Loading...
08-25-1992 1 1 2 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 5 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 6 7 HELD ON AUGUST 25, 1992 8 9 7 : 30 P.M. 10 11 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 12 13 14 15 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Eddie Perez , Chairman Sharlyn Linard 16 Beatriz Ferreira Harold Daw 17 Kay Willis Roger Lord 18 19 STAFF PRESENT: David Weir Mark Simms 20 21 22 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 2 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, we will go ahead and 2 call this meeting to order following Robert' s Rules of 3 Order . If any member of the public has a comment or 4 question that he or she wishes to address to the commission , 5 they will be recognized by the chair . Then they will state 6 their name so it can be entered into the permanent record cf 7 these proceedings . Each person will be recognized once on 8 each case at issue for a period not to exceed three minutes . 9 If someone has new or additional information, then that 10 individual will be given one additional minute to speak 11 after all citizens who wish to speak on the case have been 12 recognized. 13 When a large number of citizens wish to speak to a case 14 as a neighborhood group, then 15 minutes will be allowed fcr 15 a group spokesperson, if one has been selected by the 16 neighborhood group as their representative . If this 17 spokesperson is selected, then all other citizens wanting to 18 speak on that case will be given one additional minute . 19 The Planning and Zoning Commission is meeting tonight 20 to have a public hearing on one zoning case, two special use 21 permits , four subdivisions , two planned unit developments, 22 and to make recommendations to the City Council to either 23 approve or deny the requests for zone changes, annexations 24 or amendments to the zoning code . 25 The City Council will make the final decisions on these PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 3 1 requests at its meeting scheduled for approximately October 2 5th, 1992 3 The Planning and Zoning Commission will grant final 4 approval or denial on requests for all special use permits, 5 subdivisions , and planned unit developments at tonight' s 6 meeting Any person adversely affected by the decision of 7 this commission may file a written appeal stating the 8 grounds for his appeal to the City Council within 15 days of 9 this meeting. 10 The City of Las Cruces will make every effort to 11 provide reasonable accommodations for people with 12 disabilities who wish to attend public meetings . Please 13 notify the City 24 hours before the meeting, telephone 14 526-0000 , or TDD number 526-1222 . 15 Okay, the first item on the agenda is approval of the 16 minutes for June 23 , 1992 May I have a motion for 17 consideration of the minutes for June 23 , 1992? 18 COMMISSIONER LINARD: So moved. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do I have a second? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I ' ll second. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any additions or deletions 22 to these minutes? 23 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, on page 24 18 , I think it ' s a typographical error limiting one story to 25 125 feet--and I pointed that out to you--page 18 , lines 19 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 4 1 and 20 . 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Yes , I believe that should 3 be 25 feet rather than 125 . Thank you. 4 Any other additions or deletions to the minutes? 5 If not, then may we have a vote to approve the minutes? 6 All in favor, aye? 7 ( The motion carried unanimously 6 to 0 . ) 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The next item is old 9 business . And we have got two cases, PUD-92-004 and 10 PUD-92-003 . I would like to change the order, if the 11 Commission doesn' t object, to consider case PUD-92-003 , 12 since that appears to be an issue that we all have discussed 13 and approved on consensus previously. And then we can 14 probably get that out of the way right now. 15 I would like to have a motion to remove for 16 consideration PUD-92-003 . 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIS . So moved. 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : At this point in time, we ' ll 20 ask if the applicant' s present? Okay, he' s not. We will 21 go on to staff input . 22 And just for the record, would you please clarify that 23 the applicant doesn' t have to be present for this . 24 MR WEIR: Chairman Perez , commission 25 members, the applicant submitted this request after your PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 5 1 last public hearing and discussion of trying to make some 2 concessions on the setbacks . Prior to the meeting, I 3 checked with the zoning code and there was no problem with 4 you acting on this case without the applicant being present 5 And staff also felt that since that was his submittal , and 6 you have already reviewed it at a work session, and felt 7 that we had reached a consensus on this design, that it 8 would be all right to hear this case at the meeting this 9 evening. 10 What this is--just to rehash real quickly--is to 11 clarify the setbacks requirements and to amend the 12 development document for Las Colinas subdivision for the T 13 and Y cul-de-sacs . And what the applicant has done is made 14 some modifications to his original submittal to bring it 15 more into line with corner lots that have two streets and 16 the setbacks . And it would be much easier if I just 17 explained it with the graphic 18 What he has done , he ' s retaining 20-foot front yard 19 setbacks on these lots, and then he ' s kept in existence 15 20 feet from where the T comes out. And again, this is similar 21 to the exception in the zoning code for double-fronted lots 22 that allows the second front yard to be withdrawn to 15 23 feet . 24 What he has done , he has kept the 15 feet until the end 25 of the right-of-way here, and then tapered this to a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 6 1 five-foot setback at this point, where this 20-foot front 2 yard begins . And that has opened up this and provided 3 additional setbacks in those corners . 4 He did the same thing on the Y cul-de-sac . He kept the 5 20-foot front yard setback . And in this area here , he made 6 the setback 15 feet and then put a line to catch the 7 five-foot setback with this lot' s front yard. This is 8 basically in the same area. 9 Two weeks ago the Planning and Zoning Commission 10 reviewed this at a work session and felt it was sufficient 11 for the Las Colinas PUD. I would just like to remind the 12 Commission that at the meeting they felt that this should be 13 only used for consideration for Las Colinas . And if any 14 additional T or Y cul-de-sacs are used within a development, 15 that they would have to provide justification for leniency 16 on these setbacks also. And this should not be used as a 17 pattern for other T and Y setbacks 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: The only reason that 19 we said that was because there had been a misinterpretation 20 of some prior provisions, and he had been led to believe 21 that he could do this by someone that was working for the 22 City at that time . And that' s the reason why we allowed it. 23 I want to make sure that that' s clear . 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is that the end of staff' s 25 presentation at this point? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 7 1 We will open it to public participation. Does anybody 2 in the audience wish to address this particular case, PUD 3 92-003? 4 Going once , twice - - we will close it now and go on to 5 commissioner input Any comments from the Commission on 6 this issue? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Mr . Chairman, I had a 8 question for David on that. At that work session, we talked 9 about approving this on consensus if we had some sort of 10 language that indicated what we talked about as well as the 11 graphic . Has anyone put anything together on that? 12 MR. WEIR: No, they have not had the time . 13 I am sorry about that. 14 MS . WILLIS : I would think it would be 15 important to have that before we approve this . 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . That would mean at this 17 particular point in time staff doesn' t have the language we 18 can review, so we will have to consider postponing this for 19 another 30 days? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : That is right. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Can we refer this back to 22 staff with instructions to have it presented at a future 23 date with the documents? 