Loading...
11-24-1992 1 1 2 3 4 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 5 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 7 8 MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24 , 1992 9 10 7 : 30 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 November 24 , 1992 2 1 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We will go ahead and call 3 this meeting to order . The following agenda will be 4 considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City 5 of Las Cruces . First, the items on the agenda that are 6 marked with an asterisk are on a consent agenda, and will be 7 voted on by one motion. 8 In looking through the agenda, we do not have any items 9 on the consent agenda. 10 We will go on to old business . Case PUD-92-004 , a 11 request for concept approval for Crescent Center, a business 12 planned unit development. The property is a parcel of land 13 located at 801 Farney Road, contains 4 . 2 acres, more or 14 less, zoned R-3 , high density residential . Currently, there 15 is a single-family dwelling on the property, and the 16 remaining property is vacant. The property is proposed for 17 a zone change to 0-1c, office conditional , submitted by Gary 18 Krivokapich. This was postponed on 10-27-92 . 19 May I have a motion to remove for consideration case 20 PUD-92-004 . 21 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would so move . 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present? 24 MR. WEIR: We have a letter from Mr . 25 Krivokapich requesting that this particular case be PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 3 1 postponed until December . 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Could you discuss with us, 3 with the Commission, those options that you have submitted 4 to us? 5 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez , commission 6 members, as you've already stated, the applicant has 7 requested a postponement until November. The reason for his 8 request is to allow him time to submit a - - to change his 9 proposal so that it can be in conformance with a recent 10 Board of Adjustment interpretation of the zoning code 11 dealing with the business PUD. 12 Staff has provided the Commission with some options as 13 to what they can do on this case . The first option they 14 would have is to go ahead and postpone this until the 15 December meeting and grant the wish of the applicant. 16 The second option you have would be to go ahead and 17 discuss this case and take action on it. You could either 18 approve the proposal--and approval of this proposal would 19 require you to make it subject to the approval of the zone 20 change to 0-1, which is an office zoning district, with the 21 conditions of that development, of a planned unit 22 development. 23 The second condition the Commission would have is to 24 allow staff review of his concept plan, using offices and 25 residential uses . To date the planning staff has not PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 4 1 reviewed this proposal in thoroughness , and it has not been 2 presented to you for your consideration. So that would be 3 another item you would have to take into consideration if 4 you were to act on an approval of this . 5 The other option that you have is to deny the request. 6 And basically, that would kill his PUD. And if he were to 7 go forward with it, he would have to submit a whole new 8 proposal . 9 The third action you could take under this option would 10 be to discuss the case, maybe come up with some direction to 11 provide to the applicant, and then postpone it until the 12 December meeting. 13 From a staff recommendation, staff would recommend that 14 you hear the case, and staff recommends denial of the 15 planned unit development. What this would do is provide a 16 message to the applicant that he needs to come up with one 17 proposal . You have seen two or three proposals during the 18 course of this case . It would also give him direction as to 19 what he specifically wants , what types of zoning he wants on 20 the property, and the exact development he would like to 21 propose. 22 A second advantage to this option is it would allow the 23 Commission to review this from a new standpoint. As you are 24 all aware, this case has been pending before you for 25 approximately 14 months . So denial would basically force PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 5 1 the applicant to start all over and bring in a new proposal . 2 If the Commission has any questions, I ' ll try to answer 3 them. 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir . 5 At this time point, does the Commission have any 6 questions of Mr . Weir? 7 If not, I ' ll open it to public participation. Anybody 8 in the audience wish to address case PUD 92-004 at this 9 time? 10 Please state your name . 11 MS. BENNETT: My name is Ruth Bennett. I 12 live at 2000 Crescent Drive , and I am the spokesperson for 13 the Crescent Park residential area group. 14 We would very much like to see this thing denied at 15 this point. I think everyone over the last 14 months has 16 really become very confused over the whole situation--where 17 we stand, where the applicant stands . There ' s been a lot of 18 misinformation. 19 We would like this whole thing reviewed with a new 20 proposal altogether . We don' t feel it' s fair to you, we 21 don' t feel it' s fair to us to have to drag this thing on 22 under a new zone change . Apparently, what he plans to do is 23 bring it back to C-2 . We don' t feel that' s appropriate for 24 this application as it stands right now. And we would very 25 much appreciate your denying this proposal at this point so PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 6 1 we can get on with looking at a whole new proposal . 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Anyone else from the 3 audience wish to address this particular case? 4 If not, we will close it to public participation and go 5 on to Commissioner input. 6 COMMISSIONER DAW: I wonder if we could — — 7 if this had been up here for 14 months , does it mean it has 8 been on the agenda 14 different times? And I wonder if the 9 staff would sort of run down, sort of, the changes that have 10 gone on, what the original request was, and the subsequent 11 changes and so on, and where we are with it at the present 12 time. 13 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez , Commissioner Daw, 14 the case was originally brought before this Commission as a 15 zone change to C-2 , general commercial , with some conditions 16 dealing with the landscaping and elimination of a portion of 17 the use . 18 At that time , the applicants requested postponement to 19 allow them to talk with the neighborhood, to review what the 20 neighborhood would be willing to allow the property to be 21 developed for, to what type of uses . 22 There were a series of neighborhood meetings between 23 the developer, city staff, and the neighborhood. There was 24 various options for development of the property discussed 25 and various zone changes and various processes available for PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 7 1 the development of the property. 2 Approximately ,lune of this year, the proposal came back 3 to the Planning and Zoning Commission. At that meeting, the 4 applicants had amended their zone change to a C-1 request, 5 and they had also submitted a concept plan for approval by 6 the Planning and Zoning Commission for a business PUD. 7 At that meeting, the applicant amended his request to 8 an office zoning change with the condition that it be 9 developed through a planned unit development. At that 10 meeting, the concept plan for the PUD was postponed to allow 11 additional reviews of the various uses that he was 12 proposing. And at that time, the business PUD was proposed 13 for a strip mall concept. 14 Approximately a month later, they came back with the 15 business PUD. They still requested the mall concept. There 16 was a great deal of public input, and the request was 17 postponed again to allow further study by the Planning and 18 Zoning Commission and also the neighborhood, and for 19 discussions with the developer . Basically, from that point, 20 it' s been postponed. 21 In the interim, the neighborhood also appealed staff' s 22 interpretation of the business PUD, business section, and 23 the Board of Adjustment interpreted it differently from 24 staff. Their interpretation was , whatever the underlying 25 zone was, only those principal uses would be allowed for , PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 8 1 and any residential use for any business PUD. And what this 2 did was , it effectively negated his request for a strip mall 3 on this property. 4 He had a request for a zone change to 0-1 , which is 5 offices and high density offices , and a high density 6 residential use which required him to amend his concept 7 plan. From that date till now, the applicant has vacillated 8 between going through with an office residential use 9 proposal and trying to get his original strip mall proposal 10 before you. 11 COMMISSIONER DAW: Okay, thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments from any 13 other commissioners? 14 Okay, do I have a - - then may I have a motion for 15 approval , denial or postponement? Commissioner Daw. 16 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would move that this 17 proposal be denied. The concept has changed many times over 18 the past 14 months, and I think that it is unclear at this 19 point exactly what the request is. And as a result, I think 20 it would clean the whole matter up for them to start over. 21 So my motion is that we deny the request, and the applicant 22 can start over from scratch. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second? 24 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I second. 25 CHACIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? Okay, we will PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 9 1 go on to voting. Commissioner Linard? 2 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Am I to understand that 3 this means that we will deny the application? 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : That is correct. 5 COMMISSIONER LINARD: My vote is aye . 6 COMMISSION DAW: Aye . 7 COMMISSION KILLIAN: Aye . 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Yes . 9 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Yes . 10 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye . 12 The application is denied. 13 ( The motion carried 7 to 0 . ) 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The next order of business 15 is new business? 16 But before I go on, I got ahead of myself and I failed 17 to read out the opening statement for the P and Z . So at 18 this point in time, I would like to take that opportunity to 19 do so. 20 This meeting will be conducted following Roberts Rules 21 of Order . If any member of the public has a comment or 22 question that he or she wishes to address to the Commission, 23 they will be recognized by the chair, and then they will 24 state their name so they it can be entered into the 25 permanent record of these proceedings . Each person shall be PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 10 1 recognized once on each case issue for a time period not 2 exceeding three minutes . If someone has new or additional 3 information, then that individual will be given one 4 additional minute to speak after all citizens who wish to 5 speak on the case have been recognized. When a large number 6 of citizens wish to discuss the case, as a neighborhood 7 group, then 15 minutes will be allowed for a group 8 spokesperson, if one had been selected by the neighborhood 9 group as their representative . If this spokesperson is 10 elected, then all other citizens wanting to speak on that 11 case will be given one additional minute . 12 The Planning and Zoning Commission is meeting tonight 13 to have a public hearing on seven zoning cases, two special 14 use permits, one zoning permit, and one planned unit 15 development, and to make recommendations to the City Council 16 to either approve or deny the requests for zone changes, 17 extentions or amendments to the zoning code . The City 18 Council will make the final decisions on these requests at 19 its meeting on approximately March 19 , 1993 . 20 The Planning and Zoning Commission will grant final 21 approval or denial on all special use permits, subdivisions 22 and planned unit developments . 23 Any person adversely affected by the decisions of this 24 Commission may file a written appeal stating the grounds for 25 his appeal to the City Council within 15 days of this PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 11 1 meeting, and that applies to the case that we just reviewed. 2 The next item under new business is case 5-92-033 , a 3 request for final plat approval of Vista del Rio Subdivision 4 Phase II . The property is located on Elks Drive immediately 5 north of the Sandhill Arroyo and east of Vista del Rio 6 Subdivision Phase I . The plat contains 10 . 9776 acres and 37 7 parcels of real property. Zoned R-1 , single-family 8 residential , submitted by Silver Vista Corporation. 9 Is the applicant present, or his representative? 10 Would you please state your name for the record? 11 MR. YOUNG: Bill Young. I am the owner of 12 Silver Vista Corporation. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would you care to make a 14 presentation at this point? 15 MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir . It' s one thing. All I 16 am asking for is an approval , tonight. But there is one 17 thing that came to light today in regards to the realignment 18 of Elks Drive . Three years ago, I agreed with one of the 19 city staff that I would pave half of the boulevard going 20 through this subdivision. At that time, it was a 31-foot 21 street, curb and gutter on one side, asphault to curb on the 22 median side . Today it was brought to my attention that they 23 want to do away with that and go in with a 37-foot local 24 street. I don' t feel that I should be put in the spot to 25 have to pay that extra for the change that they are wanting. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 12 1 If you can enlighten me on the plat what they are going to 2 do in the future with Elks Drive . But I understood all the 3 time that this was going to be a divided boulevard, and now 4 they are changing it to a local street. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is that your presentation? 6 MR. YOUNG: Right. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Mr. Weir, would you give us 8 your presentation? 9 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez , commission 10 members , what you have before you this evening is a 37 lot 11 R-1 type subdivision development. This plat has already 12 received preliminary plat approval by the Planning and 13 Zoning Commission on January 26th, 1988 . Phase I 14 development was approved June 28th, 1988 , by the Planning 15 and Zoning Commission. The final plat itself conforms to 16 the preliminary plat, the subdivision code and the zoning 17 code . 18 As Mr . Young has already stated, the issue before you 19 this evening is the paving width of the future alignment of 20 Elks Drive. As Mr . Young has already stated, it' s his 21 understanding that he was to provide a 31-foot paving width 22 with a standard curb-and-gutter sidewalk on one side and 23 then an asphalt to curb on the median side . 24 Staff in their review of this case was unable to find 25 any documentation to that understanding, so staff is of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 13 1 position that they should - - it would be a 37-foot paving 2 width with curb and gutter sidewalks on the one side and 3 asphalt to curb on the other side . 4 Staff recommends approval of this subdivision subject 5 to - - there is a memo in your packet from Larry Rodriquez 6 to Jim Erickson. The only changes in it is in item number 7 one . Staff would, rather than 32 feet 8 inches , staff would 8 rather have that as 37 feet . 