Loading...
09-22-1992 1 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 of the 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 5 City Council Chambers 6 September 22, 1992 7 8 9 10 11 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: 12 Eddie Perez, Jr. , Chairman 13 Sharlyn Linard 14 Kay Willis 15 Roger Lord 16 Harold Daw 17 Richard Killian 18 Beatriz Ferreira 19 20 STAFF PRESENT: 21 David Weir, Senior Planner 22 23 24 25 LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 2 1 (The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. ) 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Okay, we' ll call this 3 meeting to order. This meeting will be conducted following 4 Robert' s Rules of Order. If any member of the public has a 5 comment or question that he or she wishes to address to the 6 commission, they will be recognized by the chair and then 7 they will state their name so that it may be entered into 8 the permanent records of these proceedings. 9 Each person will be recognized once on each case issue 10 for a time period not exceeding three minutes. If someone 11 has new or additional information, then that individual will 12 be given one additional minute to speak after all citizens 13 who wish to speak on a case have been recognized. When a 14 large number of citizens wish to discuss the case as a 15 neighborhood group, then 15 minutes will be allowed for a 16 group spokesperson if one has been selected by a 17 neighborhood group as their representative. If this 18 spokesperson is elected, then all other citizens wanting to 19 speak on that case will be given one additional minute. 20 The Planning and Zoning Commission is meeting tonight 21 to have a public hearing an two zoning code amendments, one 22 special use permit, four subdivisions, two planned unit 23 developments and to make recommendations to the City Council 24 to either approve or deny the request for zone changes, 25 annexations or amendments to the zoning code. The City LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 3 1 Council will make the final decision on those requests. 2 The Planning and Zoning Commission will grant final 3 approval or denial on requests for all special use permits, 4 subdivision and planned unit developments at tonight' s 5 meeting. Any person adversely affected by the decision of 6 this commission may file a written appeal stating the 7 grounds for his appeal to the City Council within 15 days of 8 this meeting. 9 The city will make every effort to provide reasonable 10 accommodations for people with disabilities who wish to 11 attend a public meeting. Please notify the City at least 24 12 hours before the meeting. Telephone 526-0000 or TDD number 13 526-1222. 14 Those items on the agenda that are marked with an 15 asterisk are on the consent agenda and will be voted on by 16 one motion. We have two cases that are on the consent 17 agenda under new business. Under subdivisions Case S-92-017 18 and Case S-92-024. 19 The first case, Case S-92-017, a request for final plat 20 approval of Med Park replat No. 3. The property is located 21 on the southeast corner of Perkins Street and Med Park 22 Drive. The plat contains 0.980 acres of land and two 23 parcels of real property. Zoned C-2, general commercial. 24 Submitted by W.A. and Ruby Jean Frederick. 25 Case S-92-024, a request for final plat approval of LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 4 1 Southridge Village, Unit A, Phase I, replat No. 2. The 2 property is located on the east side of Loma Verde Lane 3 where the street ends in a cul-de-sac. The plat contains 4 plus or minus 0.8176 acres of land and two parcels of real 5 property. Zoned R-1, single family residential. Submitted 6 by Joshua Goldman. 7 Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to remove 8 these items from the consent? Is there anyone on the 9 commission who wishes to remove these items from consent? 10 If not, may I have a motion to consider Case S-92-017 and 11 case 5-92-024 for approval. 12 MS. FERREIRA: Mr. Chairman, I move to 13 consider case S-92-017 and case S-92-024 for approval. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Do we have a second? 15 MR. KILLIAN: Second. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We have a second for 17 approval for Case S-92-017 and Case S-92-024. Any 18 discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. (7 to 19 0) . 20 The next item under old business is Case PUD 92-003, a 21 request to amend the planned unit development standard for 22 Las Colinas PUD. The amendment is to clarify the setback 23 requirements for lots located on T and Y cul-de-sacs within 24 Las Colinas PUD. The property is located generally north of 25 U.S. 70 and west of Las Alamedas Boulevard. Submitted by LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 5 1 Roger Cox, Western Developers. 2 May I have a motion to remove for consideration Case 3 PUD 92-003. 4 MR. DAW: So moved. 5 MS. FERREIRA: Second. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We have a second for the 7 motion to remove for consideration for case PUD 92-003 . Is 8 the applicant present? Do you want to make another 9 presentation? 10 MR. THURSTON: My name is Ken Thurston, CEO 11 of Roger Cox, Western Developers. Dave Weir of the staff 12 contacted me and asked that I actually put in some language 13 on the drawing on page 20 and 21, and so we did. So and on 14 the Y cul-de-sac, we don't have any change on that one. But 15 on the T cul-de-sac, we would like to change the language 16 for your approval. Where it says, "typical lots one and 17 six, setback varies from 15 feet to 5 feet at front yard 18 setbacks. " Change that to, "typical lots one, two and five 19 and six, setbacks 15 foot at front yard. Setbacks as per 20 drawing. " And other than that, that' s the only request that 21 we would change. And if you would agree with that, then we 22 will go ahead and make that change and put on record with 23 the City staff and amend the actual pages 21 and 22 for the 24 permanent record in the PUD document. 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Mr. Weir. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 6 1 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez, Commission 2 members, the two drawings that were handed out to you before 3 this evening' s meeting are in graphic form what has been 4 discussed several times before this commission. There has 5 also been language added at the bottom of the page and also 6 with the asterisk to put into word form what the setbacks 7 would be. Prior to the meeting, we found one little glitch 8 in the graphic layout, and that' s what Ken was discussing 9 for the T cul-de-sac to make sure that there is 15 feet 10 setback from the property line. 11 What staff would recommend is that you approve the T 12 and Y cul-de-sac and then condition the T approval upon the 13 15 foot setback being put in graphic form, and then an 14 amendment made to the handout you got on the T cul-de-sac to 15 include lots two and five for the 15 foot setback of the 16 cul-de-sac. 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Anyone in the 18 audience wish to address this particular case? 19 We'll go on to commission participation. Anyone on the 20 commission wish to make any comments regarding this. 21 MS. LINARD: Mr. Chairman, I request they 22 properly spell the word "safety. " 23 MR. WEIR: The word safety? 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : On the road turnaround. Any 25 other comments? LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 1 MS. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, I have a 2 question. On page 21, in the new language that was added 3 where it says typical lots one and five setback varies from 4 15 feet to five feet at front yard setbacks. The graphic 5 looks right, but that language--would you would delete the 6 part about five feet at the front setback? You see that? 7 MR. WEIR: Okay, Commissioner Willis. We can 8 take care of that or just change it to T cul-de-sac front or 9 T cul-de-sac setback. 10 MS. WILLIS: Then it says distance to any 11 back of curb being 15 feet. I think our discussion was to 12 the property line, not to the back of curb. 13 MR. WEIR: I would suggest the commission 14 recommend that be deleted from these copies with their 15 approval. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any more? 17 MS. FERREIRA: Do we need a motion to delete 18 that, or do we just cross it out? 19 MR. WEIR: I believe the proper form would be 20 to pass a motion. You're going to have to condition your 21 approval to these changes being made, so I would make that a 22 motion. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would we want to make these 24 conditions or motion to approve all these conditions 25 separately, or can we just lump them all into one motion? LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 8 1 MR. WEIR: I believe you can include them all 2 in one motion. 3 MS. FERREIRA: Does that include all the 4 language he was using before, because I didn't memorize 5 everything he said. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I was going to suggest that 7 these conditions that are being proposed by the applicant 8 and the city staff be approved as they recommended, 9 including this particular language on this document, unless 10 you want to go through each one individually. I have no 11 objection; I just want to save some time. 12 MR. KILLIAN: Dave, can you put those up on 13 the overhead again and show us exactly what we're talking 14 about, the changes we're making, so this audience and we are 15 well aware of what we're doing. 16 MR. WEIR: I ' ll start with the T cul-de-sac. 17 The first change would be to correct safety, get it spelled 18 correctly. The second change would be to eliminate "back of 19 curb" language. This overhead doesn't have the language 20 that you do, but what it would be is where the asterisk is, 21 that would be changed to "typical lots one, two, five and 22 six setbacks will be 15 feet from the front yard. " And that 23 would be the changes to the T cul-de-sac. 24 MR. THURSTON: Are we deleting the distance 25 of any back of curb to 15 feet? We're taking that out? LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 9 1 MR. WEIR: Right. 