24 MR. WEIR: Yes . That will be available at 25 the next P and Z meeting. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 8 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir. Then 2 in that case, may I have a motion to postpone for 30 days . 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I move that we postpone 4 this for 30 days . 5 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Second. 6 CHAIRAN PEREZ : All in favor, aye . All 7 opposed? Motion carries unaniously. 8 (Motion carried 6 to 0 . ) 9 COMMISSIONER DAW: Mr. Chairman, I have been 10 trying to read about PUDs . And since this is one that had 11 been approved some time back , I wonder if perhaps if at one 12 of the work sessions we could have a presentation about how 13 a PUD differs from, in a sense , an ordinary subdivision, so 14 one can get a feeling for how the flexibility of the PUD 15 has, in a sense , permitted to be accomplished what was 16 supposed to be accomplished 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I agree with you, 18 Commissioner . I think that now that the Commission is 19 complete - - it has been sort of incomplete for the last few 20 months now. Now that it' s complete, I think it would be 21 appropriate to hold a few work sessions to kind of 22 indoctrinate the new commissioners on many of these issues . 23 So we will try. 24 Mr . Weir , if he could get up some work sessions for 25 bringing the new commissioners up to speed, so to speak , on PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 9 1 a lot of these things . And also the other thing we need is 2 some updated manuals . I think we have been working, at 3 least I have been working with some outdated manuals for a 4 while now. 5 Okay, the next case up is PUD 92-004 , a request for 6 concept approval for Crescent Center, a business planned 7 unit development. The property is a parcel of land located 8 at 801 Farney Road, contains 4 . 2 acres , more or less, zoned 9 R-3 , high density residential . Currently there is a single 10 family dwelling on the property. The remaining property is 11 vacant. The property is proposed for a zone change to 0-1C, 12 office conditional . Submitted by Gary Krivokpaich. 13 And this was postponed July 28th, 1992 . At this 14 particular point in time, may I have a motion for 15 consideration of PUD 92-004 , a removal for consideration? 16 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Mr . Chair , I move for 17 removal for consideration of case PUD 92-004 . 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do I have a second? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present? 21 Would you like to make a presentation at this point? 22 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: . Yes, I would. 23 Bear with me a little bit tonight. There are two new 24 people . And I know we have rehashed this about three times, 25 but I think it' s important to go through the history of this PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 10 1 project again. 2 This is my parents ' project and their land that they 3 purchased about 1965 . I am a mechanical engineer for 4 Pacific Gas and Electric in California, so this is what I 5 have been doing in my spare time for the last year . And I 6 would like to turn over to my dad for a couple of minutes 7 here . 8 MR. BOSKO KRIVOKAPICH: I would like for the 9 new people to know that I have been a part of Las Cruces 10 since 1939 . I went to school out here at New Mexico State. 11 I had two brothers that went, under the direction of Bill 12 O'Donnell . If it wasn' t for Bill O'Donnell , we wouldn' t 13 have never gone to school . I would like to say that we 14 bought this property - - had this parcel for about 28 years, 15 a little over 28 years . We had another parcel up on Wyoming 16 and Enzie that we just sold this last December . And it was 17 R-2 , and they have developed apartments up there . So they 18 are not too bad. They are pretty neat. And we have been 19 paying taxes here for 28 years . 20 We've lived in Farmington off and on. And that' s all I 21 wanted to say, that we are not Californians. Gary is . I 22 sent him out there , but we are actually natives of New 23 Mexico--Raton and Dawson. And I am living at Farmington 24 now. And the reason I am up there is because that' s where 25 my business is , at Farmington, and all of our income PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 11 1 properties and stuff that we have are at Farmington, and 2 also at Raton. 3 I remember E1 Paseo in 139 was a dirt road. It was 4 heavy traffic then. We used to hitchhike from the college 5 to town and back . We never had any trouble ever getting a 6 ride . We were going to school when I bought this property 7 on E1 Paseo Then, it was still a commercial business 8 street . We bought it to develop it into homes, or whatever 9 it was at the time . It was R-1 . And later on the City--I 10 had nothing to do with it--made it R-3 when Tom Graham - - 11 when they widened Farney. They made me pave - - we had a 12 dirt road from Farney up to Espina, I used to wet the ground 13 in front of the house twice a day to keep the dust from 14 coming in. And I also paid my part of paving Farney, 600 15 foot of it, in order that we could make it a better place 16 for everyone , and especially for the dust that was flying 17 around there . 18 We worked on it real hard. We spent a lot of time and 19 a lot of money trying to make this piece of property be 20 unique to the rest of the area, which we really love , 21 Crescent Park . That' s why we bought it. Crescent Park was 22 just being developed. Carlos Blanco was developing it, and 23 that' s where we wanted to live . But my job changed, and I 24 went to Santa Fe . From Santa Fe , I went to Farmington, and 25 we have been up there about 28 years, 27 years . That' s PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 12 1 about all I have to say. I put the boy to work, and he did 2 all the work, so I am going to let him carry on. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. 4 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: Crescent Center is 5 designed to preserve the integrity of the Crescent Park area 6 while meeting the commercial needs of the surrounding area. 7 Crescent Center will provide jobs for Las Cruces , and a 8 seeding area for small businesses . 9 It will help provide development of infill parcels . 10 The development for infill parcels helps relieve the 11 pressure toward the Organ Mountains growth and pressure on 12 the Mesilla Valley. One of the most important things of our 13 project is we set out to envision a beautiful corridor going 14 into New Mexico State University, and also a corridor coming 15 out of New Mexico State University into Las Cruces . 16 We have been working closely with the City planning 17 staff and the zoning commission for the last year on this 18 project. We have been to one neighborhood meeting, three 19 neighborhood work sessions , three public hearings, and two 20 extensive surveys to obtain neighborhood input. 21 This extensive amount of work has allowed us to put 22 together a unique project, one that meets our needs--that' s 23 financially feasible--and one that meets, or tries to meet 24 the majority of needs of the community. As I go through my 25 presentation, please feel free to ask questions, and also PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 13 1 during the question-and-answer period. 2 If you have a question from up there, or the staff has 3 a question, or somebody has a question, please don' t 4 hesitate to ask me I really want to refrain from answering 5 questions or rebutting people ' s rights away without being 6 asked, but we are here to answer questions . 7 One of the most important things right now to look at 8 is the history of this project. We purchased the land in 9 approximately 1965 . In 1980 , approximately in there, it was 10 zoned to R-3 . I think even the staff was trying to actually 11 figure out the process that they went through for that 12 zoning. Anyway, we came in and we marketed it for the last 13 ten years as R-3 land, but no one is interested in 14 residential because of the heavy traffic , and they are not 15 really interested in putting apartments there because of the 16 heavy traffic . 17 What we did first on this project is put out an initial 18 survey. That survey went into the Crescent Park area about 19 250 feet and all up and down Farney. The results of that 20 survey are in the package that you should have on the 21 zoning. That survey indicated to us , yes, there is a desire 22 to put something there that would relieve some of the impact 23 from the apartments . We brought our proposal , the first 24 time , as a C-2 , conditional . That was brought in October of 25 last year . So we are almost approaching a year on this PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 14 1 project. That was postponed to work with the residents . 