9 And then on item number four, staff' s contention would 10 be build half of the roadway on east Elks, from the Elks 11 Drive realignment to the east of the property subdivision 12 number two at the time Tract A is developed, or submit a 13 variance for the same . 14 The only other item staff would like to see is a note 15 provided on the plat stating that direct access to Tract A 16 from Elks Drive will not be permitted. Planning staff would 17 request that you take action on it. There is an issue that 18 the staff and the applicant do not agree on, and we would 19 like you to make a determination on that this evening. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir. 21 At this point in time , we will open it to public 22 participation. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes 23 to address case 5-92-033? Anybody in the audience who 24 wishes to address case 5-92-033? For the third time? If 25 not, we will close it to public participation and go on to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 14 1 Commissioner input. 2 Anyone on the Commission wish to make any comments? 3 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Would you please , Mr . 4 Weir , clarify again for me what you are talking, about when 5 you say you want us to make a determination tonight? Is 6 this on the street paving width? 7 MR. WEIR. That is correct . g COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: And you say you 'find 9 no evidence in the past of anything that says there was an 10 agreement that it would be 31 feet? 11 MR. WEIR: In the files for Phase I and the 12 preliminary plat, we see no written documentation that an 13 agreement was reached on the 31 feet. 14 Furthermore, the city design standards don' t have any 15 street paving that would be of 31 feet. Basically, we don' t 16 have a design for a street of that width. 17 Where the 37 feet comes from, is that that' s the same 18 paving that' s required for a local street in a residential 19 neighborhood. Say if Elks Drive were not to be realigned, 20 we would require probably a cul-de-sac, and it would require 21 the paving width of 37 feet back-of-curb back-of-curb. And 22 that' s where staff is coming from requesting that paving 23 width. 24 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I would like to ask 25 the applicant one question Is the cost of paving normally PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 15 1 absorbed into the price of the lots? 2 MR. YOUNG: Yes . 3 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Divided equally? 4 MR. YOUNG: Yes . 5 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: So, then, in reality 6 what would happen if you were required to go 37 feet is that 7 it would just raise the price of the lot; is that correct? 8 MR. YOUNG: Right. 9 COMMISSIONER DAW: Mr . Young, do you have 10 anything in writing relative to the street width? 11 MR. YOUNG: No, sir, I don' t. This was an 12 agreement between myself and Dwayne Greenfield. 13 COMMISSIONER DAW: And I would like to ask 14 the staff, this 37 feet, if I understand right, it' s really 15 just sort of half of the street; is that right? 16 MR. WEIR: Commissioner Daw, Elks Drive is 17 classified as a major arterial . That' s where we get the 120 18 feet of right-of-way. And in those types of roads, they are 19 designed for four lanes of traffic. A paving width of 37 20 feet would just be two driving lanes, and basically would 21 just be half of the road, whenever we build out to a major 22 arterial status . 23 COMMISSIONER DAW: Can you point out on the 24 map where it says on Elks Drive what would be paved and what 25 would not be paved under the 37 feet? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 16 1 MR. YOUNG: To begin with, this was the side 2 that would be the east side, east half of Elks Drive , that I 3 agreed to pave . Now, they come back, and they wanted to 4 change it and pave this side . I don' t know why they said 5 they wanted to realign with Elks Drive going on the north, 6 but I don' t see any benefit to that whatsoever . 7 I have requested, and that one they put in, that this 8 street be barricaded right here at this point for traffic 9 coming down on Elks and back west on Elks . And that will be 10 barricaded that way through the first phase of my 11 subdivision, which I do want, because there are dozens of 12 school buses and hundreds of cars through there every 13 morning and afternoon. And that is a very quiet 14 neighborhood, and - - well , I 'd barricade it myself if the 15 city didn' t, but they have agreed to. 16 But on another issue on this , too, the fact that when 17 they have taken this right-of-way through here , this 18 right-of-way appraised for $35, 200 , and the city paid me 19 $17 ,600 for it. So I gave them half of a right-of-way. I 20 have agreed to go in and put half of a boulevard. And now 21 they come back and want the street wider . So I would like a 22 little help. 23 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would like to ask the 24 staff why it is on the other side . If you take that middle 25 line down Elks Drive , why is it the side away from the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 17 1 development that' s being proposed for paving, rather than 2 the side adjacent to the property for paving. 3 MR. WEIR: The reason would be that it would 4 be easier no realign it to the existing Elks Drive , if you 5 put the road here . If you would have a street jog, it would 6 be less abrupt.. And the city is also studying acquiring 7 rights-of-way across this corner and making a smooth 8 transition into the existing right-of-way to the north. 9 COMMISSIONER DAW: I am a having a little 10 trouble following the argument . Could you color in the part 11 that the staff is proposing be paved. 12 MR. YOUNG: This portion, from this point 13 right here to this point right here, on this half. 14 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I , like you, doctor, 15 am having trouble understanding why that right side is being 16 asked to be paved when - - 17 COMMISSIONER DAW: It' s my understanding that 18 that part you put in last is the part you are proposing to 19 be paved? 20 MR. YOUNG: Yes . That is the part to be 21 paved. Then we will put a temporary crossing from this 22 street over to this, and to this point over to this . 23 COMMISSIONER DAW: Can the staff indicate to 24 me why that gives a better alignment to a continuation of 25 Elks than the other side . Does the other side sort of glide PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 18 1 in more smoothly? 2 MR. YOUNG: I think I can answer that myself. 3 When that realignment is put in and they go on north on 4 Elks , this half of the boulevard will tie to the existing 5 road, where this east half will come into new property on 6 the east side of the existing road going on north toward 7 Dona Ana. Or at least this was the way it was explained to 8 me by staff; is this right? 9 MR. WEIR: I am sorry? 10 MR. YOUNG: Did you understand it that way? 11 MR. WEIR: I didn' t follow what you said. 12 MR. YOUNG: When they come back and changed 13 and asked me to pave this side instead of this side, that 14 was their explanation of that, because of obtaining 15 right-of-way they would be obtaining right-of-way for the 16 wider Elks Drive going on north from the east side of the 17 existing Elks Drive . 18 MR. KILLIAN: That' s clear as mud. Mr . Weir, 19 as I understand it, you have not acquired any right-of-way 20 to the north of this? 21 MR. WEIR: They have drawn up the plans, but 22 I am not aware of whether they have actually acquired the 23 right-of-way at this time . 24 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: There' s been no 25 discussion with the other property owners back there? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 19 1 MR. WEIR: Yes, there has . There is a church 2 directly to the north that has a special use permit. 3 There ' s been a discussion of vacating - - 4 COMMISSIONER DAW: Where ' s a church? 5 MR. WEIR: There is a church located on this 6 property up here . And there ' s been discussion with them, if 7 they will provide a right-of-way here , that this portion of 8 Elks Drive would be vacant, and the potential that it would 9 be turned over to them. 10 None of that has taken place to date . 11 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Have they been 12 receptive to that? 13 MR. WEIR: Yes . 14 COMMISSIONER LORD: I am not too clear on the 15 barricading of Elks Drive and vacating certain parts and 16 looking for right-of-way. What is the barricade 17 conversation about here? 18 MR. WEIR: It would be this area here, if I 19 am correct? 20. MR. YOUNG: No. No, no. The barricades 21 would be on the end of the new street. Until it' s opened 22 up, the barricade would be here . In other words, this is 23 the existing Elks Drive coming through. It comes down and 24 then turns back south. The point I was making earlier, and 25 the city staff agreed with me , that if we did not barricade PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 20 1 this , that traffic coming down--because this would all be 2 new in here and an easier , wider street, wider driving 3 area--that they would be coming through the first phase of 4 my subdivision instead of staying on Elks Drive . 5 COMMISSIONER DAW: I think part of my 6 confusion with your answer is, at this time, the realignment 7 of Elks Drive at this portion of the property has not been 8 pursued or right-of-way obtained to Elks Drive . So would it 9 still be only at this portion? 10 MR. WEIR: What Mr . Young is talking about is 11 a barricade here until this right-of-way is all acquired and 12 opened up, so Elks Drive would still remain open in this 13 direction. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The existing Elks Drive , 15 both to the north and to the south, what width is it 16 currently at right now? 17 MR WEIR. It' s designated as 60 feet, the 18 portion north of the subdivision and also to the west of 19 Phase I . The portion of right-of-way Mr . Young provided on 20 his preliminary plat is 120 feet, which falls within the 21 major arterial class . 22 COMMISSIONER DAW: Mr . Chairman, I have a 23 question about the other half that at the moment would be 24 unpaved. If one were to pave the part which you have put 25 the wavy line in, and then the developer puts the cost on PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 21 1 the property, that' s how he would recover the costs . And 2 then later on, when the other side of the road is paved, who 3 will pay for that? 4 MR. WEIR: That would have to be a city 5 project to improve the rest of it when they go ahead and 6 complete the realignment project and pavement of the 7 realignment. 8 COMMISSIONER DAW: You are saying it would be 9 a city project. Does that mean the city would pay, or does 10 that mean the city would assess the adjoining property 11 owners to pay for it? 12 MR. WEIR: It would depend on what method 13 they used, and how they programmed the improvements? 14 COMMISSIONER DAW: Then, if the other side 15 were paved now adjacent to the property owners, okay, and 16 the cost is put on to the property and the developer 17 recovers his cost, now who would pay for the other half 18 which does not now abutt those property owners' property? 19 MR. WEIR: I am not sure I follow. 20 MR. YOUNG: I think either side - - whichever 21 side I pave, the city will pave the other side . 22 COMMISSIONER DAW: Well , that wasn' t quite 23 clear . If that were clear that the city was going to pay, I 24 would understand that. But if, by the city paying, it means 25 the property owners are assessed, that sort of isn' t like PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 22 1 the city paying. And I just wanted to be clear, because I 2 can see if I had one of those lots fronting Elks Drive , plus 3 the cost of getting the house and the lot and so on, and 4 they paved half of the street in front of my house, I would 5 understand that. But later on, if they came in and pave the 6 other side and say, now we want to assess you. I would say, 7 Oh, no, it isn' t my property. You have got to get your 8 money somewhere else . But if I pay for the other half, and 9 now the half they are going to pave is in front of my house , 10 they are really likely to come and say, "We would like to 11 assess you because we are now paving in front of your 12 house . " 13 MR. YOUNG: I think we will have to get some 14 things in writing, because what staff has indicated to me 15 has not indicated that. They just flat made the statement 16 that if I pave half of it, the City will pave the other 17 half, that plain and simple . 18 COMMISSIONER DAW: Mr. Young, you don' t have 19 that in writing? 20 MR. YOUNG: I don't think - - I do not have 21 that in writing. Like I said, I guess there are a lot of 22 things I am going to get in writing. 23 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: The concrete curb and 24 gutter, if that side that has the wavy line, the concrete 25 curb and gutter would be on the side farthest away from the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 23 1 development? 2 MR. YOUNG: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: And then this - - the 4 asphalt curb would be what would be considered the middle of 5 the street, now the middle of the right-of-way? 6 MR. YOUNG: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN• That doesn' t make a 8 whole lot of sense to me as a developer and as a lot owner. 9 I think I would prefer to have that curb and gutter in front 10 of my lot in front of the street. I would prefer to pave 11 this side myself. 12 MR. YOUNG: But the City asked me to pave the 13 other side . I don' t have that in writing either . 14 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I disagree with that 15 merely because I don' t know how long it' s going to be before 16 that other side is going to be paved. 17 Any idea, Mr . Weir, if this development proves to be 18 successful how long it would be before that other side is 19 paved? 20 MR. YOUNG: They indicated to me, five to 21 seven years. 22 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Then I think if it 23 came to a vote, I would have to go in favor of the developer 24 here, that that side be paved and the concrete curb and 25 gutter be put on his side of the development. It just PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 24 1 doesn' t make a lot of sense to me as a lot owner to have the 2 reverse of that . 3 MR. YOUNG: I would personally prefer to pave 4 the east half. Personally. 5 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Then, how would you 6 feel about 37 feet as opposed to 31 feet? 7 MR. YOUNG: If I have to do it, I ' ll do it to 8 get it approved. I don' t like the idea. 9 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: That would be a 10 compromise? 11 MR. YOUNG: Yeah. 12 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: If the City agreed to 13 reverse their idea? 14 MR. YOUNG: In other words, I don' t want to 15 hang this on the wall for two months fighting a battle over 16 this . I would rather go ahead and spend the extra money and 17 get it going. 18 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Then with that, 19 Chairman Perez, I would make a motion that we approve this 20 subdivision with the exception that the side of the street 21 nearest the development be paved, and the current concrete 22 curb and gutter be put against the lots rather than the 23 opposite side . And if any barricading is needed and 24 requested, that that be something that' s worked out between 25 the developer and the City. And that they make it 37 feet PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 25 1 rather than 31 . That took a long time, but that' s the form 2 of my motion. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second? 4 COMMISSIONER DAW: I second. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? 6 Before we go into the vote , I would like to see , do we 7 have any other issues that need to be resolved before we 8 approve the subdivision, Mr . Weir? 9 MR. WEIR: No. 10 In that case, Commissioner Linard, 11 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye 12 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 13 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye . 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Yes . 15 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Yes. 16 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye . 18 And the motion passes . 19 ( The motion passed 7 to 0 . ) 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The next case is SUP-92-006 . 21 A request for a special use permit for the existing Terrace 22 Hill Mobile Home Park for a 40-year time period. The mobile 23 home park is located on a parcel of land containing 18 . 954 24 acres, and is located at 3200 Del Rey Boulevard. The north 25 part of the property is zoned R-4 , high density residential , PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 26 1 and the south part is zoned C-2 , general commercial . 2 Submitted by Marvin Sampson for Ivan and Jean Ludington, the 3 property owners . 4 May I have a motion to remove for consideration? 5 COMMISSIONER DAW: So moved. 6 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Second. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Is the applicant present? 8 Would you care to make a presentation at this time? 9 MR. MCMILLAN: I think I ' ll pass . 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : In that case, we will go on 11 to staff. 12 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez, commission 13 members, what you have before you is a request for a special 14 use approval for a mobile home park for a period of 40 15 years . The property is located on the southern corner of 16 Del Rey and Mars . The existing use of the property is a 17 mobile home park that was initially approved in 1972 . 18 The proposed use is to continue the mobile home park . 19 The request is before you because the special use permit has 20 expired. The case itself, the existing park, has five items 21 that do not meet the initial resolutions which approve a 22 park . And these items are : a majority of the mobile homes 23 do not meet the minimum 20 feet distance between any other 24 structure . A majority of the units do not meet the 20 feet 25 side-to-side spacing between mobile homes . A majority of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 27 1 the mobile homes do not meet the 15 feet back-of-mobile-home 2 back-of-mobile-home spacing. And also, more than half of 3 the mobile homes do not meet the minimal five feet spacing 4 for individual boundaries , individual spaces, that the 5 mobile homes are located on. And also, the north and east 6 boundaries of the mobile home park do not meet the minimum 7 25-foot open space and landscaping requirements . 8 The original special use permit for this mobile home 9 park was approved under the City of Las Cruces' 1969 zoning 10 Code . And today the special use requirements fall under the 11 1981 Zoning Code . 12 Staff reviewed the proposal against today' s code, since 13 the special use permit has expired, and they are coming in 14 for a new special use permit. And we found eight items that 15 it does not conform with today. The first one is , today' s 16 code does not allow dead-end streets within a mobile home 17 park . It requires cul-de-sacs . The minimum lot size is 18 3200 square feet. The park does not meet that. The code 19 requires a minimum of ten feet between structures, and 20 that' s the mobile home and accessory storage units. The 21 current code does not allow site coverages or impervious 22 surfaces to exceed 40 percent, and this park has about 43 to 23 45 percent coverage . 24 The 169 code did not require RV storage areas to be 25 provided for the residents . The 181 code does require this . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 28 1 So this park does not have an RV storage unit . 2 Again, several of the mobile homes do not meet a the 3 20-foot side-by-side spacing requirement in today' s code . 4 The majority of the park , the mobile homes within the park, 5 also do not meet the 20 foot back-to-back spacing for the 6 mobile homes . And today' s code requires a minimum depth for 7 a mobile home spaces of 100 feet. And a majority of the 8 lots do not meet this requirement. 9 Staff understands that the use of the property as a 10 mobile home park is still compatible with the area that it' s 11 located in. This is a very nice mobile home park in Las 12 Cruces and taking this into consideration, staff would 13 recommend approval of the extension of the special use 14 permit, but make it conditional on the owners either 15 bringing the park into conformance with today' s code or 16 having them go before the Board of Adjustment and seek 17 variances to bring the non-conformity - - well , basically, 18 make them legal with today' s code . 19 If the Commission has any questions, I will be happy to 20 answer them. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : At this point, we will open 22 it up to public participation. Anyone in the audience wish 23 to address case SUP-92-006? Going once, twice - - 24 MR. McMILLAN: Yeah, I would. My name is 25 Randy McMillan, and I am a real restate broker here in Las PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 29 1 Cruces . When we worked on the project earlier this 2 year--and I have met with Mr . Weir, too, on this--the main 3 thing that I am concerned about is the Board of Adjustment 4 has some very stringent requirements on whether or not they 5 can issue a variance . Excuse me , I have got a bad cold. 6 One of those requirements is no financial hardship. 7 And to meet these restrictions, it' s going to create a 8 significant financial hardship, and a lot of loss of homes, 9 of spaces . So I don't know if there is any way around that, 10 of going that route , but I don' t believe it' s going to be 11 possible to get a lot of these variances approved by the 12 Board of Adjustment, and it' s going to cost - - well , like I 13 said, a number of home spaces and a great deal of financial 14 hardship will result, so maybe you can kind of help me 15 there . 16 MR. WEIR: Mr . McMillan is correct in his 17 statement that the Board of Adjustment has certain criteria 18 that they have to evaluate variances . The applicants, if 19 they would pursue the variances, they would go before the 20 Board of Adjustment. And then two-thirds of that board 21 would have to approve any variance . If any of their 22 variances were denied, they would still have another appeal 23 process by taking it to City Council and pleading their case 24 as to the variances they have requested. And if again they 25 were denied at that stage, they could also take it to New PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 30 1 Mexico District Court to receive a hearing, also. 2 MR. MCMILLAN: The park is mainly retired 3 people . I don' t know if you have been through the park or 4 not, but as far as Las Cruces goes, it' s one of the nicest 5 communities in the City. A number of these requirements are 6 virtuallly--I don' t want to say impossible--but if the 7 majority of them are not 20 feet apart, it would require 8 redoing the whole property to meet that requirement, and 9 that is virtually impossible . You are looking at a restart, 10 putting cul—de—sacs at the end of the streets . You were 11 going to talk with the fire people to see if that was 12 something that they felt necessary but doing that is going 13 to, probably the four or five homes at each dead—end, it' s 14 going to knock them out. Those are the nicest lots at the 15 end of these roads . Basically, we have a park that was 16 built 20 years ago that is still very, very functional . 17 It' s been kept by the owners extremely well . But because 18 it' s a special use and has expired, we are here tonight. I 19 would think — — I think this is the only mobile home park 20 that has ever asked for an extension of a special use 21 permit; is that correct? 22 MR. WEIR: No, there have been other cases in 23 which they have expanded mobile home parks and been required 24 to amend their special use permit. 25 MR McMILLAN: I don' t mean amend it, but PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 31 1 come back in after it' s expired. I think we have been the 2 only ones to come back and say, "Ours has expired. We need 3 to renew. " You can correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt 4 it. If no one had said anything, no one would have done 5 anything, and we could have continued on, and not had to 6 come up here . But we do want to do it the proper way. And 7 we want to do some things - - and there are maybe some 8 things we can do. Firewalling some of the storage units to 9 address the fact that they are not ten feet apart. Some of 10 those things may be very, very possible to do. But most of 11 these things mentioned are basically a replat of the whole 12 situation. So if there is a way of not sending us to the 13 Board of Adjustment, which Mr . Weir has been kind of enough 14 to inform me, is probably not going to allow us to get done 15 what we need to get done , I would ask you to do that for us . 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Thank you. Anybody else 17 from the public wishing to address case SUP-92-006? 18 If not we will close it to public participation and go 19 on to commissioner input? 20 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I would like to 21 commend the owner of the park . It is very nice . I have 22 been through it twice now. There are some concerns that I 23 have . I realize the homes are close together, but I see it 24 as pre-existing. And it appears to be all right. I see 25 some storage units that really worry me that are right up PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 32 1 against the unit. In one particular case, I know this small 2 metal storage building was like this . In this unit, if 3 there were gasoline in that from a gasoline mower, that 4 could spread a fire rapidly. I think your idea of maybe 5 doing some kind of a fire wall would resolve that one . 6 What really concerns me more than anything else is a 7 fire truck, a large fire truck going up one of those 8 streets--and if I were a resident there , this would worry 9 me--and then the truck is on the wrong street, it can' t turn 10 around. That really worries me . By the time he got to the 11 next street, another great deal of damage could be done to a 12 unit. 13 If there were some way other than, say, cul-de-sacs, 14 maybe looping, for instance . For instance, you go up this 15 street, take out this trailer and loop back this way. He 16 could make a fast turn, rather than trying to back out of a 17 space . Not every one , but maybe every other one would be 18 lost. 19 I know that' s a sacrifice , but it would sure make me 20 feel more at ease . If I lived there, I would want to know 21 that truck would have easy access . 22 COMMISSIONER DAW: The request is for a 23 40-year period, and that seems an awful long time to me . 24 And I would like to see the period shorter . It apparently 25 has been in existence for about 20 years, if my subtraction .PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 33 1 is about right. And it seems to me 25 years would be a 2 better period of time . But it also seems to me that in the 3 course of that 25 years that the park owners should take 4 steps to move that facility towards compliance so that when 5 this comes up again--I assume that the staff keeps a file 6 and pulls that out--that when it comes up again, that it 7 won' t, in a sense , be exactly the way it is now, with no 8 steps having been made towards compliance . 9 And I would like to see it for a shorter period and 10 then reviewed to see if they in fact are making progress 11 towards compliance . And I don' t know quite how to, in a 12 sense , word that, because one might build one fire wall 13 around one storage shed and say, we took some steps . But I 14 think there ought to be some substantial steps made putting 15 it in compliance , not putting a heavy burden on the owner or 16 the people who live there, but a gradual change so that 17 every thing that goes in the park is toward the direction of 18 bringing it in to compliance . 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I have a question for 21 Mr. Weir. Has anyone in the fire department looked at this 22 from a safety standpoint? 23 MR. WEIR: We sent a review comment out to 24 the fire department, but none were returned for this 25 request. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 34 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I don' t think any of us 2 are interested in putting anybody out of their homes and 3 creating a financial hardship for the owners . Everybody who 4 saw it felt it was a quality mobile home park . And I think 5 we all had the same concerns , and that was the safety of the 6 residents there . And without having any input from 7 professionals in the fire department, I don' t see how he can 8 even comment too far on the subject whether or not 9 cul-de-sacs are required or looped streets or fire walls or 10 the absence of a storage unit or any of these things . 11 MR. MCMILLAN: Am I allowed to say anything? 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Certainly. 13 MR. MCMILLAN: I believe that at each of the 14 dead-ends, it dead ends into the wall ; is that right? 15 And there is a road on the other side of that wall . 16 One of the possibilities is to gate that there . I don' t 17 know, I am speaking without your permission, but that is 18 something that I have talked with the other owners on, to 19 gate that wall to where a fire truck could go on through. 20 It would still be a gate and still be a wall , and it would 21 not be open to through traffic, but if there was a fire 22 there and a fire truck had to get through, he could take 23 that out, that section of that rock wall , and put in a gate 24 and that a fire truck could get through without a problem. 25 So how would you feel about that? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 35 1 MR. LUDINGTON: That would be fine . And I 2 think that everybody would be happy with that . The people 3 who live in the park would not want through traffic, because 4 that' s what life in a retirement park is about. We have got 5 humongous speed bumps that keep people going slow, and you 6 have got no through traffic . We want to keep that. We 7 could gate that. It would be costly, but not something as 8 costly as some of these other problems we have to address. 9 But to pull out part of that wall and put in a gate that a 10 fire truck would get through would maybe solve this problem. 11 MR. McMILLAN: Would that address your 12 concerns a little bit? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I think that' s probably 14 a possible solution. But I still think that we need to get 15 some input from the fire department on this . 16 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: In regard to that, I 17 agree with Commissioner Willis . We need some input from the 18 experts . But part of the great aspect of that park is the 19 security. If I lived there, I would like that wall being 20 maintained. That means the gate is locked, how does the 21 fireman get through it, with bolt cutters? 22 Now, in the event we have a major fire inside of a 23 unit, let' s make an assumption--of course, that' s not going 24 to happen--but say we have got a fire and they have gone 25 down the wrong street, and now they don' t have to back out, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 36 1 they bolt cut the gate . And it' s usually not opened unless 2 the residents all had a key to do that, but that' s the sort 3 of thing. So they could move in and out of it. 4 MR. McMILLAN: We could meet with the fire 5 department and ask them how best can we do this for your 6 access , so you can get in and out, but we can maintain our 7 security. 