2 MS. WILLIS: You wouldn't want to just change 3 that to property line. Just change it from "back of curb" 4 to "property line. " 5 MS. FERREIRA: Distance to end of property 6 line. 7 MS. WILLIS: Well, this is referring to along 8 the front property line. 9 MS. FERREIRA: Specifically the front. 10 MS. WILLIS: Front. That would need to say 11 front. 12 MS. FERREIRA: To the front property line. 13 MS. WILLIS: We've got front yard at 20 feet, 14 and now we're saying distance to any property line 15. That 15 needs to be specific about it. 16 MR. WEIR: The language I would recommend is 17 frontage on the cul-de-sac. Secondary frontage on the 18 cul-de-sac. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would that be descriptive 20 enough, or instead of going to what Commissioner Willis 21 suggested and saying to the front property line. 22 MR. WEIR: I think the problem we're having 23 is this is going to be a front yard and then this is 24 considered secondary frontage on the cul-de-sac. And that' s 25 where you agreed to go to 15 feet. And then in this area, LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 10 1 to vary the distances. 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, to keep from any 3 misunderstandings, can you define the secondary property 4 line? 5 MR. WEIR: I think what we do is for typical 6 lots one and six, secondary frontage on the cul-de-sac would 7 be 15 feet, and the main frontage is off the street. 8 MS. FERREIRA: Why not just code them. 9 MR. WEIR: To setbacks? 10 MS. FERREIRA: Anybody could look at them and 11 know the distance to the property line would be D if you had 12 a D or a B, C, D, or something. 13 MR. WEIR: So you're saying come up 14 with--like lots one and five were actually the same. 15 MS. FERREIRA: No, like front yard would be 16 code A, and we'd look up there and know what we're talking 17 about because it' s code A. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Now, you can describe what 19 A, B and the rest are. 20 MR. WEIR: That would work. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Going back to T. 22 MR. WEIR: So then your amendments would be 23 one, correcting the word safety. Two, changing designating 24 this as area B and this is from property line, and then 25 adding area A for front yards. And then adding them to the LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 11 I typical graphic to illustrate that. 2 MR. DAW: Could I ask if the developer would 3 comment on what happens on the corner of lots two and five? 4 I guess it' s showing construction, what could be 5 construction, coming up quite close. And you've sort of 6 drawn in a little line right to sort of move that back to 15 7 feet. 8 MR. WEIR: That' s the area in question that 9 would need to be 15 feet from property line. 10 MR. DAW: And is the developer in agreement 11 that that would be all right? 12 MR. THURSTON: Yes. 13 MR. WEIR: Yes. 14 MR. KILLIAN: If I may, Mr. Chairman, you are 15 creating our motion for us so we don't have to try to 16 recreate it. I think the applicant has made enough trips in 17 regard to these two items. With those revisions, Mr. 18 Chairman, I 'd like to make a motion that describes all of 19 this as Dave put it, that we approve this application. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Okay. I think what we need 21 to do is, first of all, make a motion to approve the changes 22 as conditioned by the applicant and staff and as amended, 23 and then we can go on to the main motion. 24 MR. KILLIAN: Then I would revise my motion 25 to state that. IFAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 12 1 MS. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, we do need to add 2 a condition that we placed on this a while back that this is 3 in no way intended to be a precedent-setting situation for 4 how we would review things like this in the future. 5 Remember that? 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Yes, that is correct. 7 Commissioner Killian, would you agree to include that in 8 your motion, the statement or the stipulation that 9 Commissioner Willis just mentioned? 10 MR. KILLIAN: Yes, I do agree to that. 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: So now we can make a motion 12 to that effect. 13 MR. KILLIAN: Yes. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Do we have a second? 15 MS. FERREIRA: Second. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Discussion? Commissioner 17 Ferreira. 18 MS. FERREIRA: Aye. 19 MR. KILLIAN: Aye. 20 MR. DAW: Aye. 21 MR. LORD: Aye. 22 MS. WILLIS: Aye. 23 MS. LINARD: Aye. 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Chair votes aye. Motion 25 carries 7 to 0. Now, we' ll go on to the main motion. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 13 1 Approval of case PUD 92-003. 2 MS. FERREIRA: Move for approval of Case 3 92-003 as amended. 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Do I have a second? 5 MR. KILLIAN: Second. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Commissioner Ferreira. 7 MS. FERREIRA: Aye. 8 MR. KILLIAN: Aye. 9 MR. DAW: Aye. 10 MR. LORD: Aye. 11 MS. WILLIS: Aye. 12 MS. LINARD: Aye. -_ 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Chair votes aye. Motion 14 carries, 7 to 0. 15 MR. THURSTON: Thank you. 16 MR. DAW: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the 17 developer a question, or maybe the staff. I 'm not quite 18 sure. As we drove down the streets today, if I saw right, 19 there were not any dead-end signs indicating as one came to 20 a cul-de-sac that they couldn't get out. Is there a 21 requirement for such signs? How deep do they have to be? 22 MR. WEIR: Commissioner Daw, there was a 23 dead-end sign for, I believe it' s off Beryl, the Y 24 cul-de-sac. And it was--this is an estimate--about 20 feet 25 from the intersection before you start going down. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 14 1 MR. DAW: I missed it. 2 MR. WEIR: Generally the city traffic 3 engineering department will post those type signs. 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Okay, our next case is PUD 5 92-004. We have a request from the applicant to postpone; 6 is that correct, Mr. Weir? 7 MR. WEIR: That' s correct. That is a letter 8 that was passed out to the commission prior to the beginning 9 on this evening' s public hearing. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Okay. So on this particular 11 case, may we have a motion to postpone for 30 days? 12 MS. FERREIRA: Mr. Chairman, move to postpone 13 Case PUD 92-004 for 30 days. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Do we have a second? 15 MS. WILLIS: Second. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Any discussion from the 17 public or the commission? If not, all those in favor? 18 Opposed? Motion carries. 19 Under new business we go on to subdivision Case 20 5-92-010. May I have a motion to consider case S-92-010. 21 MR. DAW: I would move we consider case 22 5-92-010. Do we have a second? 23 MS. WILLIS: Second. 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: We have a second to consider 25 S-92-010. A request for final plat approval of Burn Tract LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 15 1 Subdivision, No. 2. The property is located on the 2 northwest corner of Triviz Drive and Lohman Avenue. The 3 plat contains plus or minus 22. 8060 acres and two parcels of 4 real property. Zoned C-2, general commercial. Submitted by 5 Burn Construction Company, Inc. 6 Is the applicant or his representative present? Would 7 you care to make a presentation? 8 MR. BOTSFORD: I 'm Jim Botsford. I ' ll do a 9 brief one. The purpose of this replat is to create a half 10 acre tract out of the Burn Construction yard, which is going 11 to be purchased by Contel for an antenna site. The 12 half-acre tract is going to be served by a private road that 13 already had a double penetrated--no, it' s not double 14 penetrated. It has two inches hot mix asphalt on it, and it 15 is the back way into the Burn Construction yard. It' s 16 immediately north of the large overhead power line, and it' s 17 a relatively simple replat. Not a lot to it. It would have 18 been done by summary plat, except it had been replatted once 19 before, which means it' s a replat, which means it comes 20 before you all. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Thank you, Mr. Botsford. 22 Staff. 23 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez, Commission 24 members, Mr. Botsford explained this case fairly 25 thoroughly. What it is, they're creating a half-acre parcel LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 16 1 for the development of a cellular phone tower. The property 2 is accessed from a private road and utility easement. In 3 your packet, you have a copy of an agreement for the 4 maintenance of the on the arroyo through the 5 property. You also have a letter from the current property 6 owners stating that if this land is ever further subdivided 7 that either the maintenance agreement will be amended or 8 there will be some other type of access provided to future 9 lots that conform with the City of Las Cruces requirements. 10 Based on the completeness of the plat and the maintenance 11 agreement and the letter of understanding from the property 12 owner, staff recommends approval of this subdivision. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr. Weir. 14 Anybody in the audience wish to address Case S-92-010? 15 We' ll now close it to public participation and go to 16 commissioner input. Anybody on the commission wish to make 17 any comments? 18 MR. DAW: I notice one of the letters sent in 19 protest says something about radioactivity. And unless 20 they're going to do something very mysterious with the 21 tower, there is no radioactivity. But I want to be sure 22 that that' s quite correct. 23 MR. BOTSFORD: It is cellular telephone 24 communication, which will be RF frequency, I think. 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: And it will have radiation LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 17 1 in the sense of electromagnetic radiation, but no 2 radioactivity? 3 MR. BOTSFORD: That' s correct. 4 MS. FERREIRA: I have a couple of questions. 5 How tall is this tower supposed to be? 6 MR. BOTSFORD: I don't have any idea. We 7 don't have that information. It' s a separate permit that 8 Contel has acquired. I don't know, Dave, have they got that 9 permit to build the tower? 