2 And the residential group at that time was headed by 3 Jim Erickson. He lives in the neighborhood, and he was the 4 first person to speak in opposition to us at that time . 5 What we did then was came in with a neighborhood group 6 on December 3rd. David Weir was at that meeting. We met 7 with the residents and the PUD process was explained. We 8 gave examples of our architecture . We had sort of a modern 9 stucco, California-style shopping center in that area. And 10 that sort of got the thumbs down on the design, so we went 11 to the New Mexico territorial . 12 After that meeting, Dave Weir' s group had a meeting 13 with the residents . That was in the church that' s next door 14 to us , and they talked about the project and explained the 15 PUD process again. 16 On 12-27 , there is an updated letter that you have in 17 your file there , and it basically covers all of these points 18 that I just presented here . It' s a letter from Dave Weir on 19 the status of our project. What we did on December 4 , after 20 we met with the residents, we met with Dave Weir . At that 21 time , we got a commitment from staff for an 0-1 with a PUD. 22 Now that was important to us , because we were going to 23 incur quite a bit of costs before we got into the PUD 24 process . You have got a lot of hearings to go to on that, 25 you have got drawings to put together, sketches . So we PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 15 1 started right then and there to work with the staff. The 2 site plan and the PUD was submitted in April of 192 . 3 On 6-23 , we brought our PUD to the Commission. And 4 this was also when the 0-1 change was recommended for 5 approval . And that was a conditional . Now, this has since 6 been postponed, and we are trying to get the PUD in sync 7 with the zoning change . 8 Now, the PUD was postponed for work session on 7-23 , 9 and we went into the work session with the neighborhood. 10 On 7-28 , we had a zoning commission meeting, and that was 11 postponed for two more work sessions . We had one two weeks 12 ago and also one last week . And now we are here today. 13 Okay, our project is located at the corner of E1 Paseo 14 and Farney. And we also have West Park Drive . So we are 15 actually surrounded by three streets here . One thing that' s 16 really important to take a look at is - - I have taken some 17 pictures of the area . The top picture is the area that' s 18 over here . This is the Frenger impounding area. You can 19 see the sign that they posted there . Also you can see a 20 view looking east. You can see the commercial that' s across 21 from the Frenger Park area. 22 And also there is a north view. Going this way about 23 450 feet is the first commercial . That is conditional 24 commercial , from what I understand, that has expired. That 25 belongs to New Mexico State I talked to the realtor on PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 16 1 that, and he says that they may be able to get it, but who 2 knows whether they will get the conditional back . And the 3 next commercial , north, would be the Dessert Shop there . 4 And that' s right south there on Boutz . 5 Also another important thing, our property - - we ' re 6 about 110 feet away from the nearest resident. You have got 7 the trees, the canal , and the four-lane highway. One of the 8 first things we decided to do in working with the staff and 9 residents is to put in a landscape buffer . That landscape 10 buffer extends 20 to 25 feet all around this project. And 11 that is to buffer the project from the neighborhood. 12 Also on here we had developed University Corridor 13 landscape standards, which basically say you put 20 percent 14 of your landscape in your parking area, or 20 percent of it 15 has to be landscaped. 16 One of the main things when you are trying to fit a 17 center like this into the neighborhood is to make your 18 center look like the neighborhood that it' s in. So the 19 first thing we did, we limited the height on this particular 20 project here to 20 feet, this L-shaped building is 25 feet. 21 We have got pedestrians walking through here . We have got a 22 ten-foot walkway. 23 Okay. We also adopted the University Corridor 24 architectural plans . And we are going for the New Mexico 25 territorial . There are a couple of other options in PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 17 1 there--California mission and Pueblo--but the choice of the 2 neighborhood is really the territorial 3 One item, while we are looking at this , is that we 4 added from the last two meetings - - we added a 0-1 buffer 5 area. So any business that is within 100 feet of El Paseo, 6 let' s say. If this pad is built right here, it will have to 7 be 0-1 , or that portion of the business will have to be 0-1 , 8 and only 0-1 . If a restaurant is to be built, it has to be 9 moved back 100 feet. This will give us really more of a 10 buffer of about 200 feet. Let' s say you have a restaurant 11 back here , then you have a larger buffer from the 12 neighborhood. 13 Another unique option here is that you have three 14 streets . What' s good about that is you can just disperse 15 the traffic . One thing in this process that we did right 16 away was to eliminate a lot of the obnoxious uses that, if I 17 was living across from the neighborhood, that I would want 18 to get away from. That was adult entertainment. Adult 19 bookstores . That actually rolls back up to the first one. 20 Automobile parking lots . 21 Another big one is a gas station. Hotel/motel and 22 liquor stores . 23 And tire sales and service . 24 I didn' t really want somebody looking out their back 25 window and seeing somebody changing tires on that corner , or PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 18 1 filling up with gas . That' s basically what you try to do 2 with this particular process , is to provide something that 3 has less of an impact on what is already there , or what it' s 4 zoned for . 5 We had, from our last two work sessions, actually last 6 three , we have come in and put more uses on the prohibited 7 list, starting with animal hospital and clinic . There was 8 worry from noise , in particular dogs barking. Apartments , 9 R-3 . That was removed. That was on our part. It is a big 10 concession, because that means if we can' t market the PUD 11 idea for two years , we can' t do anything for the apartments 12 either . So we have to hustle to get this thing marketed and 13 online . 14 Dry cleaning and steam cleaning. That one I looked at. 15 That was more on an odor, chemical type thing. Would I want 16 that in my neighborhood? No . 17 Food store , large . We took that out. Game room, 18 household appliance repair and a large variety store . 19 Okay, now, we end up - - this our final list. And the 20 way I have this broken down is, I have got just a straight 21 list without any of the restrictions . And then we have a 22 table of restrictions and definitions . That way, it was 23 sort of marketing on my part, because by the time we put all 24 our restrictions and everything on the times on this 25 particular list, the list got so big that it looked like we PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 19 1 are asking for everything, and we weren' t eliminating a lot 2 of items . 3 Also, on the other list--which we did remove fast 4 food--we have that defined the same as the University 5 Corridor . From what I understand--and that is any 6 restaurant with a drive-thru would be eliminated. This is 7 the second page of our list that we are asking for right 8 now. 9 Now, when I was putting it together , the actual 10 collating all the input from the last two work sessions, 11 what I looked at here is, if I was living in that 12 neighborhood, who is going to be the people that are going 13 to be driving up and down that street, and what businesses 14 should we put down earliest. 15 The bakery, I left that alone . I took that down to 16 20 , 000 square feet, a business service establishment and did 17 a little more definition. 18 The cosmetology shop, I limited to 3 , 000 square feet 19 and also put hours on that cosmetic shop. 3, 000 square feet 20 coffee shop. 3 , 000 square feet. Delicatessen, 2 , 000 square 21 feet. I was trying to keep these business small so you 22 don' t market it as a regional shopping center. Dessert 23 shop, nine to ten, limited to 3 , 000 square feet. You might 24 have a lot of college students, so let' s shut it down so the 25 people can get to sleep. Drugstore , 4 , 000 square feet . Dry PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 20 1 cleaning/steam cleaning, limited to 3, 000 feet. Electronics 2 store , limited to 5 , 000 square feet. That' s a Radio Shack 3 type or specialty high-end electronics . Again, I shut that 4 down, because I figure someone might be going out for radios 5 or records at night. 