8 And as far as firewalling one of the storage units, you 9 know, if we have to fire wall all of the storage units, 10 that' s fine . Moving the storage units and the slab, that is 11 not fine, but anything we can do to make it more palitable 12 for you all and safer for the people that live there, that' s 13 important for us, too; and we would be happy to do it. 14 We did ask - - I know that Mr. Weir made a request when 15 we talked, what, about a month and a half ago of the fire 16 department to look at this . And I know it' s not anybody' s 17 fault here , I guess, but I am disappointed that that has not 18 been back. Because we did talk about that back then, 45 19 days ago, and you had asked - - he had already asked them. 20 It' s not David' s fault, but maybe it should have been 21 followed up on. But hopefully that won' t slow us down. 22 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: This 20 years that the 23 park has been there, now they are asking for 40 . Mobile 24 homes are getting bigger and longer . It' s going to 25 create - - in 40 years it' s going to create more problems PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 37 1 Manufacturers are making them bigger and wider, and in 40 2 years, if we have all of these problems in 20 , we are going 3 to have more and more problems with it. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Mr Chairman, I would 5 suggest that we consider postponing this and giving the 6 property owner , and the fire department, and the City 7 planning staff an opportunity to give us a proposal on how 8 they could approach compliance over a time period, like 9 Commissioner Daw suggested. Let them make suggestions to 10 us . I don' t feel like we have enough information to make 11 any kind of decision tonight about this . 12 COMMISSIONER DAW: I had a question relative 13 to Venus Street, which is the street ori the east side of the 14 property to which the mobile park does not have access, at 15 least now, and the street being proposed for the fire 16 department to serve fires in the park , at least on the east 17 side of the park . I hope the question is proper . Did the 18 mobile home park property owners pay for the paving of Venus 19 Street adjacent to their property, or was it in a sense, 20 said, there is no access in the mobile park; therefore, we 21 will not pay for the paving of the street? 22 MR. LUDINGTON: The owners entered into an 23 agreement with the City to pay a portion of that paving. 24 COMMISSIONER DAW: You did pay half of the 25 property? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 38 1 MR. LUDINGTON• A portion of the paving. It 2 was a pre-agreed portion, an agreed-upon amount. 3 COMMISSIONER DAW: I am listening for 4 something more definite . 5 MR. LUDINGTON: It' s a written agreement It 6 has been signed. The street has been paved. It' s an 7 assessment that is going to be taken care of . 8 MR. MCMILLAN: It' s been assessed. 9 COMMISSIONER DAW: So if the owners wish to 10 have access on to Venus and modify the park to get access , 11 you could do that? 12 MR. MCMILLAN: Yes . Yes . 13 COMMISSIONER DAW: Does the staff agree with 14 that? 15 MR. WEIR: Yes . 16 COMMISSIONER LORD: Is part of the problem 17 just the growth of mobile homes, just sheer size widening 18 and lengthening; is that what is causing this problem? This 19 park was in compliance when it was put in; is that correct? 20 MR. WEIR: The approval met the requirements 21 at that time for a 20-year period. It no longer meets that 22 original approval . 23 COMMISSIONER LORD: If we are going to put in 24 a brand new mobile home park today, and we have these new 25 guidelines, and we assume things are going to change over 40 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 39 1 more years and 20 more years, and they are going to get 2 wider and longer , how are we protecting ourselves over the 3 next 20 years? Are we getting a crystal ball out? Are 4 these things going to get bigger and wider, and are we going 5 to continue to have problems when these things come back up? 6 Are we now zoning mobile home parks so this isn' t going 7 to happen any more? How are we going to avoid these 8 problems in the future? How can we solve this problem now? 9 It' s going to happen again and again and again, and we 10 are not going to be sitting here , somebody else will be , and 11 we need to come up with something. 12 MR. WEIR: Commissioner Lord, the items that 13 you are touching on is an enforcement issue, and the City is 14 going out and making sure this is in conformance with the 15 approved special use permit. 16 Today, the enforcement is taking place . As problems 17 arise, staff is informed of them, and it makes a tour of the 18 site, and then staff tries to take appropriate action to 19 bring it into conformance with the specific code . And that 20 is really how it will have to be addressed in the future, as 21 an enforcement issue . 22 COMMISSIONER LORD: Mr . McMillan, have you 23 estimated how much money this might cost to bring this into 24 conformance? Do you have any idea? 25 MR. MCMILLAN: The cost of putting in a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 40 1 cul-de-sac and that kind of thing is going to be very 2 expensive . And you would lose up to 25 percent of the park 3 by doing that; and up to 30 , 35 percent of the park if we 4 met all of these things . So when you lose 35 percent of the 5 homes, you loose 35 percent of the income, and you loose 35 6 percent of the value that' s there . And that' s a significant 7 financial burden. And I know that' s not a reason for a 8 variance . They made that very clear to us, that financial 9 burden is not a reason for a variance when you go to the 10 Board of Adjustment . That' s why I don' t want to end up 11 there, because that' s what we are dealing with. We have a 12 significant problem here . 13 I want to address one other thing, and that is the time 14 period. You said it seems like an awful long time . And it 15 does . And I can understand that. But when you buy real 16 estate, it' s a long-term investment. It has a pay back of a 17 much lower rate than other types of investments . When you 18 buy real restate you are looking at maybe a nine or ten 19 percent rate of return per year. 20 Now, a part of that return is a return on your 21 money--six, seven percent. Part of that return is a return 22 of your money, two or three percent a year . If you have to 23 return that money over a ten-year period, that means you 24 have got to get ten percent a year just to get your money 25 back out of that investment, let alone on a loan the return PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 41 1 on the investment . So 25 years is a very short time for 2 real estate investment . 3 When you buy a house , for instance , it' s normally 4 financed over 30 years . Real estate property is normally 5 financed over 25 , 30 years , because the rents can' t pay back 6 the investment in the property as well as the return on the 7 investment. I don' t know if I am being about as clear as 8 mud, but it' s a long term investment. And to get back the 9 return, it has to have a long, long haul . 40 years , I know, 10 sounds like a long time, and we would love to have it, but 11 25 years would be too short. If we could meet somewhere in 12 between, 30 , 35, it would sure be a help. Most real estate 13 is financed over 30 years . 14 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I have one other 15 concern. The RV storage . Now, being a retiree community, 16 which this appears to be , most retiress - - well , not most, 17 but a great number have RVs--either mobile homes , trailers, 18 pop-up trailers or campers . And I see them parked out 19 there . And I don' t know if that area is one being used by 20 the park or by the residents . If not, that' s the one thing 21 I would think--I would suggest, if we don' t go to the Board 22 of Adjustment--is that some area be provided, whether it' s 23 leased space or whatever, for the storage of RVs . 24 Anyway, I would request that we postpone this matter to 25 a later date and have the applicant come back with some PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 42 1 suggestions on fire walls, on the gate idea, RV storage , and 2 things of that nature . 3 MR. MCMILLAN: Do you feel like this will 4 keep us from going to the Board of Adjustment? 5 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Maybe that' s not an 6 appropriate answer, but it' s the one I have . 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : There are no guarantees . 8 MR. MCMILLAN: But what you are doing is an 9 effort to maybe help us not do that. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Well , we are trying - - what 11 Commissioner Killian is trying to suggest is that you come 12 back with a plan that we can take a look at and address the 13 concerns that you have heard from the commissioners tonight, 14 and see if - - not so much in an effort to keep you from 15 going to the Board of Adjustment, but coming up with 16 something that is palitable, so to speak . 17 There are issues that you have heard tonight, and these 18 are issues - - Commissioner Lord and Commissioner Montoya 19 brought up some issues about what we may be faced with in 20 the future . The problems that you are experiencing are 21 problems similar to what we have got in the old part of 22 town, where you have got narrow streets and some of the 23 infrastructure that' s already in place, and you have to 24 consider, you know, what are you going to do in the future 25 when you run across the problem? If you have got anything PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 43 1 in your particular situation — — you have got that mobile 2 home park that' s already constructed, your infrastructure is 3 already in place, to have to move some of those structures 4 would be almost prohibitive . But I am kind of getting off 5 the subject 6 I think, going back, we are saying come up with a plan. 7 Get together with staff and the fire department, address the 8 issues and come back and have the Commission take a look at 9 it. 10 On that note, I ' ll ask for a second to Commissioner 11 Killian' s motion? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? 14 COMMISSIONER LORD: I want to put in some 15 discussion. The City of Las Cruces wants to promote nice 16 mobile home parks with rock walls and landscaping and trees 17 and storage sheds that will be there and will be permanent 18 and be nicely maintained, like this one that has held up for 19 20 years . There are a lot of neighborhoods with homes that 20 don' t look this good that aren' t 20 years old. 21 We are trying to promote that kind of park . And you as 22 a developer, are looking and thinking, well , gosh, in 20 23 years we may have to tear out all my rock walls and all my 24 landscaping, and I might lose 35 percent of my mobile home 25 park, and I am pretty much destroyed financially, in my PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 44 1 opinion. So I am sitting here thinking about developing a 2 mobile home park today, what am I going to do? I am going 3 to put in chain-link fence , and I am going to have a total 4 bare bones mobile home park, in my opinion, because if this 5 is going to come back and bite me, I am not going to put the 6 kind of money in it that this mobile home park got put in 7 it. And this is really bothering me . I am on my soap box, 8 but I don' t know how we can expect these people to do the 9 things that we are asking them to do. It just looks 10 impossible to me . It' s not good business for Las Cruces to 11 do this . 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I have a tendency to agree 13 with you, Commissioner Lord. There are some things that 14 obviously were acceptable back in 1969 that aren' t 15 acceptable today. Especially, we have to consider in the 16 shortage of housing that we have today that we need to try 17 and maintain affordable housing. And through this type of 18 development, I think we are providing a service . But still , 19 perhaps, we can come up with something that will be 20 acceptable to everybody and to minimize the concerns . And I 21 agree, again, also with Commissioner Daw, that perhaps over 22 a period of years that a phased in improvement to eliminate 23 some of these safety hazards and areas of other concern 24 could be done . 25 In the meantime, we have a motion. At this particular PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 45 1 point in time , the chair calls the question. 2 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye to postpone . 3 COMMISSIONER DAW: Postpone . 4 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Postpone . 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Postpone . 6 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Postpone . 7 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye . 9 We will refer it back to staff to try to work out something 10 with the applicant. 11 The next case is SUP-92-007 , a request for a special 12 use permit for a proposed car wash to operate in conjunction 13 with a Conoco Service Station which is currently under 14 construction. The 0 .896-acre parcel of land is located at 15 3041 North Main Street, and it' s zoned C-2 , general 16 commercial . Submitted by Marvin and Joan Hillger for 17 Hillger Oil Company, Incorporated, the property owners . 18 May I have a motion to consider SUP-92-007? 19 COMMISSIONER DAW: So moved. 20 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Second. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present, or 22 his representative? 23 MR. HILLGER: Yes, sir . Mr . Chairman, my 24 name is Scott Hillger representing the applicants . I don' t 25 have a formal proposal , but I will be happy to answer any PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 46 1 questions that the Commission might have. 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. At this point, 3 we will ask Mr . Weir from the City staff to make their 4 presentation. 5 MR. WEIR: Mr Chairman, commission members, 6 the request is for a special use permit for a car wash in 7 conjunction with a gas station. The property is located on 8 the corner of Elks and Main Streets . The existing use - - 9 there' s been a gas station constructed on the property. The 10 existing zoning on the property and surrounding area is C-2 . 11 The uses are also commercial uses . 12 Earlier this month, the applicant was granted a 13 variance so that his site plan for the development would 14 meet the requirements of the Zoning Code . This was done by 15 the Board of Adjustment. Seeing how this is a compatible 16 use with a gas station and a commercial development of that 17 area, staff recommends approval . 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir . 19 Anybody else? At this point, we will open it to public 20 participation? Anybody in the audience wishing to address 21 case SUP-92-007? 22 Okay, we will close it to public participation and go 23 into commissioner input. 24 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I have a question of 25 the car wash. Are we taking about a car wash that' s the one PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 47 1 with the wands , that you pull into, or is it a drive-through 2 with brushes and everything? 3 MR. HILLGER: Yes , sir, it' s what they call a 4 roll-over type . 5 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I know of maybe one 6 other in the City on Solano, so I think this would be a good 7 addition. Of course, I am prejudiced. I live just down the 8 street from this, and it would be very handy for me . 9 Where would you put it on the site? I have noticed it 10 going up, and I am impressed with these new stores . I don' t 11 want to call them service stations, because they don' t give 12 service any more . These filling stations and grocery 13 stores, some of them are very attractive . I think this one 14 is going to be very impressive . Where are you going to put 15 the washer? 16 MR. HILLGER: Behind. It is approximately, 17 about 27 feet to the northeast of the back of the store, if 18 that makes any sense . 19 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: How would you enter, 20 from Elks Drive? 21 MR. HILLGER: No, sir. You would go west on 22 the property and exit from the back of the property to enter 23 into the wash from the west going east and exit out the east 24 on to Elks Drive . 