10 MR. WEIR: They have the permit, but I 'm not 11 certain what the tower is. That' s taken care of through our 12 building permits, and the tower is required to meet UBC 13 requirements and also to be able to withstand a 75 mile an 14 hour gust of wind before we would permit it to be 15 constructed in the city. 16 MS. FERREIRA: And is this area zoned for 17 this kind of tower? I mean, you can stick these towers-- 18 MR. WEIR: The zone is C-2 and television and 19 radio towers are permitted uses within the C-2 zone. 20 MS. FERREIRA: Is this tower--in this letter 21 here by this one person it indicates it's 180 feet high. Is 22 that what the tower is going to be? 23 MR. WEIR: I don't know. 24 MS. FERREIRA: Where did he get this 25 information? LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 18 1 MR. WEIR: I don't know if that' s accurate or 2 not. 3 MS. FERREIRA: The other question I had was 4 in the recommendation of approval it says that the nature of 5 the proposed use is such that the city design standards do 6 not apply. What does that mean exactly? 7 MR. WEIR: Normally when you have a 8 subdivision you have a requirement for road improvements. 9 But in this case they're using a private road and utility 10 easement that' s not dedicated to the city. So there is no 11 requirements that it be brought up to City standard and 12 dedicated to the city. 13 MR. BOTSFORD: It exceeds city standards 14 anyway. 15 MS. FERREIRA: What about landscaping 16 requirements? 17 MR. WEIR: Again, that is a separate issue 18 from the subdivision code, but when they got their building 19 permit they were required to landscape it. And on their 20 approved plan landscaping was provided. 21 MS. LINARD: I 'd like to ask Mr. Botsford if 22 this is a tower similar to the one that used to be at the 23 corner of Idaho and Solano. 24 MR. BOTSFORD: I don't have any idea. 25 MS. LINARD: Idaho and E1 Paseo. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 19 1 MR. BOTSFORD: No, that would have been a 2 regular radio antenna. I don't know, I believe there is one 3 west of town just north of Interstate 10, just before you go 4 out of the valley. I think it will be one similar to that. 5 I believe that' s a Contel antenna. You know the one I 'm 6 talking about? 7 MS. LINARD: No. It doesn't look like the 8 one at Caprock, I suppose? 9 MR. BOTSFORD: No. The one north of 10 Interstate 10 just west of the sewage treatment plant as you 11 go out of the valley. There is an antenna there. I think 12 it will be similar to that one, and it is relatively tall. 13 MR. DAW: That' s a pretty good antenna. 14 MR. KILLIAN: Is FCC involved in approval of 15 this tower. 16 MR. BOTSFORD: They definitely would be. 17 MR. KILLIAN: What approvals do they have to 18 go through, height and that sort of thing? 19 MR. BOTSFORD: That I couldn't tell you. I 20 don't have any idea. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Okay, reference has been 22 made to some protest letters by other commissioners, and in 23 keeping with the wishes of the adjacent property owners, 24 people who have registered their protest, they would request 25 that the protest be made a matter of record. In keeping LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 20 1 with that request, I 'd like to read this letter signed by 2 Paul E. Stone from Universal Constructors. 3 "Dear Mr. Arrowsmith: It is my understanding that the 4 purpose of the reference request for approval is to be able 5 to sell five acres for the erection of a 180-foot tower. I 6 protest this use of the reference property. 7 "I not only believe it would be aesthetically 8 detrimental, but I understand it would put off low-level 9 radioactive material which would be detrimental to health 10 and environment. 11 "Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Paul 12 E. Stone. " 13 A second letter. "I hereby protest the proposed action 14 under Case .S-92-010. It' s my understanding that a 180-foot 15 tower is proposed for this site. I feel a tower of this 16 nature should not be placed in an area of potential retail 17 use and should be placed in a more remote area of 18 predominantly industrial use. I am unable to attend the 19 public meeting, but request this protest be made a matter of 20 public record. From Elba G. Burke, property owner. " 21 And, "To the City of Las Cruces, I hereby protest 22 proposed action under Case S-92-010. It' s my understanding 23 that a 180-foot tower is proposed at this site. I feel a 24 tower of this nature should not be placed in an area of 25 potential retail use and should be placed in a more remote LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 21 1 area of predominantly industrial use. I am unable to attend 2 the public meeting, but request this protest be made a 3 matter of public record. Sammy E. Burke, property owner. " 4 Any other comments from the commission regarding case 5 S-92-010. 6 MR. DAW: Mr. Chairman, the letters dealing 7 with the height of the antenna seems to me not germane to 8 the discussion of whether or not this change is approved. I 9 assume if Contel decides they're going to build a tower that 10 they will have to get approval from the City to do so and 11 that it will have to be in conformity with the City, with 12 the zoning and the codes of the City pertaining to the 13 height of antenna towers; is that correct? 14 MR. WEIR: Commission members, that' s 15 correct. It would have to be in conformance with building 16 codes and zoning codes. 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : In our packet, one of the 18 last items on the front page, it states that "staff has 19 reviewed the subdivision and recommended approval of the 20 plat and requested variances. " I 'm trying to find out. 21 MR. WEIR: That' s an error. There are no 22 variances. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I didn't find any. So it' s 24 just the approval of the plat? 25 MR. WEIR: Yes. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 22 1 MS. FERREIRA: Mr. Chairman, there is also an 2 agreement that we may want to address as part of the 3 request, amendment number one, joint use easement and 4 maintenance agreement for private roadway. That should 5 probably be a condition to approval, if any, of this 6 request. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: I agree with you. Has the 8 commission had an opportunity to review the amendment number 9 one, joint use easement and maintenance agreement for 10 private roadway to form any comments? 11 The only observation I have, Mr. Weir, is that the 12 document hasn't been executed by the other users. 13 MR. WEIR: That' s correct, Chairman Perez. 14 What the commission can do is condition their approval upon. 15 filing of the agreement before staff will file the 16 subdivision plat, or have them filed concurrently. 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Anybody else on the 18 commission have any comments or observations regarding the 19 agreement, amendment number one? 20 MS. FERREIRA: This says it was executed on 21 the first day of September, but it' s only been signed by one 22 person. So basically, it hasn't yet been executed. So I'm 23 not quite sure why one person signs it and states it' s- been 24 executed. Are there any plans to amend this agreement in 25 any way at this point? LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 23 1 MR. WEIR: There aren't any plans currently. 2 This amendment number one is because the Putt-Putt Golf and 3 miniature race track have a similar agreement with the other 4 property owners to allow them to use this private road 5 easement for access to the parking area for the race track. 6 MS. FERREIRA: The same agreement with these 7 same parties here or other parties? 8 MR. WEIR: No, this agreement has been 9 modified for Contel, but they're similar, like agreements 10 for the Putt-Putt Golf owners. 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : There are two other letters 12 from Burn Construction, Ms. Ferreira, addressing 13 accessibility to other properties. And also, the second one 14 addresses the issue of in the event that the deal between 15 Burn and Wal-Mart isn't consummated that Burn agrees to 16 continue maintenance on that road. 17 MS. FERREIRA: Just for my own information, 18 are there any restrictions at all on height of these 19 antennas? Do we have any restrictions at all? I 'm just 20 wondering how high these things get or can get. 21 MR. WEIR: What the zoning codes state on 22 this is that they meet Uniform Building Code requirements 23 and be able to withstand a 75 mile per hour gust, but our 24 codes do not directly address what the height requirements 25 on towers are within the city. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 24 1 MR. DAW: Your microphone isn't picking up 2 much, and I 'm hearing less. 3 MR. WEIR: To give the short answer to 4 Commissioner Ferreira, there is no height limitation on 5 towers within the zoning code. 6 MS. FERREIRA: Is there any limitation as to 7 the distance from other structures? 8 MR. WEIR: That would be the same for the 9 setback requirements within the C-2 zone. It would be 10 10 feet between any structures. And any setbacks would also 11 have to be met for the lot, which is like a 15-foot front 12 yard setback, a five-foot side yard setback, and a 15-foot 13 rear yard setback. 14 MS. FERREIRA: So basically the way the code 15 is. written, we can stick one of these antennas anywhere we 16 have a C-2 zone., anywhere in the city? 17 MR. WEIR: That' s correct. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Any other comments or 19 observations? If not, may we call the question for case 20 S-92-010 as conditioned subject to the agreement, amendment 21 number one, joint use easement and maintenance agreement for 22 private roadway be executed in full by the other 23 participating property owners adjacent to this property. 24 And as further conditioned as stated in the letters dated 25 September 1, 1992, signed by Paris Burn of Burn Construction LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 25 1 Company and as stated on letter dated August 21, 1992, 2 signed by Paris Burn of Burn Construction Company. 3 MR. KILLIAN: Mr. Chairman, the motion was 4 well stated, very clearly, and I move that we approve that 5 motion. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Do we have a second? 7 MS. WILLIS: I second. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Discussion? Commissioner 9 Ferreira. 10 MS. FERREIRA: I ' ll abstain on this one, Mr. 11 Chairman. 12 MR. KILLIAN: Aye. 13 MR. DAW: Aye. 14 MR. LORD: Aye. 15 MS. WILLIS: Aye. 16 MS. LINARD: Aye. And the chair votes aye. 17 Motion carries, six and one abstention. 18 Our next case is case Case S-92-012, a request for 19 -preliminary and final plat approval of Homestead Acres No. 20 10. The property is located on the southwest corner of 21 Jefferson Lane and Davis Road. The plat contains 3.755 22 acres of land and three parcels of real property. Zoned 23 REM, Residential Estates Mobile. Submitted by Katherine S. 24 Davis. 25 May I have a motion to consider Case 5-92-012. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 26 1 MS. WILLIS: I move we consider case 2 S-92-012. 3 MS. LINARD: Second. 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : It' s been seconded that we 5 here Case S-92-012. Is the applicant present? Would you 6 care to make a presentation at this time? 7 Please state your name. 8 MR. CAMPOS: My name is Ernie Campos with Moy 9 Surveying. We are representing Katherine Davis on this 10 replat. And I guess we can start off first with the 11 variances. We' ll just go down the line with each variance. 12 We'll start with the drainage. I guess basically she' s 13 just decided not to hire an engineer for the drainage 14 study. I went to talk to the hydraulic engineer prior to 15 the submittal of the plat, and as long as she was to provide 16 a 15-foot drainage easement on the south side of the line, 17 that would be okay. So if you have any questions, I ' ll try 18 to answer them. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr. Campos. 20 Mr. Weir. 21 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez and commission 22 members, this is a case for final plat and preliminary plat 23 approval of a subdivision off of Davis and Jefferson Roads. 24 The plat itself meets requirements of the subdivision code 25 and is also in conformance with the zoning code. The LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 27 1 applicant has requested three variances. The first one is 2 to allow the preliminary and final plat to be approved 3 concurrently. Staff has no problem with this variance due 4 to the small acreage involved and the small number of lots 5 created. 6 The second variance is to not provide a drainage study 7 or grading plan for the subdivision code as Mr. Campos has 8 stated. The hydraulic engineers of the City of Las Cruces 9 have stated that they have no problem with that request due 10 to the applicant providing a 15-foot drainage easement to 11 handle any drainage through the property. 12 The third variance they are requesting to not do any 13 road improvements to Jefferson Road and Davis Street. Staff 14 does not support this variance, but would recommend approval 15 of the subdivision plat and also approval of variance number 16 one and number two. 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Thank you. Does anyone in 18 the audience wish to address case S-92-012 at this point in 19 time? Would you please step up to the podium and state your 20 name? 21 MR. THOMAS: Orville Thomas, and I 'm a 22 neighbor across the street from these people. And I agree, 23 I hope you approve all three variances. I see no reason why 24 they should interfere with anything out in that area. 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Anybody else in LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 28 1 the audience wish to address case S-92-012? We'll close 2 this portion to the audience and go to commissioner input. 3 Commission Ferreira. 4 MS. FERREIRA: Well, one of the concerns that 5 we discussed this afternoon as we were viewing this site was 6 as the requirement for the paving or the improvement was 7 explained to us was that basically only 50 percent of the 8 roadway would be improved, leaving the other 50 percent 9 unpaved, which didn't make a lot of sense to us, a couple of 10 us. 11 And the alternative that we discussed was--and I think 12 this has been done before--was that the applicant would 13 agree not to oppose a future assessment by the City coming 14 in and generally putting an assessment on the entire area. 15 And they would agree not to oppose this at a future time. 16 Because to require them to pave 50 percent of the road right 17 now, and the rest of the roads are totally unpaved out there 18 just doesn't seem to make any sense at this point. 19 It seems to me if we did that and then 20 years from 20 now we have to pave the rest of the roads, this piece of 21 road would probably be all gone by then. And that was one 22 of the concerns that I had on that. 23 MS. LINARD: I 'd like to ask Commissioner 24 Ferreira a question. Would that be on each deed? 25 MS. FERREIRA: I don't see why it can't run LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 29 1 with the land, run with the property, so it would carry on 2 with whatever owner came subsequent to this one. 3 MS. LINARD: Okay, thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other commissioner wish 5 to make any comments regarding this case? I tend to agree 6 with you on the condition of requesting or requiring the 7 applicant not to oppose a paving district in the. future. It 8 just doesn't make any sense to apply this particular Section 9 X.A to this particular situation. I think, as you've 10 stated, we have run across this situation before, and I 11 think it would be appropriate to apply that condition for 12 this application. 13 So with that, we' ll call the question. 14 MS. FERREIRA: Do we have to ask the 15 applicant--does the amendment come from the applicant? 16 MR. WEIR: The Planning and Zoning Commission 17 has it within their authority to condition approval on that 18 and to make it a requirement of approval. So no, you do not 19 have to request the applicant' s approval. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So the approval of Case 21 S-92-012 would be conditioned on the applicant not opposing 22 a paving district or assessment district at such time that 23 the City would see fit to pave that particular part of the 24 district. That would be the condition, and that' s how the 25 motion would be stated. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 30 1 MS. FERREIRA: And that such condition run 2 with the land. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the conditions run with 4 the land. 5 MR. DAW: Mr. Chairman, I 'm concerned about 6 the language which ties it to the individual making the 7 application because there will be other people. It seems to 8 me one could say that this condition goes with the land 9 independent. Follow what I mean? 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Yes. Is it clear to the 11 staff as to how the condition would be applied? 12 MR. WEIR: We will require the applicant to 13 put a note on the subdivision plat itself that will be 14 recorded that, you know, subsequent owners will not oppose a 15 pavement district of this area. And then we' ll also request 16 it be placed as a deed restriction so it will be on each 17 transfer of the property as deeds carry through. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The motion, if approved, 19 would read as such. Okay, now, do we have a motion for 20 approval? 21 MS. FERREIRA: Mr. Chairman, I move that we 22 approve Case S-92-012 with the condition that the applicant 23 will not oppose a future paving assessment and that such 24 condition would run with the land, including language in the 25 final plat that' s recorded to that effect. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 31 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second? 2 MR. DAW: Second. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Discussion? We' ll call the 4 question. 5 MS. FERREIRA: Aye. 6 MR. KILLIAN: Aye. 7 MR. DAW: Aye. 8 MR. LORD: Aye. 9 MS. WILLIS: Aye. 10 MS. LINARD: Aye. 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Chair votes aye. Motion 12 carries 7 to 0. Thank you. 13 Our next case is a zoning case, SUP-92-005, request for 14 a special use permit for a day care center for a maximum of 15 125 children for a time period of 50 years. The special use 16 permit is for the University United Methodist Church. The 17 special use permit is to allow the church to continue the 18 existing day care operation. The property is located in an 19 R-2 zone at 2000 Locust Street. Submitted by Wanda Worrell 20 for the University United Methodist Church. The property 21 owner. 22 May I have a motion to consider case SUP-92-005? 23 MR. DAW: So moved. 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second? 25 MS. WILLIS: Second. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 32 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We have a second to consider 2 Case SUP-92-005. Is the applicant present? Would you care 3 to make a presentation at this time? Please state your 4 name. 5 MR. SPARKS: My name is Charles Sparks. I 'm 6 the board of trustees chairman for University United 7 Methodist Church. Wanda has been running a Mother' s Day Out 8 program at the church for 15 years now, and we just 9 discovered back in July that it was required to have a 10 special use permit against this application. The program is 11 run Monday, Wednesday and Friday for four hours, four and a 12 half hours, and we have approximately, right now, about 40 13 children. It' s a benefit to the mothers and the children 14 for a chance to get a way from them for a little while and 15 do some shopping. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Staff. 17 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez, Commission 18 members, as the applicant has stated this is an application 19 to bring an existing use into conformance. The applicant 20 has submitted a site plan and application that meet all the 21 requirements of the zoning code. Staff has reviewed the 22 site plan. It meets the requirements for parking, stacking 23 lane, landscaping, child playground areas. 24 The use has existed for a period of time. There hasn't 25 been any complaints received by City staff on this, and LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 33 1 staff would recommend approval of the application. 