6 Okay, here we have the gift shop, 3 , 000 square feet. 7 Grocery store . This is more an upgraded convenience store . 8 This may sound funny, but in a lot of older areas like 9 Crescent Park, a lot of those type stores are coming back . 10 And that is where you have a small grocery store that might 11 have a special meat market, kosher meats , meats without the 12 hormones , and maybe a little fish shop. You know, this is 13 something that the store could do like that. The Smith' s 14 and Albertson' s aren' t doing, something like that. We could 15 fit that in there . That' s why the other square footages are 16 in there . When we are out there out there marketing, not 17 every one of these business is going to go in We have to 18 have an options list. Hardware store , 8, 000 square feet. 19 Health club is 5 , 000 , 8 : 00 a.m. to 10 : 00 p.m. , also closing 20 down so people can get to bed, if that would be a problem. 21 Laundry, self-service, 5 : 00 p.m. to 11 : 00 p.m. , 4 , 000 22 square feet . Mainly looking at that, you don' t want to make 23 that into a regional laundering area, and also the meat, 24 food market, so you restrict it . 25 Pet shop, photographic studio, post office and music PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 21 1 store . We would also close that down to lessen the impact 2 on the neighborhood 3 Now, also, while I am at this - - on the impact part, 4 we have also agreed with the neighborhood that if they 5 wanted to close off Farney on their side , we would not 6 oppose them. So I know that at one of the meetings , there 7 was a lot of interest in them doing that, to cut cross 8 traffic out of their neighborhood. But they would have to 9 take that to the planning commission, just like we are 10 taking this . So that was one option. We gave them two, and 11 that' s one of their biggest problems as it exists right now, 12 is that traffic cutting down through there . But closing off 13 the street is really not an easy process either. 14 Okay, record store/music store . That also includes 15 video . Still , again keeping it small , 3 , 000 square feet . 16 And keeping it to the hours limited there . I was also told 17 by our advisor on this not to put the hours in, because it 18 makes it real hard getting a business . But I do sympathize 19 with the neighborhood, the neighbors that they don' t want a 20 lot of these things , let' s say, like a video store 24 hours 21 a day. 22 They are going into retail sales that one gets a little 23 tricky. What I did is took the wording out of the C-1 and 24 also limiting them to 3 , 000 square feet. 25 Now, retail sales, in that category, are basically for PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 22 1 specialty merchandise , what I consider jewelry, finer 2 clothing, greeting cards , an antique store . 3 There was also a concern about factory outlet stores . 4 I limited them to 3 , 000 square feet apiece and no more than 5 6 , 000 square feet in the center . And that is to keep that 6 center from becoming a district outlet center . I think 7 there was some fear of that . 8 Okay, now going down to the restaurant, no drive-thrus, 9 and limited to 6 , 500 square feet. Now, this one is a little 10 tricky. I put in here restaurants with no waiters are 11 limited to 3 , 000 square feet. If it' s not a sit-down 12 restaurant where they come get your order, then you have to 13 be a smaller restaurant 14 Also, you have got to consider that a restaurant 15 probably takes up twice as much parking as a regular 16 business, so if you put two restaurants in that particular 17 area , the size of the whole project shrinks to meet the 18 needs . There is a lot of play in these things . 19 One thing we did here is a cafeteria with 12 , 000 square 20 feet is crossed off. And that' s back to 7 , 500 feet. The 21 only reason I was putting that in there was suggesting it, 22 because we got a lot of opinions at the last meeting. This 23 is almost a perfect business for the neighborhood, so people 24 could walk from the neighborhood, go over there and eat 25 And the shut-down hours are perfect, too . It' s not like an PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 23 1 all-night place . So that was an option I was trying to keep 2 in there . And from what I can tell from my reading, 12 , 000 3 square feet is about a minimum for a cafeteria. But we have 4 cut that back down to 7 , 500 . 5 On this particular sheet, sporting goods, 9 : 00 a.m. to 6 10 : 00 p.m. , and no firearms . And that was also at the 7 suggestion of a couple of members in the group. Variety 8 store , 3 , 000 square feet, business hours 6 : 00 a.m. to 9 : 00 9 P.M. 10 After that, we have got the yogurt shop, which can 11 include ice cream and other desserts . Business operated 12 9 : 00 a.m. to 10 : 00 p.m. , 3 , 000 square feet . 13 Okay, the next item is the 0-1 buffer area. Now 14 basically, this is a buffer of 100 feet. And for the 15 purposes of calculating the parking, there is no difference 16 between C-1 and 0-1 parking So with my idea of moving the 17 building back, if there is not enough 0-1 in that area to 18 justify all that area for parking. Then you combine, for 19 calculation purposes , these two areas together . 20 what I did on here is list the concerns of the area 21 people . And that is, let' s say they change the C-2 uses in 22 your book . Well , that doesn' t add to our uses or take away 23 from our uses . They stay as the PUD was originally enacted. 24 That way, if something happens in ten years and C-1 becomes 25 realistically almost the same as C-2 , we can' t do anything PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 24 1 until we actually amend the PUD. And that was a concern of 2 the neighborhood. 3 Also, here are additional uses and restriction changes . 4 Basically, what I am saying in this particular paragraph is 5 that any change that we want to make has to come in a public 6 hearing. And if so, the neighbors have to be notified. 7 There ' s the signage , and I won' t go over all that. But 8 as to lights, they can have their store lights on, but 9 anything above that on the building goes off one hour after 10 sunset, that' s 0-1 . 11 Now, there are some mixed uses . For example, that 12 yogurt and deli , you can combine the two. But let' s say the 13 yogurt is 3 , 000 square feet, you can' t add 2 , 000 and 3 , 000 14 and get 5 , 000 . It' s the max of one of the uses . So you 15 can' t start adding up all the uses . 16 Neighborhood residential area, I was considering 17 neighborhood residential a two-mile radius . And fast food 18 restaurants would be a restaurant or food establishment with 19 a drive-thru. That' s one of the biggest impacts of the 20 restaurant on traffic, is the drive-thru. And also, as you 21 can see in the original drawing, you have to have a 200-foot 22 driving lane for those . So that relieves a lot of pressure 23 and opens up a lot more for parking. 24 Okay, business hours . This , of course , was another 25 issue that was brought up at the work session. All of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 25 1 hours I was talking about are business hours, and that is 2 when they let customers in and out of the buildings . Unless 3 specified in table one or two, they were not limited as to 4 operation hours, that is the times when the owners are in 5 there working, or are in there but customers are not. Their 6 operating hours are not limited for any purpose . That' s so 7 if you have a business that closes down at night, you don' t 8 have to get a police order to come in there and clean 9 carpets; deliveries shall be scheduled between 7 : 00 a.m. and 10 9 : 00 p.m. as much as possible . 11 The route I am choosing on this particular project, I 12 think , is to limit our impact on the neighborhood as much as 13 possible . What we are proposing with the present zoning 14 impact, I think there are a lot of things that get real 15 confusing. You don' t look at it in those terms, so I 16 .prepared a little table here . And it' s just some items of 17 how I look at this center compared to the R-3 present 18 zoning. 19 There are the architectural standards . We have adopted 20 the Univeristy Corridor, New Mexico territorial . Under our 21 present zoning that we have there is none required. 22 Architectural blending in with the neighborhood 23 housing, yes . With R-3 , that' s not required. 