25 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: So you would exit on PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 48 1 Elks? 2 MR. HILLGER: Yes , sir. 3 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would like to understand 4 why a special use permit is needed. This qualifies 5 according to the Zoning Code , as I understand it. And I 6 wonder why a special use permit is needed. 7 MR. WEIR: It' s just listed in the C-2 zone 8 as a special use . Generally, what a special use is, it' s a 9 use that is permitted after review, to make sure that it 10 doesn' t negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood, 11 doesn't put any unnecessary strain on utilities, or provide 12 any traffic problems . It' s just - - these are special 13 circumstances that in certain areas would be an appropriate 14 use , but in other areas would not be an appropriate use . 15 And that' s the reason it' s brought before you for your 16 review and approval . 17 COMMISSIONER DAW: And it' s not automatically 18 in C-2 , you couldn' t have a car wash? 19 MR. WEIR: No. 20 COMMISSIONER DAW: You have to have a special 21 use? 22 MR. WEIR: Yes , sir . 23 COMMISSIONER DAW: All right, sir, thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other commissioner 25 comments? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 49 1 Then the chair calls for the question. 2 COMMISSIONER DAW: Do we need a motion? 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We do. We need a motion for 4 approval . 5 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would move that it be 6 approved. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second. 8 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 9 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 10 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye . 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Yes . 13 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The chair votes aye . 15 ( The motion carried 7 to 0 . ) 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, the next case is 17 Z2196 , a request for a zone change from R-4 , high density 18 residential and limited office , to C-2 , general commercial . 19 The proposed use is a strip mall for retail cabinet and 20 paint stores, and other commercial businesses. The property 21 is vacant lots 1 through 5 , 51 , 000 square feet, in the W. B. 22 Hall Addition Subdivision, and generally located on the 23 north side of Avenida de Mesilla between Martin Street and 24 Roberts Road. Submitted by Bruce Ball for Bert and Theresa 25 Frederick, the property owners . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 50 1 May I have a motion to consider case 22196? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I move that we consider 3 case Z2196 . 4 CHAIRMAN PEERZ : Do I have a second? 5 COMMISSIONER LORD: Second. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant here? 7 MR. BALL: Yes , sir . Bruce Ball . 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would you care to make a 9 presentation at this time? 10 MR. BALL: Yes, sir . What we have is five 11 lots . Two lots are to be purchased by one person to put in 12 a retail cabinet shop, and the other three lots are to be 13 purchased by a separate person. He would like to put in a 14 paint store . And he is currently the manager of Given Paint 15 Company. If you have seen that business, you know what he 16 would be running there . They are planning on putting in a 17 few other businesses , such as an office business - - shop or 18 body shop, which would conform to the code . 19 If you notice on the screen, you have C-2 properties 20 next to what we are asking to change . And there is C-2 21 property across the street. The purchasers are willing to 22 conform to the neighborhood' s wishes, as to such things as 23 the type of building, what it would look like, and the other 24 businesses that have not yet been determined that would meet 25 code . And also, for instance , there is no buffer between PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 51 1 the current property, the R-1 neighborhood, and the street. 2 All you see is that empty lot and the traffic . The building 3 would be in between the street and the neighborhood, and the 4 purchaser would be willing to put in, for example , trees , 5 whatever' s between that building and that neighborhood, so 6 they wouldn't have to be looking at the back of the 7 building. 8 However, what they are looking at now is apartments, 9 and is not any better to look at. And the main purpose is 10 to bring the awareness that if it goes C-2, you would know 11 what' s going in there . But if it stayed R-4 , there are five 12 lots, five separate multi-family units that could go into 13 that property. I want to make sure that the neighborhood 14 that does help vote on this understands what the 15 consequences would be if it remained R-4 . 16 And as a realtor , I checked on the computer . Right now 17 there are 26 R-4 properties on the market, none of which are 18 under contract. So there is plenty of R-4 property 19 available . 20 MR. WEIR: Mr . Chairman, commission members, 21 the request before you is a zone change to C-2 . As you 22 know, it' s located on the northwest corner of Avenida de 23 Mesilla and Martin Streets . The property is currently 24 vacant. As has already been stated, the proposed use is for 25 a cabinet store and paint store and potentially other PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 52 1 commercial uses . 2 In your packets that you received, you received three 3 comments from the public . One of them was in support of the 4 zone change , and two were against it. And their main 5 concern was traffic . A second one was in protest, its 6 concern was security, traffic and the closeness to the 7 proposed residential area . They would be willing to accept 8 a C-1 use or a C-2 use conditioned upon buffering between 9 the residential area and this property. 10 When staff reviewed this proposal, we recommended 11 denial . And our basis for that was the existence of vacant 12 C-2 property in this general vicinity of Main Street, in the 13 same area. The other concern was the location of the R-1 14 zoning district, which is single-family, detached 15 residential right adjacent to the site . And also that there 16 is some flexibility allowed in a R-4 zone, it allows fo.r 17 limited office or low volume office use , and also all 18 residential uses . Therefore , staff would recommend denial 19 of this zone change at this time . 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr. Weir . 21 At this point in time, we will open it to public 22 participation. Anybody from the audience wish to address 23 case 22196 . 24 MR. LIVAS : My name is Steve Livas . I live 25 at 1245 Hall in back of the projected property. I would PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 53 1 just like to say that I would like this denied, unless, like 2 he was saying, it is limited to office space . What I am 3 worried about is a paint store or a cabinet shop - - the 4 alley in back of my house is not only an alley, but it also 5 dead-ends at the canal . There is a house on the end, and I 6 don' t see how - - at the end, there is a house there . And 7 with the big delivery trucks or whatever trucks are going 8 in, I don' t see how they are going to go in through the back 9 except through the alley. And that' s right adjacent to all 10 of our houses . 11 And also, the disposal of the paints or whatever, the 12 cabinets - - the stuff they have , we don' t know. We would 13 like it denied on that subject. All of our houses are 14 opened to that side . That' s all I would like to say. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Anybody else in 16 the audience wish to address case Z2196? 17 Going once, twice , okay we will close it to public 18 participation and go into commissioner input. 19 Anyone on the Commission wish to address this case? 20 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: When we say "buffer, " 21 what do we mean by buffer? 22 MR. WEIR: Commissioner Killian, a buffer 23 could constitute a wall or trees, some type of landscaping, 24 fence . Any of those items could be used as a buffer to this 25 property. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 54 1 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: The disposal of paint 2 is covered by code . And I know you are concerned about the 3 danger, maybe fire from the paint; is that it? 4 MR. LIVAS : Plus the vicinity. If they built 5 a little building out there, it' s right on the alley and our 6 back yards are right on the alley. if they are going to put 7 garbage cans, or like you say containers to hold the paint 8 until they get it delivered, we have kids all over the 9 neighborhood - - 10 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: And the cabinet shop, 11 your concern with that was the noise factor? 12 MR. LIVAS : Well , both shops, and trucks , 13 delivery trucks, they are going to go up the alley. They 14 have got to pick up and come on in unless they make one 15 through the whole shopping center . 16 MR. BALL: I have been to Given Paint, and 17 there is no noise . And there is disposal in the back . It' s 18 a very clean operation. 19 The cabinet shop, if the business would be run from the 20 front of the business, if they are worried about noise, I 21 think R-4 , where people could be coming and going at 1 : 00 , 22 2 : 00, 3 : 00 , 4 : 00 in the morning would be more a nuisance 23 than a business that would close at eight o' clock at night. 24 Have you taken that into consideration, also? 25 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Is the delivery from PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 55 1 the back in most paint stores? You can determine that? 2 MR. BALL: If you would like . Like Given 3 Paint, it has got a very large parking lot in the front . I 4 know they have got a driveway in the back, but you could 5 just say deliveries are in the front. That handles the 6 paint. 7 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: And the cabinet shop, 8 is this a manufacturing of cabinets or just sales? 9 MR. BALL: Resale . 10 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: So there is no actual 11 manufacturing of cabinets proposed in this mall? 12 MR. BALL: Correct. 13 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: So there would be no 14 necessity for rear delivery. 15 MR. BALL: Right. To the best of my 16 knowledge , they are not going to be manufacturing anything. 17 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: That' s all I have 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Mr. Chairman, isn' t it 19 generally considered by the planning staff that, jumping 20 from an R-1 zone to a C-2 zone, kind of a drastic change , as 21 opposed to a transitional zone? 22 MR. WEIR: That is correct. We would 23 generally prefer a transition in use , either in limited 24 offices or high density residential area, between an R-1 25 zone and a commercial zone . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 56 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Mr. Weir, I have one 2 more question about Avenida de Mesilla and any future plans 3 for that area that we might not know about that could impact 4 this decision. 5 MR. WEIR: Commissioner Willis , I assume you 6 are discussing transportation related projects? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Yes . 8 MR.. WEIR: In your staff reports, the 9 transportation planner and also the State Highway Department 10 did not make any comments as to any proposed projects for 11 this area at this time . So there are none on the boards 12 right now. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments? If not, 14 may I have a motion for approval or denial? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Could I ask one more 16 question? Is the applicant interested in another change 17 other than C-2? 18 MR. BALL: Both of the properties - - well , 19 all five lots have been purchased with a contingency of the 20 property being rezoned at C-2 , period. It' s zoned R-4 , and 21 we want to switch it to C-2 . 22 When you were talking about your transitional change 23 from R-1 to C-2 and so on, what' s the transitional change 24 from R-4? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Probably 0-1 and C-1 . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 57 1 MR. BALL : And what is the difference? What 2 would the limitations be as far as C-1 over C-2 in this 3 situation? Would this conform to a C-1? 4 MR. WEIR: It would be based on the size of 5 your store . It' s limited to a square footage of 3 , 000 6 square feet for a C-1 use . 7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I know there was - - 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Excuse me . Would you please 9 come up to the podium. I haven' t been requiring that, but I 10 should. 11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I know they are asking 12 to have a cabinet shop and Given' s Paint store . And I 13 guess, you know, then they will have other businesses in the 14 future . And that' s what we are all concerned about. With a 15 C-2 , you can put almost anything in, pertaining to you 16 people , pertaining to the Commission, and that' s what 17 worries us , too, because we are right on the back lot. I 18 mean our houses open right up to that lot. And depending on 19 what goes in there--and there' s five or six houses there 20 that open on that. On the other side we have a pawn shop 21 and a TV store . And then across from it, it' s a liquor 22 store and an art gallery. And there ' s another C-2 place 23 which is a - - there is a church there . And you know what 24 can go in and all that . Practically anything can go in with 25 C-2 . You can almost put anything in. And that' s what we PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 58 1 are concerned about. Thank you. 2 COMMISSIONER DAW: He has just made the point 3 that I was going to make , that while it says here at the 4 top, strip mall for cabinet store/paint store , there' s that 5 other general commercial which includes funeral homes , 6 mortuaries, including a crematorium. And there are lots of 7 other things down here that could go in that area under C-2 . 8 And the words that appear there, if C-2 is granted, don' t 9 mean anything. A year ago, I was involved, relative to the 10 sale of a piece of property, and the person asked for a zone 11 change . It didn' t have anything to do with the sale of the 12 property, but they asked for a zone change . And the person 13 said they wanted to put their little flower store for their 14 mother to operate . They got the zone change, but no flower 15 store emerged for their mother to operate . Something did 16 emerge that did fit into that zoning, and I think that' s the 17 case here , if it were approved at C-2 , anything that' s down 18 here C-2 could move in. 19 COMMISSIONER LORD: Does the neighborhood 20 think that if we put some strict conditions on buffering, 21 landscaping or whatever, if we conditioned the access to the 22 back of the property and actually went in and conditioned 23 the types of uses, like we have done with Crescent Park , do 24 you think that you could work with the applicant on uses 25 that you could live with in a C-2 zone? Could you guys get PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 59 1 together and work some things out that you could come to 2 some agreement on? 3 MR. LIVAS : It' s also the buffering we are 4 talking about. The property here , that' s no more than, 5 what, 30 feet? 30 feet wide, 40 feet wide , or whatever . 6 It' s probably 25 feet for the alley way, and then our 7 property. What kind of a buffer , you know? 8 COMMISSIONER LORD: That' s what we are saying 9 is , maybe you guys could work it out? Is that a 10 possibility? Is that possible? 11 MR. WEIR: Just a point of order . Any 12 conditional zoning has to be requested by the applicant in 13 writing. It' s not something that you could place on the 14 property. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : That' s something I was just 16 going to bring up, just as a matter of advise or information 17 to the applicant. The past commissions have been reluctant 18 to rezone anything that is considered speculative . And in 19 this particular situation, as Commissioner Daw has pointed 20 out, the other is something that leaves a gray area which 21 could have a very negative impact on the neighbors . The 22 suggestion is to perhaps come up with a plan to get together 23 with the neighbors and bring forth something more definitive 24 or more to the Commission' s liking, and that it could be 25 compatible with the five lots , and with the fellow who would PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 60 1 like to put in a cabinet shop and the fellow who would like 2 to put in the paint store . 3 Any other comments from the Commission? 4 MS . PESNICAK: Could I say something? 5 My name is Virginia Pesnicak, and we live directly 6 behind. My concern is , will we really have a voice on the 7 other businesses? I mean if we - - for instance , what' s to 8 keep a liquor store from coming in. We have apartments 9 across Avenida de Mesilla, and they are very low rent. And 10 they have a lot of problems there . The police come in 11 often. And you see there are domestic problems over there 12 all the time . It concerns me that either there could be a 13 liquor store or a bar , or something like that. And I am 14 really concerned about that, because we have lived a few 15 blocks away from another one when we lived on Avenida de 16 Mesilla, and that one was close to us . And there was a lot 17 of people going through with their cars and racing around, 18 and it was dangerous . Some cars were hit and things like 19 that. So those are the kinds of businesses that really 20 worry me the most, considering the neighborhood across the 21 way. And that' s my concern. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Let me explain perhaps a 23 little bit further what Commissioner Lord was suggesting to 24 the applicant and to yourselves , and that is - - first of 25 all , the Commission can condition the uses . The conditions PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 61 1 would have to be proposed to the Commission in writing by 2 the applicant, they would have to be suggested from him. So 3 basically, what is being suggested is that the case be 4 postponed until such time as the applicant can come back 5 with something more definitive as to what the uses would be , 6 and then the Commission would condition those conditions to 7 make sure that the area would not be impacted negatively. 8 So yes, you would have a voice in the issue, and those 9 conditions would go with the property. 10 MS. PESNICAK: One thing I would like to ask, 11 the zoning, the buffering zone between R-1 and R-4 or C-2, 12 would that be apartments, that zoning, that buffering zone 13 between us, and then would that mean apartments? 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Yes, ma'am, and office . 15 MS . PESNICAK: Which would really have a 16 bigger impact against us in many ways . 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ This is something to 18 consider, yes , ma'am, because your businesses would be 19 mostly in the activity during the day whereas in apartments , 20 well you have got a 24-hour activity factored in there . 21 Thank you. 22 So what' s the Commission' s pleasure on this? Do we 23 want to have a motion for approval or denial or for 24 postponement? 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I move we postpone this PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 62 1 case in hopes that the applicants will come back with 2 conditional zoning requests . 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We have a motion to 4 postpone . Do we have a second? 5 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Second. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? Then we will 7 vote . 8 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 9 COMMISSIONER DAW: No. 10 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye . 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Yes . 12 COMISSIONER MONTOYA: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER LORD: Yes . 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The chair votes aye . 15 (Motion carried 6 to 1 , Commissioner Daw 16 dissenting. ) 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . We will postpone for 30 days 18 to allow the applicant to get together with the residents 19 and to propose in writing some specific uses for the 20 property, thank you. 21 The next case is 22197 , a request for a zone change 22 from R-4 , high density residential and limited office , to 23 M-1 , light industrial . The property is a parcel of land 24 containing 7 . 4626 acres . The proposed use is any use 25 permitted in the M-1 zone . The property is generally PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 63 1 located adjacent to the south side of Westview Mobile Manor 2 and on the north side of West Hadley Avenue between Hadley 3 Lane and West Palms . Submitted by the porperty owner, First 4 National Bank of Dona Ana County. 5 May I have a motion to consider case 22197? 6 COMMISSIONER DAW: So moved. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant or its 8 representative present? 9 Mr . Moy, would you care to make a presentation? 10 MR. MOY: I would like to wait for the City 11 to make their presentation, and then I will be glad to give 12 you one . 13 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez , commission 14 members, the request before you is a zone change to M-1 , 15 which is a light manufacturing zone . The property is 16 currently vacant and zoned R-4 . As you can see from the 17 map, the zoning to the west, south and some plots to the 18 east is already zoned M-1 , and the property to the north is 19 zoned R-4 and currently has a mobile home park in existence 20 on it. 21 When staff reviewed this proposal, we looked at the 22 existing condition of the property. And what we did is, 23 there was a mix of uses out there . You have the mobile home 24 park, which is high density residential , and in West Palm 25 Drive , you have some state office buildings . And the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 64 1 corner, to the southwest, you have some single family homes . 2 And then directly south of the property, you have some 3 industrial and storage yards , industrial businesses in the 4 property. There is also a large amount of vacant property 5 in the area. Based on the vacant property and the mixed 6 uses , we felt that at this time it would be premature to 7 change the zoning of this from R-4 to M-1 . Also, the 8 condition of Hadley Road is not to a standard that would 9 easily handle increased industrial use . Therefore , staff is 10 recommending denial of this zone change . 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir . 12 At this point we will open it to public participation. 13 Does anyone in the audience wish to make any comments or 14 address case 22197? 15 MR. MOY: I do. The property, as you can 16 see , is surrounded on three sides by M-1--on the west, on 17 the south and east. And on the north, there is already an 18 established mobile home park . What we want to do is be able 19 to do the same thing that was allowed on the M-1 zone for 20 the Palms Center . The Palms Center on there is a lot zoned 21 M-1 . We just want the same thing. 22 Now, staff has said there is no buffering between the 23 property and the R-4 . There is none on the east side 24 either . And there is none on the west side either . So they 25 are trying to use this property just to say - - they don' t PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 65 1 have a real reason to deny it. It is compatible with all 2 the area. What we are talking about here is a situation 3 that can be corrected, and we can allow this property to be 4 on the same terms as the surrounding area. 5 As far as Hadley Street not being, right now, wide 6 enough to handle the future traffic, the City has tried to 7 work this problem out for the past 15 years . It' s not the 8 owner' s fault, of this land, that they don' t come to any 9 agreement, or they don' t have the money to do this . 10 If I recall right, the circumstances before, when they 11 approved the property on the east, that it is M-1 , M-1 12 conditional , it was approved with the condition that part of 13 it was given as an easement or a right-of-way for the future 14 widening. I haven' t seen that happening. So if we are 15 going to wait for that road to be developed, well . Of 16 course , it' s costing the bank money, and it wants to have 17 the opportunity to develop something on this . 18 Now, we are not trying to get anything that has not 19 been done in the same area. So if you have any questions, I 20 will answer them. But it would be unjust to deny this 21 request just on the basis of this street not being wide 22 enough. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Moy. Anybody 24 else in the audience wish to address case 22197? 25 Going once , twice , we will close it to public PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 66 1 participation and go on to Commissioner input. 2 Comissioners,any comments? 3 I ' ll call the question and ask for a motion for 4 approval or denial or postponement? 5 COMMISSIONER DAW: I ' ll make a motion that 6 will get it on the table . And I move that we approve the 7 request, because I see that most of the area is M-1 , and I 8 don' t see that that is a desirable area to further expand 9 residential kinds of things . So that' s my motion. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We have a motion for 11 approval . Do we have a second? 12 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I will second. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. I think that Mr. 14 Moy brought up a point, and that is , when we considered that 15 area once before , about a year and half or two years ago, 16 and that M-lc, we did approve that also with the contingency 17 that there would be a right-of-way granted to the City at 18 the time if they decided to improve that road; is that 19 correct? 20 MR. MOY: That is correct. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would those same conditions 22 be applicable for a right-of-way on this particular 23 property? 24 MR. MOY: Yes, we are willing to do the same 25 thing with the other one We can grant you an easement for PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 67 1 the road, or a grant of right-of-way for, let' s say, ten 2 years . If the City doesn' t do nothing--the same one on the 3 other--it should be reverted to the owner, because nothing' s 4 going to happen. I have got a letter from the bank right 5 here . It' s already notarized and everything. We want to 6 have the road widened out, because that also improves the 7 property. So there is no objection to that . 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would you want to qualify 9 your motion? 10 COMMISSIONER DAW: Yeah, I amend the motion 11 to include that right-of-way business . 12 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I ' ll second that. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments regarding 14 this case? If not, we will go on to the vote . 15 COMMISSIONER LINARD: No. 16 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 17 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye . 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Yes . 19 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Yes . 20 COMMISSIONER LORD: Yes. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye . 22 ( The motion carried 6 to 1 , Commissioner 23 Linard dissenting. ) 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The next case is Z2198 , a 25 request for zone change R-4 , high density residential and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 68 1 limited office to C-2 , general commerical . The property is 2 a part of a parcel of land and is 0 . 350 acres . The proposed 3 use is for a restaurant, gallery, and a gift shop. The 4 property is located at 949 and 955 South Melendres Street. 5 Submitted by Mary Jan Sak for Melvin and June L. McGuire, 6 the property owners . 7 We have a letter from Ms . McGuire requesting that we 8 postpone this application until the December meeting. May I 9 have a motion to postpone case Z2198? Before we do that, 10 the request to postpone is also for case Z2199 . So we can 11 do both. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : So moved. 13 COMMISSIONER LORD: Second. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? If not, we will 15 go on to the vote . 16 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 17 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 18 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye . 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye . 23 (The motion carried 7 to 0 . ) 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Case Z2198 and case Z2199 25 are postponed for the December public meeting. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 69 1 The next case is case 22200 , a request for a zone 2 change from R-3 , high density residential , to C-2c, general 3 commercial-conditional . The proposed use is for storage 4 units , and the zoning condition is to reject all other uses 5 permitted in the C-2 zone . The property is a vacant lot 6 containing 3 . 1186 acres, and generally located on the 7 southwest corner of Triviz Road and Nevada Avenue . 8 Submitted by the property owner, Jamie Stull . 9 May I have a motion to consider case 22200? 10 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: So moved. 11 COMMISSIONER DAW: Second. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present? 13 MR. STULL: Yes, sir, I am Jamie Stull . 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would you care to make a 15 presentation at this time? 16 MR. STULL: I have given all the facts to Mr . 17 Weir , I ' ll let him present it. And I will be happy to 18 answer any questions . 19 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez and commission 20 members, this request is for a zone change to C-2 , 21 conditional . The condition requested is that the only use 22 permitted on the property would be for mini-storage units . 23 The property is currently vacant and currently zoned R-3 . 24 The reason for the request is to expand an existing 25 facility that' s currently operated by Mr . Stull . In your 'PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 70 1 packets, we received one protest for that proposal . And 2 their concern was the potential increase of crime and a 3 feeling that mini-storage units would detract from the 4 neighborhood. When staff reviewed this , we recommended 5 approval . We felt that mini-storage units would be very 6 useful for the high density residential use in the area, or , 7 basically, the apartments that are located in this vicinity. 8 And that, also, it' s not detrimental to the industrial park 9 which is on the north side of Nevada Drive . So, therefore, 10 we are recommending approval of this zone change . 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : At this time, we will open 12 it to public participation. 13 Does anyone in the audience wish to address case 22200? 14 Going once, twice . Okay, we will close it to public 15 participation and go into commissioner input. 16 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I would like to ask 17 the applicant, do you intend to - - well , let me make a 18 comparison. I have seen a unit similar to, or is what I 19 consider nice on Madrid, on the corner of Madrid, and I 20 can' t think of the name of the street. 21 MR. STULL: Sextant. 22 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Would it be similar to 23 that? In other words, fenced with like concertina wire and 24 all the security, and that sort of thing? 25 MR. STULL: Yes , sir . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 71 1 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: That one is very nice . 2 It is kept immaculate . I have seen no indication of crime 3 or anything of that nature . I have seen no theft, which is 4 the concern of the one objection. 