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr. Weir. 3 Anybody in the audience wish to address case SUP-92-005 at 4 this point in time? 5 We'll close it to public participation and go on to 6 commissioner input. Anybody on the commission wish to make 7 comments or observations on Case SUP-92-005. 8 MS. LINARD: My question is why 50 years? 9 MR. SPARKS: That was what the staff 10 recommended. It' s a long-term project. It' s not a-- 11 MS. LINARD: You have had no special use 12 permit for 15 years? 13 MR. SPARKS: Right. 14 MS. LINARD: And you just found out it was 15 not in conformance. What would be wrong with asking for a 16 special use permit for 15 years? 17 MR. SPARKS: I wouldn't be opposed to it. 18 MS. LINARD: It might not even be a church in 19 15 years. It might be something else. And also, are these 20 children children of the congregation? 21 MR. SPARKS: Some-- 22 MS. LINARD: Or is this a commercial venture 23 where you charge. 24 MR. SPARKS: It' s a non-profit venture. 25 There is a charge. There are some mothers that are of the LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 34 1 church, and there are some outside mothers and children. 2 MS. LINARD: But it' s non-profit? 3 MR. SPARKS: It' s non-profit, yes. I know 4 it' s been in existence for 15 years, because I know two 5 children who are now in college who went, but they were 6 members of the church. Thank you. 7 MS. FERREIRA: I think it' s a great idea, and 8 I 'm wondering if there is an age limit. I have a 9 21-year-old. 10 No, I think I had a concern on the 50 years, and I 11 wondered maybe 25 years might be considered. I know 25 12 years goes fast for some people, and for most of us it 13 probably went fast, but maybe for flexibility purposes, I 14 thought 25 years. 15 MR. SPARKS: I don't think we would be 16 opposed to that. 17 MR. KILLIAN: If the church no longer is a 18 church, say, five years from now, isn't this null and void 19 anyway when the property sells, or do they have to come back 20 to us for approval to erase that from the requirement? 21 MR. WEIR: What would happen once the use was 22 discontinued for a year, it would be no longer valid and it 23 would just run out on its own. 24 MR. KILLIAN: So therefore, it doesn't matter 25 if we say 100 years, if they decide to change the church to LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 35 1 some sort of school or who knows what, a library maybe. 2 Then that erases the requirement. I think what they're 3 saying is the 50 years merely makes a statement to me this 4 is long term, we're serious, we want to keep this thing; and 5 I commend it. 6 I like your facility. It' s very nicely done. And it' s 7 one that I 'm sure the mothers have really appreciated. I 8 know having raised four, it' s a blessing to have those four 9 and a half hours for a mother so that she can get things 10 done. I 'm impressed with your facility. 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Any other comments? 12 MS. LINARD: Mr. Chairman, I 'd like to ask 13 another question. 15 years and 25 years as a possibility, 14 and I 'd like to ask David if in fact they sold that church 15 to someone else and they decided to have a full-blown school 16 there, would they have to get a permit, or would they hang 17 on the coattails of this one and be. a commercial venture? 18 MR. WEIR: Commissioner Linard, when you 19 speak about school, you mean another child care type 20 facility? 21 MS. LINARD: Yes, I mean they could sell it 22 to Mr. and Mrs. John Smith, the whole business, and Mr. and 23 Mrs. John Smith will have a kindergarten there with 500 24 kids. Do they have to get another special use? 25 MR. WEIR: They would have to amend it if it LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 36 1 were 500 children. This special use permit will only be for 2 125 children, so if there is any change above that number, 3 they would have to get an amended special use permit. Thank 4 you. 5 MS. LINARD: Mr. Chairman, if you're ready 6 for a motion, I'd like to make a motion. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Yes, Commissioner Linard. 8 MS. LINARD: I move that we approve the 9 request for a special use permit for University Methodist 10 church for a maximum 125 children for a period of 15 years. 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Motion has been made for 12 approval of Case SUP 92-005 for a maximum of 125 children 13 for a period of 15 years. Do we have a second? 14 MR. DAW: Second. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We have a second. 16 Discussion? I 'll call for the vote. 17 MS. FERREIRA: No. 18 MR. KILLIAN: Yes. 19 MR. DAW: Yes. 20 MR. LORD: No. 21 MS. WILLIS: Can I ask a question? Can we 22 reconsider this tonight under a different motion? 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Yes, if it is defeated, the 24 prevailing majority can call for a reconsideration. 25 MS. LINARD: Having voted in the majority, do LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 37 1 you wish to reconsider how you voted? 2 MS. FERREIRA: No. 3 MR. KILLIAN: Aye. 4 MR. DAW: Aye. 5 MR. LORD: No. 6 MS. WILLIS: Well, let me ask another 7 question. You said if a majority defeats the motion, but if 8 a minority wants to reconsider it, that can be done; is that 9 what you're saying? 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : That' s correct. 11 MS. WILLIS: We don't want to vote against 12 it, but 15 years seemed a little--I don't see the point in 13 that. Why not 25? 14 MS. LINARD: May I explain my motion? 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay. It' s a little bit out 16 of order, but go ahead. 17 MS. LINARD: I feel that 15 years is a long 18 time. They've had it now 15 years without any consideration 19 for a permit, and the 15 years would keep them on their toes 20 so they have to keep up with it and ask for another one. 21 And when you make it 25 or 50 years, everybody' s dead that' s 22 in the church, the records are all lost, and everything 23 else. That' s a long time. That' s why I made it 15 years. 24 MS. WILLIS: I don't know how to vote because 25 I don't want to turn it down. All right, I ' ll vote no. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 38 1 MS. LINARD: Aye. 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Chair votes no. Motion is 3 defeated. Now the majority can call for reconsideration. 4 We have four to three. 5 MS. FERREIRA: I move for reconsideration, if 6 it' s in the form of a motion. Or do you just request it? 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Motion to reconsider Case 8 SUP-92-005. Do we have a second? 9 MR. LORD: Second. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We do have a second to 11 consider Case SUP-92-005. Now we go to discussion. Any 12 discussion from the commission? 13 MS. FERREIRA: I move for approval of Case 14 SUP 92-005 for a period of 30 years for a maximum of a 125 15 children. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second? 17 MR. DAW: Don't we have to vote on that 18 other? 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I 'm sorry, yes, on the 20 motion and the second. Yes, I 'm sorry. And that' s a point 21 of order, very correct, on the reconsideration. We have a 22 motion that has been seconded to reconsider case SUP 23 92-005. Commissioner Ferreira? 24 MS. FERREIRA: Aye. 25 MS. WILLIS: Aye. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 39 1 MR. DAW: Aye. 2 MR. LORD: Aye. 3 MS. WILLIS: Aye. 4 MS. LINARD: No. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And chair votes aye. Motion 6 carries six to one. 7 We are now into reconsideration, and now we can make 8 the motion--or into discussion. 9 MS. LINARD: I have to put my two cents' 10 worth in again. I mean, you can't even guarantee a marriage 11 is going to last two years, and you want to give something 12 50 years. I can't believe it. 13 MR. DAW: Mr. Chairman, I have the same 14 feeling. 50 years i's the life of the building. I mean, 15 some buildings last longer than 50 years, but most buildings 16 are short of that. And I don't know whether I 'd vote for 50 17 years. 50 years seems to me to be an unreasonable time. 18 And I would hope that we might determine a period of time 19 that is a little more realistic. And maybe it would be 20 appropriate to try 20 years. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Okay any other comment? 22 MR. KILLIAN: My earlier comment was I really 23 personally feel it doesn't matter if it' s 105 years, 24 whatever. Once they decide to make this change, they're 25 going to have to come back to a body like us when we're all LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 40 1 gone, a body like us, for an approval. And I think probably 2 the approvals will be more difficult then than they are 3 now. I don't really have any difficulty at all with 4 changing the years to--I think your motion was 25 years. 5 MS. FERREIRA: It was 30, but I ' ll go with 6 25. I'll compromise. 7 MR. KILLIAN: I really don't have a problem 8 with time because of these factors that I know will be--the 9 staff at that time is going to make sure that if they decide 10 they no longer want to be a church that they won't to be 11 some sort of school, that sort of thing. It will be well 12 controlled at that time, and I feel comfortable with that. 13 And that' s why I voted to reconsider. And as I said before, 14 I don't have any difficulty. Let' s pick one and be happy 15 with it. 16 MS. FERREIRA: Well, I live in a house that' s 17 75 years old, so I know some houses last longer than 50 18 years. 19 MS. LINARD: They want to build a new 20 chemistry building at the university because it' s falling 21 down, and it' s only 37 years old. 22 MS. FERREIRA: My house is 75, but it' s 23 adobe. 24 I move that we approve this case, 92-005 for a period 25 of 25 years. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 41 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second? 2 MR. KILLIAN: Second. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Discussion? 4 MS. FERREIRA: Aye. 5 MR. KILLIAN: Aye. 6 MR. DAW: No. 7 MR. LORD: Aye. 8 MS. WILLIS: Aye. 9 MS. LINARD: No. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Chair votes aye. Motion 11 carries, five to two. Thank you. 12 Okay the next case is a Zoning Code amendment, ZCA 13 92-004, a proposed amendment to Zoning Code, Section 13 I 1 14 (Sign Code--calculation of sign area) submitted by the City 15 of Las Cruces. 