24 Maximum height in our PUD is 25 with Crescent Center; 25 it' s 45 feet, three stories, with R-3 apartments . We are PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 26 1 trying not to block the view of the Organ Mountains . We are 2 keeping our building height low in the front, 20 foot, to 3 help protect those views . And there is nothing on the books 4 to keep anything from blocking with their 0-3 . 5 Another real important area is traffic generation or 6 additional trips . There was a study that was done by the 7 City of Las Cruces , that was when we had even more extensive 8 uses in the apartment, that it would generate about as many 9 trips as a commercial on the access roads . On the R-3 , I 10 said 126 potential families, I meant tenants . And this is 11 one of the reasons for my parents not to want apartments, is 12 that with commercial you are limited to 15 to 18 people, 13 whereas with apartments you have 126 . 14 Hours of operation. We project it to be 50 to 80 15 percent to operate between 10 : 00 a.m. and 10 : 00 p.m. , and 16 apartments are 24 hours a day. The signage is off at 10 : 00 17 p.m. above 11 feet With apartments on the second and third 18 story, there is no regulation of when they turn their li.ghts 19 out. 20 Okay, we did turn in a survey to the area. What we did 21 on that is we went to the county tax records and we sent out 22 a survey asking, basically, would you prefer the present R-3 23 zoning or the Crescent Center with our proposed uses that 24 were listed on the back . That went out to about 262 people . 25 The results are shown on this map, with the green area being PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 27 1 our property. 2 The green area was a positive response for Crescent 3 Center . The black area was a negative, and yellow was they 4 didn' t want either of the two choices . 5 Okay, again, the result of the survey, we had about a 6 34-percent response rate . This survey was designed to look 7 at our particular PUD, and the present zoning only. 8 Crescent Center was favored 78 percent over R-3 . 9 COMMISSIONER DAW: I had a question on that . 10 Put that back up again. Where it says Crescent Center 78 11 percent, does that mean in favor? It doesn' t say on the 12 sheet on the overhead, but that is in favor? 13 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: That' s in favor of 14 Crescent Center . Now, we also have turned that in to staff, 15 a detailed copy of all the mail return on that, and a 16 summarized sheet of all that by address . 17 Now, this also reflects , basically, the result of the 18 very first survey. And if you will look on there , it' s sort 19 of interesting to look at all the green at the end there 20 where the old Holiday Inn apartments were , because there is 21 a big cluster of green. And that' s because while they were 22 running as apartments--it' s a motel now--as it was running 23 as apartments , college students were constantly driving up 24 and down the street. So we got a real high response in that 25 area. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 28 1 Why Crescent Center? To provide an attractive corridor 2 into NMSU and into Las Cruces by helping to bring in a high 3 quality shopping center Lots of industries, when they send 4 out their scouts to look into an area, look at the 5 residential area and look at the surrounding shopping for 6 their people . "Hey, do I want to send my people there?" 7 That means jobs for Las Cruces . High quality developments 8 help keep the students ghetto out of Crescent Park . I don' t 9 want to insult anybody on this particular item. I am not 10 saying Crescent Park is a ghetto. I think Crescent Park is 11 a very fine neighborhood. 12 This shopping center and the neighborhood residential 13 make this a very fine urban village concept from the 14 comprehensive plan. Residents are in walking distance of 15 the shopping center . I find that kind of a funny thing that 16 the City promotes the urban village, but as soon as you try 17 to get commercial next to residential , they beat you up. 18 It' s sort of, they like the concept, but in reality it' s a 19 tough sell . 20 This center would also utilize the high traffic count 21 of E1 Paseo, 20 , 000 plus cars . E1 Paseo is a major business 22 street in Las Cruces . And it would have less impact than 23 the present zoning. 24 One thing - - I hesitate to relate this story, but I 25 think I will . And I hope this isn' t conceived as a threat PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 29 1 or anything. We don' t really want to build apartments . We 2 want to get on with Crescent Center . We have put a lot of 3 time and effort into it. But as an example of how a process 4 can fall apart, you can take a look at these particular 5 apartments that are at the end of University. They are 6 three-story apartments that the particular owner went to the 7 City and asked the City, Could I put some commercial there? 8 There was commercial right next door to him. 9 Well , the land had been vacant for years and years and 10 years . And what happened on that parcel , the neighborhood 11 got up in arms . The churches got up in arms . And NMSU 12 fought him. So he decided at that point not to go through 13 the PUD process or anything. They backed off, got investors 14 and built the land up. And I think - - I don' t really say 15 we are making a threat, I am just saying that happens and 16 has happened 17 I think the important thing is to look at where can you 18 find a positive example of a PUD. From this particular 19 project, you don' t have to go but one lot over and up the 20 street and you get a positive PUD process, which is the Pan 21 Am Center . In this PUD process , they controlled the 22 architecture . They made it match NMSU. You can take a look 23 at landscaping in that, that was also important to NMSU. 24 Also, the clock tower was to blend into this area. Our 25 scale and our use is quite a bit less than this , but I think PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 30 1 that' s a positive example of when you work with a PUD what 2 can happen Their original zoning was R-4 . So they were 3 able to get these commercial uses and get a positive thing 4 from the PUD. And that' s the way I look at it. If you are 5 not going to get a positive impact on the neighborhood in 6 the area in general , then I agree with you, it should be 7 turned down. 8 I really consider this as a win, win, win proposal . 9 The neighborhood wins because they get a high quality 10 development in their neighborhood with minimized negative 11 impact. The City of Las Cruces wins because they get the 12 development of infill . There is less stress on the growth 13 out to the outlying area, and they are able to utilize the 14 water and sewer that exists at the site . And the landowner 15 wins because he is able to put his property to work for him. 16 Thank you. 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Thank you, Gary. We are 18 going now to staff input. 19 MR. WEIR: Mr . Chairman, commission members, 20 I won' t rehash the history of what Gary presented. It is 21 pretty accurate as to the time frame . 22 As you heard, this case originally came before you as a 23 zone change . What I would just like to hit on are some 24 points that the Commission needs to be aware of. One, the 25 proposal before you is a concept approval . And basically PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 31 1 all you are approving is the uses that will be allowed 2 within this center by the applicant. If approval is granted 3 by the Commission, he will have to submit a final approval 4 before you. And at that time , he will submit a final site 5 plan that will designate his landscaping, the layout of his 6 buildings , and the parking areas . 7 Also, you need to note that approval will have to be 8 conditioned upon approval of the zone change by the City 9 Council . In the June P and Z meeting, the Commission 10 recommended a zone change of 0-1 , Conditional . And the 11 condition on the zone change was that it be developed 12 through the PUD process . 13 The applicant felt it would be more conducive to 14 getting a feel of the concept approval from the Planning and 15 Zoning Commission before he asked for the zone change to be 16 presented to the City Council . So it hasn' t been brought 17 before City Council yet . 18 As you are quite well aware , there ' s been quite .a bit 19 of community input on this proposal . There is one group of 20 neighborhood individuals who are very concerned about the 21 traffic, the impact of commercial uses on the area, and the 22 compatibility of the proposal with the neighborhood. 