5 MR. STULL: Yes , sir . I have one with 113 6 units right behind my shopping center at Solano Square , and 7 I have never had one bit of crime in five years , not one 8 instance . And I am very well fenced, with cameras and 9 everything. 10 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Well , the subject area 11 is surrounded, for instance, by apartments, multi-family 12 dwellings and that sort of thing, and it looks to me like 13 it' s just a natural for that. They need it so badly, 14 apartment dwellers do. They need storage badly. I would 15 see it as a natural use for that space . That' s all I have . 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I agree . As far as crime is 17 concerned, the reason I knew the location that you are 18 talking about is because I live about two blocks away from 19 there, and it is a very nice facility and very well kept. 20 And it does - - those storage units do provide a 21 service to the neighborhood area. And I think it' s a very 22 appropriate use at that location. 23 Any other comments from any other commissioners? If 24 not, may I have a motion to approve , deny or postpone case 25 Z2200 . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 72 1 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I would move that we 2 approve this request for a zone change from R-3 to C2 , 3 conditional . 4 COMMISSIONER LORD: Second. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? Okay, we will 6 go on to the vote . 7 COMMISSIONER LINARD• Aye . 8 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 9 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye . 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . 11 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Aye . 12 COMMISSIONER LORD: Yes . 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye . 14 (The motion carried 7 to 0 . ) 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The next case is a request 16 for a zone change for R-1 , single family residential , to 17 R-4 , high density residential and limited office . The 18 existing single family structure will be used for a family 19 counseling service office . The property is a lot containing 20 7 ,700 square feet located at 1474 Andrews Drive . Submitted 21 by Ruby Lassiter for Harvey G. and Ruby F. and Julius P. 22 Lassiter, the property owners . 23 Do I have a motion to consider this request. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : So moved. 25 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Second. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 73 1 ( Commissioner Linard left the meeting at 2 9 : 45 p.m. ) 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present 4 here? Do you wish to make a presentation at this time? 5 MS . LASSITER: My name is Ruby Lassiter, and 6 we own the property at 1474 Andrews, the property for which 7 we are requesting the zone change . The reason for this 8 request is - - we also own the property at 1700 Luna, which 9 is adjacent to this property and is currently being used as 10 a low cost day care center . And we are in need of more 11 space for offices . And the home ' s atmosphere would enhance 12 the image that we are trying to give of the day care center, 13 that it is a homey atmosphere . And it would be close by for 14 the parents that need additional counseling when their 15 children are in the center . And I will be glad to answer 16 any other questions . 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Staff. 18 MR. WEIR: Mr . Chairman, commission members, 19 as the applicant has stated, the request is for a zone 20 change to R-4 from R-1 . The intended use is for offices for 21 the Family Center directly east of the subject property. 22 Based upon the R-4 , which requires offices to co-exist 23 and be in conformance with the existing neighborhood, and 24 staff has received no protest, we are recommending approval 25 of this zone change also . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 74 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir . 2 Anybody in the audience who wishes to address case Z2201 . 3 MR. EVANS : Yes , sir. My name is J .G. Evans , 4 Jr. , and I live in the property that will then almost be 5 surrounded by R-4 , except on the west side, the one right 6 there off of Missouri . I own that property there . 7 My only concern is that I will be , on two sides, 8 surrounded by R-4 , which I have already stated, and that 9 they have a day care . This is one of my concerns. The back 10 wall of that property is already falling down, and I was 11 wondering if there is going to be any repair to that in the 12 back with regard to bringing that up to code, or whatever . 13 I take good care o-f my dogs and everything, but if kids 14 get into the back yard I cannot say that they wouldn' t be 15 bitten. By surrounding me like that by the Family Planning 16 Center, I just want to make sure - - I guess we have been 17 talking a lot about buffers tonight. And I just want to 18 make sure , if the wall - - if there will be a buffer like a 19 wall or something put there . And maybe even the property on 20 the other side, which they say they own also. There is a 21 piece in that wall that is missing, so the kids could come 22 through my yard. I just want to know if there would be some 23 improvement to the wall structure or the buffer zone between 24 my house and that area. 25 MR. WEIR: I am not aware of anything, but PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 75 1 that might be an appropriate question for the applicants, 2 what their plans are for improvement to the site and the 3 existing structure . 4 MS . LASSITER: I appreciate his concern. The 5 property under question is fenced on three sides in the 6 back . And the one he is talking about, I was unaware that 7 that fence is falling, but on our property line, the fence 8 that we have, is not. There are two fences right together, 9 his and ours. I guess ours is a cinder block fence . But 10 this property is not proposed for children at all . We are 11 only going to be using the house for counseling. And if the 12 children were to come into the back yard, if we decided to 13 do that, of course , we would make sure it was safe and met 14 the codes for the children. 15 Now, the area that the children are in, that is - - we, 16 of course , follow the code , and the children are not 17 permitted in there But, anywhere we do let the children, 18 you would not have to worry about that, any part that kids 19 will be in, will meet standards and codes. 20 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: The existing structure 21 that is there , it' s not being used right now as a family 22 counseling office, is it? 2.3 MS . LASSITER: No. And he is right, there is 24 an interim renter in there . 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : But you are proposing to use PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 76 1 this in the future for the purposes of counseling? 2 MS . LASSITER: Right, to enhance the day care 3 center . They have lots of services, and they are scattered 4 different places about the city. It would be nice when the 5 parents drop the kids off, if they are in need of 6 counseling, it could be in one central location. I think 7 that would facilitate them getting to the counselor . In 8 other words, not having to chase around and take care of 9 their kids . 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So Mr . Weir, would I be 11 correct that at the time a business permit would be applied 12 for, that the codes enforcement would inspect the building, 13 the premises, to make sure that everything is in compliance? 14 MR. WEIR: That is correct. 15 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I would like to ask 16 the gentleman with the fence that you are concerned about, 17 is it a cinder block that' s falling down? 18 MR. EVANS : The one I was talking about is 19 the right on the back of my lot, right in here . That wall , 20 that line right there . 21 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Is it cinder block 22 that' s falling down? 23 MR. EVANS : Yes . 24 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I have been been by 25 the property, and I didn' t see this , what you are talking PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 77 1 about. 2 MR. EVANS : There is a cinder block wall , I 3 guess it' s about five blocks high, and then there is a 4 make-shift fence above that, just some kind of wire . 5 What' s happened is , I guess , before I bought the 6 property, the people took out ground. So now those cinder 7 blocks are now falling over into my yard. And basically it 8 makes it hazardous back there . 9 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Do you have a fence? 10 MR. EVANS : No, I don' t. At this point, no . 11 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Well , obviously you 12 want something there for that dog to maintain him. 13 MR. EVANS: He ' s on a chain. 14 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: But if a youngster 15 were to be there , it could be pretty hazardous? Is it a big 16 dog? 17 MR. EVANS : It' s a medium sized dog. He is 18 half German Shepherd, half Chow. 19 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: That' s a big dog. 20 The concern I would have is the appearance of it more 21 than anything else . I think that might be subject to this, 22 that if we approve that zone change, that that fence be 23 either removed or replaced with chain link fence , or 24 something of that nature , or repair that one . 25 MR. EVANS : I don' t want to create any PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 78 1 financial hardship on anybody. I appreciate what they are 2 trying to do. It' s just a concern of mine , because the wall 3 had been in disrepair . Like you said, maybe I should put up 4 my own wall . It probably sits - - I know it probably sits 5 two or three feet back behind their property line . So there 6 is actually two or three feet of my property that' s not 7 walled in, you know what I am trying to say. 8 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I think it' s quite 9 common for a fence to be - - for a fence to be co-owned. 10 MR. EVANS : This would not be co-owned. The 11 fence is completely on their property. 12 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I am suggesting a 13 fence co-owned and a new fence installed. That is just a 14 thought. I am not trying to set any rules , just suggesting. 15 COMMISSIONER DAW: There are lots of problems 16 with property and property owners and not all of them have 17 to do with zoning. And if there is a problem with fences 18 falling down, it would seem to me the first thing is that 19 the property owners might get together to solve that and not 20 involve the zoning board. If they can' t resolve that, then 21 it looks like there are other areas in the City that they 22 could go to redress it, rather than to the zoning board; is 23 that right? 24 MR. WEIR: That is correct. 25 COMMISSIONER DAW: Where would they go on an PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 79 1 issue like this? 2 MR. WEIR: It could be brought before the 3 code enforcement department to make sure that all of the 4 requirements are in conformance with the ordinance and 5 regulations that the City has adopted. 6 COMMISSIONER DAW: I am sympathetic to the 7 fact that fences ought to be fixed, but I don' t think that' s 8 an issue for us, for this board. 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : No, that is correct. That' s 10 why I pointed out that at the time a business license was 11 applied for and before it' s granted, the procedure 12 oftentimes is that the fire department and the codes 13 enforcement people go and inspect the property to make sure 14 that everything is in compliance with the City' s design 15 standards or codes. 16 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: The only thing I have 17 got about that, they have got high power lines running right 18 across the top of the house . If you go down, I guess the 19 codes department has got to look into it, about those wires 20 running on top of the house? 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : That is correct. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: I have a question for 23 Mr. Weir . Chairman Perez brought up the point, but I am not 24 sure I was clear on the answer . Is the building itself 25 being brought up to the code for commercial use? Will that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 80 1 be required, or can it stay in a residential condition in 2 terms of what' s inside , and that kind of thing? 3 MR. WEIR: Are you talking about what the 4 state licensing, the electrical work - - 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Yeah, the plumbing, 6 those kinds of things - - egress . 7 MR. WEIR: Generally, the property owner 8 would be required to consult with the New Mexico 9 Construction industries Division and get the okay to convert 10 the use . If there is anything not in compliance, they would 11 have to bring it up to standard before they can convert it 12 to that office use . 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : And I am wondering if 14 the applicant is aware of this, and what that could mean to 15 them? 16 MR. WEIR: I don' t believe anyone in our 17 office gave that information to the applicants . 18 MS . LASSITER: We aware of how to convert the 19 lot, because that' s exactly what we did with the day care 20 center. It was residential , and we changed it to office, 21 and then to a day care center . We are very much aware of 22 that, in detail . 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I just didn' t want you 24 to go to all this trouble and then find out that you had a 25 whole other ball of wax to deal with. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 81 1 MS . LASSITER: No . No, we have been through 2 those steps . 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Any other comments? 4 If not, may I have a motion to approve, deny or 5 postpone? 6 COMMISSIONER DAW: I move that it be aproved. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We have a motion to approve 9 and a second to approve case Z2201 . Any discussion? 10 If not, we will go onto the vote 11 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 12 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye . 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Yes . 14 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Yes . 15 COMMISSIONER LORD: Yes . 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye . 17 ( The motion carried 6 to 0 . ) 18 MS . LASSITER: We thank you very much. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : You are very welcome . 20 The next item on the agenda is case Z2202 , a request 21 for a zone change from R-1 , single family residential , to 22 RE—c, residential estates-conditional . The applicant 23 desires the conditional zone to allow a guest 24 dwelling/accessory living quarters and to reject any other 25 permitted uses or special uses not otherwise allowed in the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 82 1 R-1 zone . The property is a parcel of land containing 0 . 585 2 acres and located at 790 W Boutz Road. Submitted by Mike 3 G. Paulowsky for James R. and Dorothy Grider, the property 4 owners . 5 May I have a motion to approve case 22201? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I would so move . 7 COMMISSIONER LORD: Second. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present? 9 MR. PAULOWSKY: Yes , sir. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would you care to make a 11 presentation at this time? 12 MR. PAULOWSKY: If I might. I would always 13 like time to respond if there are any questions to any 14 remarks by the City. I am cognizant of the hour and 15 sacrifice that' s involved on a citizens board, and I 16 appreciate that. 17 My name is Mike Paulowsky, and I have contracted for 18 the purchase of the property at the address 790 West Boutz 19 Road. The zone is here on the overhead projector . In 20 analyzing the zoning map of the City, I found that I am 21 surrounded on three sides by a two-zoned property, for lack 22 of a better description, to the north and to the east. 23 There is a residence, I have included in my packet 24 photographs of the neighborhood to the east. And to the 25 southeast is a larger residence with a large outbuilding. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 83 1 I consider the position of this particular property 2 fairly unique . I have requested zoning to residential 3 estates for which there are ceratin requirements in terms of 4 size and frontage, both of which this property meet. I have 5 a particular use in mind, and I need that particular zoning 6 on my application. 7 I indicated that I would disclaim any other differences 8 between the RE zoning and the R-1 zoning, and I intend to 9 follow through with that. I have gone to the effort of 10 canvassing the neighborhood--I realize that it' s not an 11 election, but I have attempted to speak with nearly all the 12 property owners that were affected. This was on a Sunday 13 afternoon, I don' t believe you will find significant 14 objection to that either by any of my future neighbors . And 15 the only other neighbors are in the defined residential 16 areas . 17 My understanding is that there was one protest filed. 18 The concern was that the proposed use of the property, which 19 would include an accessory building/living quarters would be 20 or could be put to a use not connected to the use of the 21 primary residence . By that I mean, maybe sublet or rent it 22 to someone else . That is prohibited by the code to begin 23 with, and is not an allowed situation for an accessory 24 building. I think that may answer that particular 25 objection. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 84 1 I plan to make that property my residence , and my 2 intended use of the additional dwelling quarters would be 3 for my mother to reside with me . I fall in a situation of 4 R-1 zoning, and there are some limitations there that are 5 not particularly fitting to it . I think this property is 6 unique because of the surrounded charactistics . On the 7 northwest and southeast sides there is vacant land. The 8 southeast side is in cultivation and the northeast side is 9 in cultivation, and in part appears to be drainage for most 10 of the other part. I hope the photographs reproduced. I 11 realize you don' t have originals . I think the originals are 12 on file with the City staff. And with that, I think I will 13 pass the microphone . 14 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez , commission 15 members, as the applicant has stated, the request is for a 16 zone cahnge from R-1 to REc, which is rural estates . And 17 the conditions he is requesting is basically to allow an 18 accessory living structure on the property, and then all 19 other conditions would match the R-1 zoning district. 20 Current use of the property is a single family home, as 21 the applicant already stated. It' s surrounded by a 22 agriculture property and R-1 property to the west. There 23 has also been one protest as the applicant also stated, and 24 this dealt with the future use of the living structure and 25 the possibility that it may be rented out. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 85 1 When staff reviewed this request, we felt that it would 2 be an appropriate zone change due to the vicinity to 3 agriculturally zoned property, and also due to the half acre 4 zoning requirement of rural estates . And even with the two 5 structures, the density of an R-1 zoning district would be 6 maintained. Therefore , we recommend approval of this zone 7 change . 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir . 9 At this point, we will open it to public participation. 10 Anybody in the audience wish to address case 22202? Going 11 once, twice . We will close it to public participation, and 12 go into commissioner input. 13 Any commissioner wish to make a comment? 14 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: I know your case must 15 be a very popular one, since you have such a very large 16 crowd with you. 17 Because of the hour , I would like to propose a motion 18 that we approve this zone change . 19 COMMISSIONER LORD: Second. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any discussion? 21 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would - - I kind of 22 wondered why one needs the zone change , because I figure 23 that a good architect could design an addition to the home 24 connected by a breezeway, or whatever, that one could do 25 exactly what he wanted to do, but not requiring a zone PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 86 1 change . And I would like to understand a little better why 2 a zone change is really needed to accomplish what is being 3 proposed. 4 Mr . Weir, can you answer that? 5 MR. WEIR: No, I can' t. 6 COMMISSIONER DAW: Then I would like to hear 7 from the proposer as to why a zone change is needed, when I 8 believe it could be accomplished without a zone change. 9 MR. PAULOWSKY: If I could Dr . Daw, I would 10 like to respond to that. Some time ago I was a student in 11 your class at the university, and perhaps had less answers, 12 or less ability to answer than I do presently. 13 There is an interpretation by the City that if you have 14 separate cooking quarters or separate cooking facilities, it 15 constitutes a separate residence . And to avoid the 16 necessity of arguing that point, plus to maintain for my 17 mother an independent lifestyle , frankly, the suggestion of 18 the City staff was that if I changed it to either rural 19 estate or residential estate , I could solve that problem. 20 And if I have misspoken, I apologize . But it' s my 21 understanding, it would accomplish the purpose and remove 22 the necessity for interpretation. And that was my intent in 23 doing so. 24 COMMISSIONER DAW: Then, if one has a BBQ pit 25 out back, are they are in violation of this code? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 87 1 MR. PAULOWSKY: Those were the sorts of 2 questions I hoped to avoid with the City, because it was my 3 intent that we have a separate range, and rather than put 4 myself in jeapordy of having a dispute with the City, it 5 seemed to me to be the far better course to take to bring it 6 within the City' s guidelines and regulations for the type of 7 zoning and the property that is appropriate in the first 8 instance . That would be my response Dr . Daw. 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : About two or three years 10 ago, we had a situation here off of Solano where the home 11 owner had applied to build a garage , and it went beyond a 12 garage by the time the building was put up, and it turned 13 out to be a residence. As such, it didn' t meet the criteria 14 at the time, and so they came in for a zoning change, so 15 that they could then comply with the building permit that 16 they were required to get. So it kind of gets into some 17 situations where it puts the City staff oftentimes in the 18 position - - in a difficult position of having to enforce 19 the codes. I think it' s simply for the purpose of 20 definition, right? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : As I understand it, the 22 opposition to this proposal was not wanting to see a rental 23 unit go in in this neighborhood, and I don' t know what 24 solution there could be to preventing that kind of thing. 25 When I look at the site plan, it' s obvious to me that it PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 88 1 would be inconvenient, at best, to put a driveway back there 2 some day, when you sell the property, so somebody could rent 3 that. 4 MR. PAULOWSKY: I anticipated that question. 5 There is no room for a driveway, and you can' t have an 6 independent access . And the utilities will be metered to 7 together . The answer is found in the City code . It' s 8 because an accessory building, which it defines the uses 9 for, do not include commercial uses. So I would be 10 prohibited, either me or anybody else, from letting that 11 property split from the use of the structure . And I thought 12 that would resolve the protestation. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comment from any 14 of the commissioners? If not, we will go on to the vote . 15 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 16 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Aye . 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . 18 COMMISSIONER MONTOYA: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye . 21 (Motion carried 6 to 0 . ) 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Now, we come to the last 23 item on the agenda, and that' s the election of officers . We 24 are charged with electing a vice—chairperson to the 25 Commission. At this point in time , we will open the floor PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 89 1 to nominations . Do we have any nominations . 2 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Chairman Perez , I 3 would like to nominate Kay Willis . 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I have already been 5 elected secretary. 6 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Then, if I may change 7 that, I would like to nominate Commissioner Daw. 8 COMMISSIONER DAW: I think I could be more 9 effective not as an officer type , so I decline . 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I would like to 12 nominate Commissioner Killian as the vice chairman. 13 COMMISSIONER DAW: I move nominations cease, 14 and he be elected by acclamation. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We have a motion to elect 16 Commissioner Killian as vice-chair of the Planning and 17 Zoning Commission. Do I have a second? 18 COMMISSIONER LORD: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : All in favor, aye . 20 (The motion carried 6 to 0 . ) 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Congratulations . 22 Do we have any other business of interest? 23 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would like to put down 24 one . I would like us to consider putting a time limit on 25 special use permits so that we are not - - we don' t have PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 90 1 some come in for 90 years and some come in for 60 years and 2 some come in for 10 years . I would like to see a limit. 3 And I think that it would be helpful to the City staff when 4 someone comes in for them to say that the guidelines of the 5 Commission are that you ask for 25 or less years , or some 6 other number. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Mr . Weir, is that possible? 8 MR. WEIR: What I would recommend to you is, 9 you are currently working on your policies and procedures 10 for holding your meetings . I recommend that you make that 11 one of your policies or directions to staff. If you adopt 12 those , you would adopt this policy, also. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Just as a matter of 14 discussion, sometimes those special use permits - - there 15 are different situations that occur . And one of them is the 16 financing arrangements . Sometimes they require 30 , or 17 something over that. And so that' s something that we may 18 just have to consider on a case by case basis. 19 COMMISSIONER LORD: I would like to see a 20 work session on the mobile home park, where we can sit 21 around and work on that, which will involve special use 22 permits in general coming up. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do you want to include this 24 applicant, or just discuss it in general? 25 COMMISSIONER LORD: We can include the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 91 1 applicant. Perhaps it would be helpful , because then we 2 could take a look at points of view from both sides . 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : And the fire 4 department. 5 COMMISSIONER DAW: And then I just had one 6 other comment. We postponed several items this evening, and 7 I think we did it for good reason. But I would like to 8 suggest that we postpone as little as possible, so that 9 business moves forward. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I agree. Good point. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : So we can take that one 12 step further . I think one of the ways to accomplish that is 13 to be sure that the applicant is well informed about what' s 14 going on before they come in and that as much homework is 15 done previous to showing up here as possible . It seems like 16 we have a lot of the same kind of questions come up on these 17 cases, and maybe if they could be addressed before they come 18 here we wouldn' t have to postpone as such. 19 MR. WEIR: We could try to do that. I am not 20 trying to make excuses or anything, but one of the problems 21 is we have a very tight timetable . And a lots of times, 22 these issues come up at the last minute or late in time, and 23 the applicant still requests it to be put on the meeting 24 agenda. And we will try to eliminate those and not put them 25 on the agenda unless there is clear direction that that' s PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 92 1 what they want to do. We try to eliminate as much of that 2 as possible . 3 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN. You are advising them 4 what they should do and what they shouldn' t do. In other 5 words, there is no point in going to them to amend, saying 6 you are just going to get postponed or whatever . 7 MR. WEIR: We have like a six-week turnaround 8 on the requests . And generally, the applicants have a 9 submittal date which they put in their zone change , special 10 use permits . Roughly two to three days after they submit 11 that, or it is received, we process it out to the reviewing 12 departments . And then they have another couple of weeks , 13 and then we have to advertise in the papers approximately 14 two weeks before your meeting. So the problem is, roughly 15 by the time our comments come back or are starting to come 16 back, we are already advertising for the meeting. And 17 that' s the reason we put them on the agenda. 18 In the past, what the staff has done is, if there had 19 been major issues, we requested that they be postponed, and 20 they automatically go on to old business at your next 21 meeting. And that was just a way staff had of dealing with 22 those cases . And sometime it' s a timing problem. And other 23 times, the applicant just wants to get into the meeting and 24 take their chances at the meeting. And sometimes they want 25 to feel you out and see which way they need to jump. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 93 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I know you are trying to 2 come up with some guidelines as to what procedure to take 3 with building permits, when you are pulling a permit. Could 4 that be something that the staff could take a look at in the 5 process of zone changes, or the applicants that we have to 6 deal with? 7 MR. WEIR: I believe what you are asking for 8 is to put together a handout describing the criteria the 9 Commission looks at for approval , what types of questions 10 they may have to come in and answer, and what type of 11 information they need to provide . 12 We currently have a packet in which we set out the 13 information they need to provide . We don't have anything 14 that addresses the criteria that you use to judge or to hear 15 or take action on cases . 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I think that would be 17 helpful to the public and it would certainly speed things up 18 for us sometimes. 19 MR. WEIR: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER DAW: I move we adjourn this 21 meeting. 22 COMMISSIONER KILLIAN: Second? 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : All in favor , aye . 24 (Motion carried 6 to 0 . ) 25 (Meeting concluded at 10 :15 p.m. ) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24 , 1992 94 1 2 3 4 ' pip 5 Eddie Perez , Chairman Richard Killian 6 7 8 9 10 Kay Willis Sharlyn Linard 11 12 13 14 15 Harold Daw Roger Lord 16 17 18 19 20 Montoya 21 22 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING November 24, 1992