16 MR. WEIR: This zoning code amendment is an 17 attempt to clarify some definitions in the Sign Code which 18 is a chapter out of the Zoning Code. And what it deals with 19 specifically is sign area, to make it a little more concrete 20 and less vague, and also to help staff interpret the Sign 21 Code to provided consistency. 22 On the second page of your packet, you have definitions 23 from the current Sign Code, and you also have the section 24 that deals with the calculations of sign area. If you would 25 like, I could read those, or if you would just like to read LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 42 1 them yourself. 2 Definition of a sign area is the entire face of the 3 sign, frame and art work incidental to its decoration, 4 including any spacing between letters, figures and designs, 5 but exclusive of the bracing or structure of the sign. 6 And then Section I 1, calculation of the sign area is I 7 1 a, when the sign consists only of letters, designs or 8 figures engraved, painted, or fixed on either a wall or 9 freestanding sign, the total area of the sign shall be the 10 area of the smallest geometric figure or combination of 11 regular geometric figures within which all the fixed 12 lettering, spacing between letters, and/or artwork is 13 included. 14 Section I 1 b, all sides of the sign which are visible 15 from any one vantage point shall be measured in determining 16 the sign area, except that only- one side of a sign shall be 17 measured if the two sides are back-to-back or separated by 18 an angle of 45 degrees or less. If the two sides are not of 19 equal size, the larger side shall be measured. 20 The proposed amendment to the Sign Code is as follows: 21 The definition of sign area would be eliminated from the 22 Code, and then the following amendments would be made to 23 Section 1. 24 Section I a, The area of an attached sign is measured 25 as the area within the smallest rectangle which containes LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 43 1 all text, symbols or other graphic elements, plus any 2 background area which does not appear as a continuous 3 portion of the building surface which highlights a sign. 4 And then Section I 1 b, the area of a freestanding sign 5 is measured by determining the sign area of all sides that 6 are visible from any one vantage point, except only one side 7 of a sign shall be measured if the two sides are 8 back-to-back or separated by an angle of 45 degrees or less. 9 If the two sides are not of equal size, the larger side 10 shall be measured. 11 Sign size area is considered the area within the 12 smallest rectangle or combination of rectangles which 13 contains all advertising surfaces, background, framing and 14 ornamentation, but not including sign supports or pole 15 covers which contain no sign copy. 16 And then also included in your packet was the sign area 17 calculations for other communities throughout the nation. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Thank you, Mr. Weir. Anyone 19 in the audience wishing to address Case ZCA 92-004? 20 Please state your name. 21 MR. ENGLAND: Commissioners, my name is Jim 22 England. I 'm with Newman Outdoor Advertising, and one thing 23 I got as I was looking at this proposed amendment that I 24 think might be something that needs to be looked at for 25 future reference is with trim or ornamentation around signs LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 44 1 that can be used to enhance the aesthetic appeal of the 2 sign. And by calculating that into being part of the sign 3 area, it may affect businesses who want to have a larger 4 sign so they may not put this trim area onto the sign, thus 5 making a less attractive sign, in order to get their 6 lettering and their message larger. 7 Another point that I guess I would like to bring up is 8 existing signs that do have trim, like on the side of a 9 building, if that business should change and they want to 10 replace that sign with a sign of equal size, they may have 11 to make it smaller due to the area that is trimmed. Thus 12 that sign, you know, the ones with trim now may be 13 non-conforming due to size restrictions. And when the 14 business ownership changes, a new sign has to go up. The 15 sign will be smaller than its original size. And then I 16 think you people might be looking at a lot of variances, 17 "Hey, the old sign was this size with the trim, and we'd 18 like to cover the same area. " Just some observations I 'd 19 like to point out at this time. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. 21 MR. KEY: My name is George Key. I 'm with 22 Bowlin Outdoor Advertising. We basically object to the part 23 about the framing on this measure. We are required by the 24 state to have an apron, or at least to have our name on our 25 sign. We choose to have a two-foot apron at the bottom of LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 45 1 the signs to put our logo on the bottom. From what I can 2 read, that would be included in the sign area and would make 3 our signs quite a bit smaller as far as the advertising 4 area, and we feel that would hurt business. It would also 5 put some of our signs in not a good state, basically. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Anybody else in 7 the audience wish to address case ZCA 92-004? If not, we'll 8 close it to public participation and go on to commissioner 9 input. And I would then at this particular point in time 10 ask Mr. Weir if he could address those two participants ' 11 comments or concerns. 12 MR. WEIR: I believe the major point they 13 were making was that including the framing or the 14 ornamentation on the signs would reduce their advertising 15 area. I believe that' s one of the points staff would like 16 to make is that that is a portion of the sign that draws 17 attention to the copy that' s within the sign. And therefore 18 we feel it should be considered a part of the face area and 19 a part of the sign. 20 And it would also be one of the reasons for clearing up 21 the current wording in the calculation of sign areas and 22 making that less gray, so we have a definitive answer as to 23 what exactly is used for the calculation of that area. Is 24 it in or is it out? And as proposed by staff, we would like 25 to include that ornamentation and framing of the signs in LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 46 1 the calculation of sign area. 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Any comments or 3 observations from the commission? 4 MR. DAW: Mr. Chairman, it would be helpful 5 to me if one had some overheads or overlays, both from the 6 staff and from those, in a sense, raising objections so that 7 one could look at what the signs look like. That would be 8 helpful. Because I have a little trouble reading the 9 language and seeing what it means. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I feel the same way. 11 MR. DAW: Then I would comment further that 12 if you're going to have any limitation on a sign at all, it 13 has to include the decoration in some way or one could have 14 a little sign with tremendous decoration. And somehow or 15 other, one needs to set a limit. 16 Now, it may be that one ought to set two limits. One 17 on the size of the sign, and another on the size of the 18 decoration that could go with the sign. I don't know 19 whether that' s reasonable, but I can see that one can abuse 20 that if one says, Well, you've got a limitation on the sign, 21 but not on the decoration. 22 And then I can see someone saying, Well, I 'm choosing 23 to leave off the decoration so I can have a bigger sign. 24 And it seems to me that there' s kind of conflict with what 25 the rules are, and one surely needs some rules on size of LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 47 1 signs. 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay. Do we have anything 3 that we can comply with the request for overhead or some 4 kind of-- 5 MR. WEIR: Staff doesn't have anything for 6 commission review this evening, but I 'm sure we could put 7 some graphics together and even take some photos of examples 8 throughout town at a later date. 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: I think that would probably 10 be appropriate to consider because signage has been 11 something that has been a great deal of concern and 12 discussion over the last two years. We went through the 13 Sign Code, we took our lumps, and we came back and we worked 14 quite a bit on it. And we're still having problems with 15 it. And I think it would be appropriate to perhaps postpone 16 this action on this case for 30 days and give an opportunity 17 to staff and the people of the sign companies to come back 18 with something that we can see and take a look at. 19 MS. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, I 'm wondering if 20 it wouldn't be appropriate to have a special work session 21 just for the purpose of discussing this and invite people 22 from the local sign companies to attend and bring 23 information to us so that we would have a specific time just 24 for that. 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Mr. Weir, could that be LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 48 1 arranged? 2 MR. WEIR: That could be arranged. 3 MR. KILLIAN: If I may add to that. I would 4 like to see some photographs or designs, whatever, of 5 something that would not conform to this, if we could, and 6 then some examples of signs around town that would conform 7 to this code. 8 And then one other comment, which has nothing to do 9 with staff. Is there a committee or has a committee ever 10 been considered for design approval for signs? There are 11 architectural design committees, for instance, for a lot of 12 other things, but I don't know that that has ever been 13 considered. That may be something we' ll want to talk about 14 in the work session. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : To my knowledge, there has 16 never been. What I sat through was--and I think 17 Commissioner Ferreira, you also sat through a portion of it, 18 and so you, Commissioner Linard--on the Sign Code. We were 19 all pretty much lay people as far as signage was concerned, 20 and we encouraged the community as a whole, the business 21 community, to come in and give us some input. We worked on 22 it for many, many months. We came back down with a final 23 version of what we felt we had gotten a feel for, and it 24 still wasn't something that the business community could 25 accept. And there are still some problems with it. So as LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 49 1 far as a committee being appointed for that purpose, I 'm not 2 aware of one. It was simply done by the P&Z board through 3 work sessions. 4 MS. LINARD: I think there were lawsuits, 5 too. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Yes, there were two after 7 the final version was passed by the Council. There was one 8 or two lawsuits that came about, and I think the City lost 9 one or both of them. 10 MR. WEIR: I 'm not aware of what the outcome 11 was. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : One of them, I know the City 13 lost. 14 MS. LINARD: There was one question I wanted 15 to ask the last gentleman who spoke. I may have 16 misunderstood him, but if his company builds the sign--if I 17 had a little shop and you built a sign, you have to have a 18 two-foot space in order to advertise your business on my 19 sign? 20 MR. KEY: No, no. What we do--it' s a 21 standard apron down at the bottom. It' s more for a finished 22 look on the sign. And we stick our logo on that finished 23 area. Basically what it does, it covers cross members and 24 stuff like that. 25 MS. LINARD: For every sign you build for LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 50 1 everybody who pays you money, you put your advertising on 2 it? 3 MS. KEY: Oh, yes. 4 MS. LINARD: I thought I heard that, but I 5 wasn't sure. 6 MS. LOZIER: Most of them do. 7 MR. DAW: I wanted to ask the other gentleman 8 whose name I 've forgotten, whether or not you would agree to 9 any limitation on sign and decoration size? 10 MR. ENGLAND: My thought would be maybe, this 11 is just an example for discussion, but putting a limit 12 saying that the trim or apron area is not to exceed a 13 certain percentage of the sign face area, say 20, that the 14 trim or apron can not be larger than 25 percent, you know, 15 in square footage than the sign face area itself. So if 16 it' s a 400 square foot sign, they could have more trim than 17 they would if it was a four square foot sign. You know, 18 doing it on a percentage basis and coming up with a number 19 that would-- 20 MR. DAW: Like one percent? 21 MR. ENGLAND: Well, one percent would be very 22 small trim. I was thinking a figure like 25 percent, and I 23 think that would, with our advertising and with Bowlin' s, 24 with that apron area, if we went with 20 percent or 25 25 percent, we would fall into that category, because we would LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 51 1 just have that bottom apron. 2 And another point is that the State Highway Department 3 does not consider apron area as part of the sign face area, 4 the State of New Mexico Sign Codes. They do consider that 5 separately. 6 MS. FERREIRA: I was trying to imagine this 7 last portion here where it talks about except that on one 8 side of the sign somebody measuring the two signs, back to 9 back or separated by an angle or 45 degrees or less, then it 10 says if the two sides are not of equal size, the larger 11 side. Does that mean there is a big sign and a little sign 12 like this? 13 MR. WEIR: Yes. 14 MS. FERREIRA: Is that allowed under the 15 code? Doesn't that look ugly? I was trying to imagine it. 16 So you have to decorate the back of the other side? 17 MR. DAW: Mr. Chairman, since the signing has 18 been so well considered in the past, and it is deemed 19 necessary to revise it, and since most of us are so new to 20 this and not really aware of what has gone on in the past, I 21 think we should not hastily approve a change, and I 22 therefore move that we table this until it has been 23 considered in work session at least once. 24 MR. KILLIAN: I ' ll second that motion. 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: We have a second. Do we LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 52 1 want to table or do we want to postpone? 2 MR. DAW: I guess I don't really know. We 3 need the attorney to tell us. 4 MR. WEIR: I think the proper term would be 5 postponement. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? All in favor? 7 Opposed? Motion carries. 8 MS. FERREIRA: Somebody will tell us when 9 next work session is? 10 MS. LINARD: Is that both of them or only 11 one? 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : That' s just one. Next case 13 is ZCA 92-005, a proposed amendment to Zoning Code, Section 14 13 I 5 E, (Sign Code, non-conforming signs) submitted by the 15 City of Las Cruces. 16 Do we have a motion to consider case have ZCA 92-005? 17 MS. FERREIRA: So moved. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Do we have a second? 19 MR. LORD: Second. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We have a second to consider 21 ZCA 92-005. 22 MR. WEIR: Mr. Chairman, commission members, 23 again this is some clean up work on the Sign Code. This 24 deals with the definition of non-conforming signs. What it 25 deals with is there is a provision in the code that requires LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 53 1 removal of non-conforming signs if there is a damage up to 2 50 percent of the sign. 3 There has been some difficulty and some points of 4 contention on exactly what the definition is as to this 50 5 percent repairs and how do you set a figure on it. So what 6 has been proposed in this amendment is to clarify that and 7 to put it in simpler terms that are easier to interpret. 8 And I 'll read the current wording and proposed wording. 9 Section 1 5 e, "If a non-conforming sign is destroyed 10 damaged or in need of repair, it may not thereafter be 11 repaired, reconstructed, or replaced except in conformity 12 with all the provisions of this Article, and the remnants of 13 the former sign structure shall be cleared from the land. 14 For the purposes of this section, a nonconforming sign is 15 destroyed if damaged up to 50 percent of the cost of 16 repairing the sign to its former stature or if the cost of 17 replacing it equals or exceeds the tax value (tax value if 18 listed for tax purposes) , sign valuation (as stated on the 19 original permit) of the sign so damaged, whichever is less. " 20 The proposed wording is, "A nonconforming sign must be 21 removed and, its structure cleared from the land if, more 22 than 50 percent of the sign face is missing, excluding an 23 intentional permanent reduction in sign face area; or the 24 sign falls from its supports of foundation; or the sign is 25 damaged to an extent of 50 percent or more of its value LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 54 1 before the damage incurred. Sign value is determined by the 2 sign' s tax value (if listed on the tax rolls) , valuation as 3 indicated on the sign permit (if a permit was issued) , or by 4 an independent appraisal, whichever determines the lowest 5 value. " 6 And then again in your packet, you' ll see some 7 provisions in other codes throughout the country. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr. Weir. 9 Anybody in the audience wish to address Case ZCA 92-005? 10 Please state your name again. 11 MR. KEY: George Key, representing Bowlin 12 Outdoor Advertising. Looking at this, it' s our contention 13 that the proposed wording goes far beyond the listed intent 14 of clearing the language up. We believe that this actually 15 gives the City two more vehicles with which to take down 16 signs. I would like to list a couple of examples for you. 17 In the back, when it says more than 50 percent of the 18 sign face is missing, excluding an intentional permanent 19 reduction in sign face area, if we have a wind storm that 20 comes through here, takes off half the panels, the City 21 could go out, snapshot that before if it' s been two hours, 22 three hours afterward, consider that to be under these 23 provisions for that sign to be able to be taken down by the 24 City' s authority. 25 That does not sit too well with us. Another thing is, LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 55 1 when we change out signs, we have to take all the panels off 2 the face at one time. So if we have some slack time after 3 we've either built the sign or when we are changing faces, 4 there will be no face on that sign. And this may just be 5 something that' s just as far as outdoor advertising 6 companies are concerned. It may be kind of a unique case, 7 because most on-site signs, they do not remove the panels 8 and wording. But we do when we change advertisers. 9 The next part being the sign falls from its supports or 10 foundation. Once again, wind damage. If they come through 11 and take all the panels off, the sign structure itself may 12 not damaged at all. But if the wind is strong enough to rip 13 the panels off of the wooden stringers which we nail them on 14 onto, I don't feel that that' s grounds to have the sign 15 removed. And that' s what I 'd like to say. Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Anybody else from the 17 audience wish to address Case ZCA 92-005? 18 MR. ENGLAND: Jim England again with Newman 19 Outdoor. I guess I 'd like to say that I agree with Mr. 20 Key' s comment, and he has some valid points. I 'd basically 21 say the same thing. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : At this point we' ll close it 23 to public participation and go on to commissioner input. 24 MR. DAW: If I read the language right, these 25 are non-conforming signs. That means, if I understand that LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 56 1 word right, it means they don't meet the code; is that 2 right? 3 MR. WEIR: That' s correct. They're not signs 4 that are in conformance or permitted under the current Sign 5 Code. 6 MR. DAW: And now one has a sign which 7 doesn't meet the code which is severely damaged, and it 8 looks to me like the intent of this is to remove those so 9 that they will be conforming. And it looks to me like it' s 10 not a bad rule. You know, if a sign falls down and the 11 structure still stands, but if it were non-conforming, it 12 looks like it' s an excellent opportunity to bring it into 13 conformity because they're going to have to effectively put 14 up a new sign, and they might as well put up one that 15 conforms rather than one that doesn't conform. 