23 They have also stated that they don' t feel that this is 24 compatible with the comprehensive plan for the City of Las 25 Cruces . Staff has also heard some of the residents saying PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 32 1 that they are concerned about the development of this 2 property as apartments . When the staff analyzed this 3 proposal , we analyzed it against the comprehensive plan, the 4 impact on the neighborhood, the past policies of the City 5 and the Planning and Zoning Commission And at this time we 6 still feel that this proposal is not within the intent of 7 the comprehensive plan or the policies of the City and do 8 not feel that it meets the neighborhood commercial intent . 9 The uses are still too intensive, and we recommend that the 10 application not be approved 11 So if the Commission has any questions I will be happy 12 to answer them. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir. Any 14 questions for Mr . Weir from the Commission at this point? 15 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Yes , I have a 16 question . 17 Specifically, in what way does the staff feel that it 18 does not meet with the comprehensive plan? 19 MR. WEIR: Well , in the comprehensive plan, 20 there is a statement that there will be an emphasis to 21 encourage development of existing commercial property and 22 also to strengthen existing commercial areas . And in the 23 comprehensive plan they designate areas such as the downtown 24 mall area, that commercial area, the Telshor-Lohman area, 25 those general types of areas . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 33 1 The other thing that the staff looked at was we 2 recently completed a land use inventory for the City of Las 3 Cruces . And there are a considerable number of parcels 4 zoned C-2 that have not been developed yet. And the feeling 5 is that these parcels need to be developed before we create 6 other commercial areas within the City. 7 It' s always been an unwritten policy of the Planning 8 and Zoning Commission not to zone - - further strip zone El 9 Paseo. The previous Planning and Zoning Commission had made 10 a statement that Boutz Road would be as far south as 11 commercial development of E1 Paseo would be allowed. And 12 that' s also factored in to staff' s analysis of this case . 13 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: And I have one more . 14 Would you explain the infill policy? 15 MR. WEIR: Currently there is not an official 16 infill policy, but there has been emphasis provided to staff 17 through the City Council that infill will be encouraged. 18 And the main reason for that is to utilize existing paved 19 streets, utility hookups . There has also been a section 20 added to the subdivision regulations that will speed up the 21 approval process for subdivisions that were proposed within 22 the infill area for the subdivision code . That area has 23 been identified as University Avenue south to Valley Drive 24 and west to Hoagland, and Three Crosses/North Main to the 25 north. And it is I-25 to the east. And that area is PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 34 1 included in the subdivision code . Any subdivision that is 2 submitted within that area, the process is, I believe, about 3 a month faster than for a full subdivision. 4 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA What would be the 5 argument, then, against developing this area when you take 6 the infill policy into consideration? 7 MR. WEIR: The basis for that would be the 8 existing vacant commercial property that is already there . 9 There is property north of Boutz on E1 Paseo that is 10 currently vacant and this property should be developed 11 before additional commercial property is created. And there 12 should be a sense of strengthening existing commercial 13 areas . Along Solano Avenue is another commercial strip that 14 could be available for redevelopment, and the downtown mall 15 with uses in there , and the further development of vacant 16 parcels within the City 17 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I have no other 18 questions , Mr . Chairman. Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER LINARD. The comprehensive plan 20 also says no commercial development south of Boutz Road and 21 east of E1 Paseo on E1 Paseo, doesn' t it? 22 MR. WEIR: Yes 23 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Now, the question I 24 have is, we hear this 129 apartments thrown around all the 25 time for 4 . 2 acres . And I wonder if you have sat down with PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 35 1 a ruler and figured out how many apartments you could put on 2 4 . 2 acres and have the required parking spaces per 3 apartment? 4 Plus I believe , now, there is supposed to be 5 landscaping with apartments ; is that true? 6 MR WEIR: That is correct. The staff has 7 not sat down and done any computations as to how many 8 apartments could be approved on this lot, taking into 9 consideration the parking layout and the landscaping. That 10 would have to be provided for that type of development. 11 But 129 apartments is just a rule of thumb by saying 30 12 per acre , and we have four acres here . 13 COMMISSIONER LINARD: So you say 129 , but 14 that really doesn't catch it, does it? 15 MR. WEIR: That is just a quick figure . But 16 the density that it could be, that it has the possibility of 17 being developed to, is that number . 18 COMMISSIONER LINARD: That is if they built 19 underground parking or under-roof. 20 Thank you, that' s all the questions I have . 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments from the 22 Commission at this point in time? Questions for staff. 23 COMMISSIONER DAW: I had a question that I 24 guess I would like to direct to Mr . Krivokapich, if that 25 would be all right. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 36 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : If I may, we could probably 2 conduct those questions during the commissioner' s input. 3 At this particular point in time, if we don' t have any 4 further presentation from the staff, we will go ahead and 5 open it to public input. 6 At this point, is there anybody in the audience who 7 wishes to make comments or input in this particular case? 8 And we will have the three-minute rule for individuals 9 and the 15-minute rule for a group spokespersons . 10 MS . BENNETT: My name is Ruth Bennett, and I 11 live at 2000 Crescent Drive, and I am spokesperson for the 12 Crescent Park Area Residents Group. 13 I don' t plan to repeat everything that was discussed on 14 the August 18th workshop, because that workshop was taped 15 and I assume that tape will be available for those who would 16 like to refer to it. 17 The Crescent Park Area Residents Group has composed a 18 list of uses and some restrictions for the Crescent Center 19 PUD proposal we are addressing tonight. You should all have 20 a copy of that list. Most of the uses listed are from the 21 City' s 0-1 use list. The C-1 uses we did approve are 22 businesses that are basically limited to a specific use and 23 would be amenable to the 8 : 00 a.m. to 6 : 00 p.m. hour 24 restrictions . This list should not be taken as an 25 endorsement of the proposed PUD. It is merely presented as PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 37 1 this neighborhood' s alternative to the more abusive 2 considerations proposed. 3 Tonight I will be talking about the Zoning Code , the 4 Comprehensive Plan and PUD requirements . I would like to 5 refer to two paragraphs . First, from the Zoning Code , the 6 section entitled 6 . 4 , "Planned Unit Developments as a 7 Special Use , " and paragraph 6 . 4D, entitled "Business Planned 8 Unit Developments . " 9 "A business PUD may be allowed upon property 10 in districts designated 0-1, C-1 , C-2 and DM. A PUD in 11 any such business zoning district may include only 12 those uses which are permitted principal uses and 13 structures in any of the above-referenced districts 14 plus any type of residential use in the 0-1 , C-1 , C-2, 15 provided that no use involving outdoor storage of 16 inventory or wholesale uses shall be permitted where it 17 would not otherwise be permitted in the district in 18 which the PUD is located. In addtion to meeting 19 standards set forth in \ )ns for all 20 PUDs, a business PUD sl Ing minimum 21 standards . " 22 And I will address onl, of these 23 standards in a moment. We feel that the above paragraph is 24 vague and subject to misinterpretation if taken alone . We 25 do not feel the paragraph should ever be interpreted as PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 38 1 allowing essentially unlimited uses in other than the 2 underlying zone , as that would allow a PUD to override that 3 underlying zone . And we feel that would be counter to the 4 goals , policies and programs outlined in the Comprehensive 5 Plan. An amendment to this paragraph requiring strict 6 application to the comprehensive plan, Chapter 2 . 