. The square footage, I think, for our 14 attached was 2, 800 square feet for lot size, and for a 15 detached, I think, was 3,600. But I can't remember. And 16 like I said, in the R-1 zone, then, 5, 000 was minimum. And 17 so that restricts us. 18 In your current zoning code and permits situation, you 19 address almost identically various things that are addressed 20 in the PUD documents, such as the height and setbacks and 21 all of these kinds of things, curbs and gutters. We asked 22 specifically for a change in the curb and gutter on Crystal 23 Place, for example. Instead of a standard two-foot width 24 and six-inch back of curb, we asked for a header curb and 25 received approval for that situation. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 93 1 So there are various things that we requested. And 2 another typical thing that we spent three or four months 3 here just recently is the T turnarounds and Y turnarounds. 4 Those are things that are not normal in your R-1 or R-2 and 5 so forth. And yet, it' s used very effectively throughout 6 the country. 7 But with the limitations that you presently had in your 8 zone, we could not have done that. So we had to come in 9 with a master plan, the PUD, and get all of these kinds of 10 concepts approved. And then, like Mr. Scanlon said, now we 11 are bound by those throughout the project. But we know what 12 the results are, you know. 13 What the results are, a utility division has been 14 established, you know, showing the heirarchy of the 15 utilities. A street heirarchy has been established. 16 Cul-de-sac lengths have been established, and so forth. So 17 those are the kinds of things that have had to be accounted 18 for here, where in true R-1 zoning, they have to go through 19 a lot of things we had to go through up front. 20 If it' s R-1, you just go out and meet the requirements 21 and you do it. This here gives you total control on a large 22 parcel of land. 23 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I 'm adding to the 24 doctor' s question. Could you have done this development 25 without a PUD, what you've done? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 94 1 MR. THURSTON: No, I could not have done Las 2 Colinas. 3 MR. SIMS: Going to the Board of Adjustment 4 for variances. 5 MR. THURSTON: You're absolutely right, 6 because there are some that have not elected to go to PUD 7 and have elected to take a Planning and Zoning document and 8 then ask for variances, and have been granted those 9 variances. 10 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: And done the same 11 thing? 12 MR. THURSTON: And done basically the same 13 thing. And I think that' s true. 14 MR. SIMS: But additionally, you had so much 15 more time on what you're trying to do, and they have a small 16 window of opportunity for economic advantages. Plus the PUD 17 turnaround time, if you fail on a PUD, you can come back in 18 six months. For zoning, it takes a year. 19 MR. THURSTON: But you're absolutely right. 20 In fact, that has happened here in the last two or three 21 years. Our election is to go the PUD process. We like it 22 much better than the other one. 23 COMMISSIONER DAW: I have one more question. 24 I think just one more. How do you answer that the PUD has 25 been used as a way to get around the zoning code? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 95 1 MR. THURSTON: Say that again. 2 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: How do you justify 3 that? 4 COMMISSIONER DAW: Suppose someone comes to 5 you and says you just use the PUD so you could get around 6 the zoning code? 7 MR. THURSTON: How would I respond to that? 8 I agree that I didn't, but I sense what you're asking is 9 that if somebody came into my office, or if you asked me at 10 the podium here if I got around the zoning code, my answer, 11 I would say, is part of your zone is the PUD. That is part 12 of my choice, to come into your town and use the PUD zone. 13 COMMISSIONER DAW: Since it' s available, you 14 surely can do that, right? 15 MR. THURSTON: Number two, then, I would try 16 and find out why you're asking the question. Because mainly 17 I would say it would be a lack of understanding of the total 18 concept and being pieced into a window where, How come this 19 has happened here? And this is happening here versus your 20 understanding of the whole zone. The only thing I could do 21 is give you a copy of the actual adopted PUD document and 22 say, Please read that and see if you can follow the 23 reasoning for us as a developer to create that kind of a 24 community in Las Cruces. 25 And that' s where we' ll get into a philosophy PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 96 1 difference. Some people like what we do, as you can see, 2 they buy. They live there. It' s growing quite well by Las 3 Cruces standards. And so we feel good when we take our 4 ingenuity and our concept and bring that into a community 5 like this and say, This is our thought. This is our idea. 6 Now, the real test, though, is not whether I did it 7 right or whether you said I did it right or didn't do it 8 right. Really what matters is if the public buys what we 9 had in concept. And I think that Las Colinas has met that 10 test, and it' s one of the most active subdivisions in town. 11 COMMISSIONER DAW: I really abused my 12 privilege because I want to get educated on what PUDs are 13 about, and it has been helpful. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Thank you, Commissioner 15 Daw. Any other discussion? 16 MR. SIMS: Just let me add, just to cap it 17 off, that the PUD is for persons that have a little 18 foresight and imagination. The zoning isn't. The zoning is 19 real strict. It restrains the developer. He can't be 20 creative. 21 The PUD allows the person to be creative. Zoning does 22 not. And that' s why you see people like Mr. Scanlon. And 23 it' s not really circumventing. People have used that term. 24 They're using their imaginations, and they come to you and 25 say, Can I do this? And you can say yes or no. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 97 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr. Sims. Any 2 other discussion? If not, may I have a motion to approve or 3 deny case PUD 92-006 as stated? 4 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr. Chairman, I move 5 that we approve the minor amendment to the side for parcels 6 one, two, and four for Las Colinas PUD. 7 COMMISSIONER DAW: Second. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? Commissioner 9 Linard. 10 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye. 11 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye. 12 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Aye. 14 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Aye. 15 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Aye. Motion carries. 17 MR. THURSTON: I just have one other 18 question. Since he took a liberty, can I take a liberty? 19 And this goes to staff. Why am I always the last on the 20 list? Have you guys noticed that? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Because we like you. 22 MR. WEIR: We put you on consent. 23 MR. THURSTON: I mean, even on the consent. 24 I was last on the consent. I just wondered if there was a 25 ploy to always make me last. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 98 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Okay, other business of 2 interest? Do we have any other business of interest? 3 MR. WEIR: Just to remind the Commission your 4 meetings will be scheduled at 7:00 all of 1993 as opposed to 5 7:30. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: I move we adjourn the 7 meeting. 8 MR. SIMS: Before we do let me add one 9 thing. 10 COMMISSIONER LORD: I second. 11 MR. SIMS: Point of order. You raised 12 something during one of the mobile home--you were talking 13 about changing, having a mobile home zoning, something like 14 that. Why don't you commissioners bring the motion to do 15 that. You can direct staff to give you something, some 16 document that you can start working on and go into a work 17 session or something to complete it. 18 But, you know, just the beginning on it. You could 19 say, Staff, we would like you to do this. We want to have 20 zoning for mobile homes. And if there is anything already 21 out there in existence, like in Albuquerque or somewhere 22 else, give that to us, and we'll start using that as a 23 working document. 24 And then in the future, you're going to amend the 25 zoning code and ask for approval of it. Do that before you PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 99 1 adjourn, because it' s connected to the mobile home problem. 2 COMMISSIONER DAW: Mr. Chairman, I had a 3 motion I wished to make at the close of this meting that 4 will get it on the table for later discussion, which I hope 5 will then be tabled. It' s not related directly to that 6 point, but I would like to put forward a motion that we not 7 grant special use permits beyond 25 years. 8 COMMISSIONER LORD: Can we talk about that? 9 I think the staff needs to brainstorm or we need to 10 brainstorm about special use permits for things like church 11 day care centers, which I could agree with, versus things 12 that require a significant capital outlay, like mobile home 13 parks. There is a big difference there. 14 COMMISSIONER DAW: The purpose of making this 15 motion is not to get it passed. It is to get it on the 16 table and table it so that at a work session we can look at 17 it. I looked previously at the special use permits that 18 have been issued, some 300. Then the computer went down. 19 And I looked at a bunch of them. Some of them are for a 20 year, some of them are for 100 years. There're all kinds of 21 things. 22 And I think there needs to be some guidance to the 23 staff on what is appropriate when someone comes in and says, 24 I 'd like a special use permit. And you can say, Well, for 25 day care centers, it' s this. For hospital buildings, it is PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 100 1 this. And that' s just a way to get it so that it doesn't 2 get dropped. 3 So I make that motion, that special use permits be 4 limited to 25 years. And we can then study it and see what 5 we really would like to pass. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second? 7 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Second. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Discussion? 9 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr. Chairman, I believe 10 that' s just what Mark said. We could direct the staff to 11 come up with some ideas, and at a work session on such-- 12 COMMISSIONER LORD: And not limit it to 13 mobile home parks, but generally special use permits. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Do you want to amend that 15 motion to include looking into the zoning issue regarding 16 the mobile home parks? 17 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would be happy to do 18 so. I was going to see that brought up as a second item, 19 but if it' s appropriate to include it in the motion, put it 20 in the motion. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Do I have a second? 22 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Second. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? All in favor? 24 Opposed? Motion carries. 25 Staff comments? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES 101 1 MR. WEIR: Throw it in the hopper. 2 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I move we adjourn the 3 meeting. 4 (Meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m. ) 5 6 8 Chairman odie Perez, Jr. Sh lra yn Linard 10 Ka iY is Roger Lord 11 / 12 Richard Killian Harold Daw 13 14 Pablo Montoya 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 MINUTES