16 MR. KEY: So that if the sign is taken down, 17 say the sign is blown down, and there is one pole standing 18 back up, due to the Zoning Code with the City, if it does 19 not meet the spacing requirements and does not meet the size 20 requirements, we can't put up another sign, period. So that 21 thing is gone regardless of whether we have a permit from 22 the State that is active and legal. 23 You know, I think you need to make serious--you need to 24 notice the difference between sign face and sign 25 structures. I think there is a very big difference between LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 57 1 the two. 2 MR. KILLIAN: Mr. Key, I 'd like to ask you, I 3 realize what you're saying. You need a little time. If 4 we've had a bad storm, there are signs all over town that 5 are damaged, and you're going to be very busy, all of you. 6 What you're saying is give me a little time to reproduce the 7 sign as it was before. 8 MR. KEY: That is correct. 9 MR. KILLIAN: Which obviously would be 10 cheaper for the owner than having to take it all down and do 11 it all over again. Maybe what we could consider now or in 12 the future whenever we have a work session on this, is that 13 we set a time limit that repairs be done. Then if they're 14 not done in that time, then the sign comes down. Because 15 what I think we're saying by this if we've got a sign 16 sitting there, and it' s an ugly thing, and it doesn't 17 conform anyway, let' s get that out of there. Nobody cares 18 about it anymore. Let's get it out. 19 MR. KEY: The State of Arizona, which has 20 very stringent sign control, even allows non-conforming 21 signs which have been damaged a certain amount of time to be 22 repaired. 23 MS. FERREIRA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 24 make a motion that we postpone 92-005 to be considered at 25 the same work session with the other motion, since these LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 58 1 folks will probably be there. I think we can consider the 2 language for this proposed wording at the same time. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: I think that would be 4 appropriate. Do we have a second? 5 MR. KILLIAN: Second. Discussion? All in 6 favor? Opposed? Motion carries. We' ll go ahead and 7 schedule those two items together at the same work session. 8 Okay, we have other items, other business of interest, 9 which I 've been advised that includes the election of 10 officers and perhaps setting the times. 11 MS. LINARD: Mr. Chairman, I move that we not 12 elect officers because it was not listed in the agenda, and 13 it should be a matter of public knowledge before such thing 14 occurs. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: A motion has been made not 16 to consider election for failure to publish notice. Do we 17 have a second? 18 MS. FERREIRA: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Discussion. All in favor? 20 Opposed? Motion carries. 21 We come down to commission comments. Any commission 22 comments? 23 MR. DAW: I was just looking here in the 24 zoning code relative to antennas, and I probably have lost 25 the page where I wanted to be, but if one goes over to the LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 59 1 commercial--here we are. I 've forgotten what page that was, 2 general commercial, I guess, 6-29, and it lists the 3 permitted uses, which includes microwave radio relay 4 structures. And that' s on page 6-30. And if one looks 5 further down somewhere on 6-32, it says televisions and 6 radio towers and all other freestanding towers, public and 7 are private towers, shall have manufacturer' s specifications 8 to withstand a 75-mile-per-hour wind, and shall be 9 constructed to meet Uniform Building Codes standards. 10 And when I looked back at the beginning of C-2 on page 11 629, general commercial district, it says maximum height 60 12 feet, can I construe that to mean that they can put up a 13 tower that has to stand 75-mile-an-hour wind, but it will be 14 limited to 60 feet. 15 MR. WEIR: Staff has interpreted that to 16 allow it above 60 feet. The 60 feet is for housing, 17 building-type structures. 18 MS. FERREIRA: Where does it say it can go 19 beyond 60 feet? 20 MR. DAW: It says meet Uniform Building Codes 21 standard. Where does one find the Uniform Building Code 22 standard? 23 MR. WEIR: That' s a national code that the 24 City of Las Cruces has adopted for their building code 25 standard. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 60 1 MR. DAW: With that in mind, could the 2 commission get copies of these standards? 3 MR. WEIR: From time to time those are 4 referenced whenever we have worked-- 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: It' s. a pretty considerable 6 manual. 7 MS. LINARD: Mr. Chairman, don't you know 8 that the National Building Codes Standards are about the 9 most whiff of anything in the world? A whiff is just a 10 minimum, minimum, minimum. And then the State has theirs, 11 and then cities an counties have theirs. And if this City 12 uses the national standards, they don't have much standards, 13 right, Mr. Weir? 14 MR. WEIR: I 'm not a building inspector, so I 15 don't know. 16 MR. DAW: Well, I would at least like to 17 know, since it is referenced here in connection with 18 television and radio towers, what the Uniform Building Code 19 says about television and radio towers. I just would like 20 to know that. 21 MR. WEIR: I think that' s a valid request 22 from the commission, but the case you had this evening was a 23 subdivision case and it was just a creation of a parcel of 24 land. 25 MR. DAW: I understand that, but since it was LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 61 1 raised and since I believe the antenna out west is 2 substantially higher than 180 feet, I may be wrong on that, 3 I just thought that I 'd kind of like to know. As you know, 4 I 'm a ham radio operator and I have an antenna in my back 5 yard and occasionally I find a ham who can't have a radio 6 antenna. in his yard because the code won't let it be high 7 enough to have an antennas. 8 MR. WEIR: How tall is yours? 9 MR. DAW: Not very tall. But I see that, and 10 I don't think we have any code about that. And I do know 11 that there are some limitations. I think it' s like 1, 000 12 feet. And then you sort of get into trouble with the 13 airplanes. And there is a height at which you have to have 14 a light on it all the time. And I 'd be kind of interested 15 in what our code says about that, if anything. 16 MR. KILLIAN: Well, I 'd like to say, being an 17 architect, that it' s not a whiff. That building code has 18 been, as Dave can attest to because he deals with building 19 inspectors a lot. There are many things in the code that 20 are very restrictive, and if we didn't have that, we would 21 have some very dangerous building. And I 'm talking of 22 buildings, of course. 23 To address tower codes, the tower at Roswell at one 24 time was 1400 feet. It was the tallest tower in the world. 25 The UBC allowed that at that time. Of course, I think the LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 62 1 restriction may have been reduced since that tower blew 2 down. They all blow down at some point because the 3 restriction of 75 miles per hour. If you have a 4 100-mile-an-hour gusting wind--I saw a light tower at Texas 5 Tech one time, designed to withstand wind of 190 an hour 6 that blew down. So acts of God can destroy most anything. 7 The building code, I think, is specific about certain 8 areas that can only be so tall, but the code is very 9 specific that it must withstand 75-mile-per-hour wind. 10 That' s critical. I think maybe staff can produce that 11 portion of the UBC that deals with towers. I don't think my 12 UBC has that section in it. I think it just says to refer 13 to section so and so. You may have that, or the building 14 inspector may have it. 15 If you just want it for something to prove to us, 16 Doctor, what we need to know sometime in the future, that 17 would be good. But that tower has to be approved by the 18 building inspector. We don't have to worry about that. 19 They will see that it meets codes, I think. So I don't 20 think we have to be concerned with that. We were just 21 allowing the tower to be in place. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : That' s correct. However, 23 now that you bring up that issue and the issue that these 24 gentleman brought up in regard to interpretation, the 25 purpose and intent of the rules and regulations are often LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 63 1 misinterpreted in the field. We have to be careful as to 2 how they're worded. I 'm still chafing about one particular 3 item, and that is inoperable vehicles. Under one of the 4 City' s municipal judge' s interpretation, a car that is in 5 good working order but does not have any liquids in it, does 6 not have oil, gas or water, it' s considered inoperable and 7 you can't store it in your driveway. 8 MS. LINARD: They're picking on you. 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Yes, that's what you have to 10 deal with sometimes in the field. You might get an 11 overzealous employee who just came on the job who' s new and 12 trying to make an impression on someone, and they' ll nail 13 you. 14 MS. LINARD: Mr. Chairman, is that antenna on 15 West Picacho in the City limits? And then there is one at 16 the end of Amador, I know, that' s in the City limits, and it 17 used to be at the corner of Idaho and El Paseo for years and 18 years and years and years. And I know that' s over 60 feet. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ: Okay. Any more comments? 20 Do we have a motion to adjourn? 21 MS. FERREIRA: I move for adjournment. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? All in favor? 23 Meeting is adjourned. 24 (Meeting adjourned at 9: 17 p.m. ) 25 LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES 64 1 3 Eddie Perez, Jr. Chm. Sharlyn Linard 4 5 6 Kay Willis Roger Lord 7 8 9 Harold Daw Richard Killian 10 11 12 Beatriz Ferreira 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 MINUTES