0 , Goal 3 , 7 Objective 1 , with policy 1 . 1 , would circumvent this problem. 8 It reads : 9 "The distribution of land uses should create 10 a pattern that encourages appropriate infill 11 development within the developed area of the City and 12 protects the integrity of existing land uses and 13 densities, while optimizing the use of existing utility 14 and transportation systems and avoids actions which 15 would increase existing storm drainage problems . In 16 all infill development, the City will seek 17 participation in the planning process by surrounding 18 landowners and residents and will stress compatibility 19 with and integration of adjacent and surrounding land 20 uses . " 21 We urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to propose 22 such an amendment to the Zoning Code , paragraph 6 . 4D. It 23 would avoid much of the difficulty you, as well as the 24 surrounding neighborhoods , have encountered in the last 25 months of negotiations, and it would avoid future abuse of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 39 1 the purpose of the PUD special use overlay. 2 Returning to certain of the minimum standards that are 3 addressed in 6 . 4D, it is written: 4 "A business PUD shall be separated from 5 adjacent residential areas by a heavily landscaped 6 buffer " 7 We do not feel that this requirement has been satisfied 8 under the concept submitted. We interpret "heavily" as a 9 buffer that would produce an opaque screening of the 10 buildings and parking lot from the backyards of nearby 11 residents facing this proposal . Present and future R-3 12 residential areas should also be considered. There is no 13 proposed buffer between this complex and the adjacent 14 church. There is no proposed buffer between this complex 15 and the existing park and wetland There is not an adequate 16 buffer between the Farney side of this complex and the 17 future townhouses on the south side of Farney: 18 "A business PUD shall provide a safe and 19 convenient pedestrian circulation. " 20 We feel that this proposed complex will pose a great 21 safety hazard to area children walking to and from the park, 22 swimming pool or tennis courts located behind this complex. 23 We have noted no easements to facilitate pedestrian 24 circulation around this site , although it is required that 25 the concept drawing show these easements . We , therefore, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 40 1 can only assume that this developer intends for the area 2 children to pass through the parking lot to reach the 3 Frenger Park facilities . We note here that this parking lot 4 will be in all probability crowded to inadequate , if the 5 requested square footages and uses of the buildings are 6 approved. 7 The next paragraph is not vague and not subject to 8 misinterpretation; in fact, it supports our interpretation 9 of 6 . 4D. Under 6 . 4F, Section 6 , Planning and Zoning 10 Commission Review and Approval , item E: 11 "A resolution granting final approval may be 12 adopted only if it includes the following findings : 13 1 . The proposed construction and use of the PUD 14 special use will not be detrimental to the general 15 welfare of the community or the adjacent neighborhood. " 16 In conversations with local real estate agents and 17 appraisers , we have received agreement that property values 18 are adversely affected around commercial areas because of 19 the increased noise , crime and greatly increased traffic on 20 surrounding streets . It was also noted that C-2 development 21 at this time could be considered a "risky proposition" 22 because of the lack of demand and that middle and upper 23 income apartments and townhouses are selling easily. So why 24 are we considering a C-2 PUD in an R-3/R-1 area, when there 25 is so much C-2 land lying vacant in areas where it is PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 41 1 approved and when this land has no problems under R-3? 2 "The PUD conforms to the general intent of 3 the zoning regulations . " 4 We feel that the express purpose of this business PUD 5 is to override the approved 0-1 zone Mr . Krivokapich 6 originally applied for C-2 , then C-1 commercial . The 7 application was turned down as inappropriate to the area, 8 but the allowed use list has never been altered to reflect 9 this denial . Instead, this developer has elected to retain 10 the denied C-1 and C-2 uses in the proposed PUD list. We 11 feel that this is an abuse of the PUD special use and cite 12 the many statements in the Zoning Code and Comprehensive 13 Plan which support our contention. In fact, from his latest 14 list, he has added uses thought totally incompatible with 15 the area by the City staff. 16 It should be noted that if the PUD as proposed is 17 passed tonight without appropriate written restrictions , 18 this developer ' s noncomplying use list, signage requests, 19 density requests and parking allowances, to name a few, will 20 be permanently pasted to this 0-1 zone . This PUD will allow 21 gross abuse to the Zoning Code as well as an overt 22 overriding of the intent and policies outlined in the 23 Comprehensive Plan. It will set a precedent that could 24 undermine the whole constructive purpose of the PUD overlay 25 That purpose being to allow flexibility within a zone so PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 42 1 that problem infill areas can be creatively developed. I 2 stress again, there is no place within the Zoning Code or 3 Comprehensive Plan that encourages the overriding of the 4 principal zone on which a PUD of any type is proposed. 5 To return to the minimum requirements of paragraph 6 6 . 4F . 7 "The use or uses proposed are appropriate to 8 the character of the neighborhood area in which the 9 project will be located. " 10 This area is surrounded on four sides by residential . 11 It is not a transition area, and the uses proposed are not 12 appropriate . 13 "That the development will not have a 14 substantial negative aesthetic effect on the locale of 15 the project; and finally, that the proposed uses will 16 not subject surrounding properties and pedestrians to 17 hazardous traffic conditions " 18 We feel this proposed PUD concept abrogates all of the 19 aforementioned conditions of paragraphs 6 . 4D and 6 . 4F, and 20 we repeat from 6 . 4F, "a resolution granting final approval 21 may be adopted only if it includes the findings we cited 22 above . " And there are other references to the Zoning Code , 23 Comprehensive Plan and ordinances that we could quote but 24 will only cite as follows : 25 From Ordinance No 1267 , Council Bill No. 92-028 , PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 43 1 Section 2-237 , "Criteria for Decisions , " especially (b) , 2 ( e ) , ( g) , (h) , ( i ) , ( j ) and ( k ) , which address traffic, 3 property value impairment, spot zoning, development in 4 accordance to neighborhood needs, convenience and safety, 5 proper land use, and directs the Commission to the 6 Comprehensive Plan as a guide and criteria for proper land 7 use . 8 We direct you to the Zoning Code, Section 6 . 1K, No. 1 , 9 Section 6 . 1L, No. 1 , Section 6 . 1M, No. 1 , which state the 10 purpose of the 0-1 , C-1 and C-2 zones; and Section 2 . 2 , 11 entitled "Zoning District Changes with Conditions, " 12 paragraph 2 . 2B, "Purpose and Intent. " After a comparison of 13 the purposes from the various zone classifications with 14 paragraph 2 . 2B, the incompatibility of this PUD proposal 15 with the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding neighborhood 16 should become apparent . 17 From the Comprehensive Plan, chapter 2 , entitled "Land 18 Use , " under "Background, " paragraphs 6 and 7 , "discourage 19 leapfrog development . " This land under consideration is 20 surrounded by R-1 and R-3 residential . Under Goal 1 , 21 Objective 2 , Policies 2 . 2 , low density or open space uses 22 are stressed for undeveloped land in the flood plain 23 district. 24 Goal 2 , Objective 1 , says The City will maintain and 25 improve existing residential neighborhoods . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 44 1 Goal 3 , Objective 2 , Program 2 . a, and also Goal 3 , 2 Objective 3 , policy 3 1 , limits leapfrog development and 3 directs infill development to be within the downtown area 4 and south of Boutz , west of El Paseo This will indeed be a 5 leapfrog development regardless of the uses chosen There 6 is not one boundary or portion of a boundary adjacent to a 7 commercial zone contrary to Goal 4 , Policy 2 2 . Also, we 8 note that this land is east of E1 Paseo. 9 We would like to point out again the warnings of the 10 City attorney and Ms . Rivera, who were in attendance at the 11 workshop on August 18 . If the PUD passes as presented 12 tonight with no written restrictions on the various uses and 13 other undesirable aspects, this parcel of land will carry 14 these provisions permanently under 0-1 . We feel it will 15 adversely affect not just the property values of hundreds of 16 adjacent residents , but also the quality of life this area 17 has offered over the years . 18 Considered in the context of the many provisions we 19 have cited and to which we have made reference , we believe 20 this commission should vote no to this abusive PUD concept 21 proposal . Thank you 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Anybody else from the 23 audience wish to make any comments regarding this case? 24 Any other comments . 25 MS . BENNETT: Gary is talking about a survey PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 46 1 them out registered and kept the receipts, but we didn' t 2 want to antagonize everybody on a particular survey by a 3 trip to their post office to pick up our survey. 4 COMMISSIONER DAW• One more question of the 5 spokesperson for the Crescent Park Area Residents Group. 6 How many members are there of the Crescent Park Area 7 Residents Group? 8 MS . BENNETT: Our group - - our newsletter is 9 250 people . We have proxy for about 160 . 10 COMMISSIONER DAW: That' s all . 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments from any 12 of the other commissioners? 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I noticed in the 14 concept approval process it says that we are supposed to 15 receive a statement of intent as to final ownership of the 16 project as well as a development schedule indicating the 17 beginning and ending of construction Have we received 18 anything like that? 19 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez , Commissioner 20 Willis, in the original concept documents that were provided 21 to you--it' s been three months now--there is a statement 22 addressing who has the legal ownership. And on the fifth 23 page of that document, it has a development schedule . This 24 would have to be revised because it' s been put off because 25 of the postponements; but there is a schedule as far as PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 i 45 1 Could we have a show of hands of the residents here who were 2 against this PUD? 3 And all of these people are from our area, our 4 neighbors from around this area. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Again, anybody else wish to 6 comment on this particular case? 7 Going once , twice . 8 Okay, we will close it to public participation and go 9 into commissioner input. 10 Folks, we are on. Any comments from the Commission? 11 COMMISSIONER DAW: Is this an appropriate 12 time to ask the question? 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : This is the appropriate 14 time , Commissioner Daw. 15 COMMISSIONER DAW: I wanted to ask Mr . 16 Krivokapich, I guess it is , who wrote the questions that 17 were on the questionnaire? And who did the survey? And who 18 did the analysis? 19 MR. GARY KRIVOPAKICH: On our survey, I wrote 20 the questions . I did all of it. 21 We did consider sending those registered, but I think 22 we would have antagonized everybody. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Excuse me, Mr . Krivokapich, 24 would you please get up to the microphone . 25 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: We would have sent PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 47 1 construction of the project And then on page six there is 2 a statement of final ownership. What the document states is 3 that the applicants plan to develop their property with a 4 limited partnership. They will develop their partnership 5 after the PUD and zoning change is approved. The applicants 6 plan on maintaining joint ownership of the property. They 7 are also planning on being managers of the center in all 8 respects . The business PUD will be filed within deed 9 restrictions of the property. That' s the statement they 10 have provided for final ownership. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : So with the exception 12 of maybe revising that construction schedule, all of the 13 written documents as well as the graphic documents have been 14 provided 15 MR WEIR: That is correct. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments? 17 I think one of the things that we should take into 18 consideration as a commission is that if this is going to be 19 approved, we have to consider the fact that there will be 20 some restrictions and definitions that have to be considered 21 based on what the applicant has submitted. 22 If there is anyone on the Commission that wants to 23 discuss the uses , you have to remember that this PUD, if 24 approved, would have to be conditioned to its use . So I am 25 putting it to the floor , if any commissioner wants to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 48 1 discuss those restrictions and definitions that the 2 applicant has proposed. 3 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, I would 4 like to ask Mr Gary Krivokapich some questions . 5 Now, I don' t know the size of this room, but I wonder 6 if you could tell me the size of this room? 7 MS . GARY KRIVOKAPICH: I am really not going 8 to get into negative fighting on these particular issues . 9 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, I have no 10 idea what he is talking about. I wanted to know if this 11 room is 2 , 000 square feet, 5, 000 square feet, or 12 , 000 12 square feet. And since he is an engineer, he should have 13 an - - 14 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: Well , I could go out 15 to my car and get my little wheel and measure it for you. 16 We could say it' s about 35 feet or 50 feet or maybe 17 even 365 feet . I can' t look at a room and tell . I don' t do 18 it that way. I take - - I measure around and measure the 19 room. I have got one in the car if you want me to go bring 20 it in. 21 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I don' t consider that a 22 negative question. Wouldn' t you say 8 , 000 square feet - - 23 3 , 000 square feet for a yogurt shop is a pretty good-sized 24 area for a yogurt shop. 25 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: A lot of those we tied PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 49 1 back down to the C-1 standards , which is 3 , 000 square feet. 2 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Thank you Another 3 question I would like to know is with the twelve foot square 4 feet cafeteria the number of cars park 5 particular one we pulled back down to 6 most of them are 12 , 000 square feet 7 MR GARY KRIVOKAPICH. 8 say if it was 12 , 000 square feet, it might seem that 9 somebody could go in there and put a 12 , 000 square feet 10 office . It' s one of the PUD uses we have in there . Let' s 11 say a doctor said he wanted to put a doctor ' s complex in 12 there . Well , I don' t really see a reason to limit a 13 particular doctor ' s complex, because that meets the 14 neighborhood needs on use . 15 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I feel sure there would 16 be a different requirement for parking spaces for a 17 cafeteria than there would be for a doctor ' s complex 18 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: That' s sort of the 19 tricky thing. When I originally did the original parking, I 20 think I had about 30 percent restaurant fill rate on that 21 particular parking. We 've got 212 spaces . If you put a 22 cafeteria in there at 12 , 000 square feet, you are probably 23 going to eliminate maybe a third of the building area of the 24 center . But we are only holding it to 7 , 500 . I would have 25 to sit down and do the calculations PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 50 1 COMMISSIONER LINARD. Well , I have no idea 2 how many square feet the cafeteria in the mall is , but I do 3 know how many parking spaces are filled. 4 MR GARY KRIVOKAPICH: The cafeteria I looked 5 at was a new Luby' s down in E1 Paso . So I measured that 6 particular cafeteria 7 COMMISSIONER LINARD. Not the one in the 8 mall? 9 MR GARY KRIVOKAPICH: No. 10 COMMISSIONER LINARD: And you said the urban 11 village concept was a tough thing to sell , to whom? 12 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: Well , I think there is 13 a lot of talk by staff--and you can see it in the 14 Comprehensive Plan--that they want to create this utopia of 15 no strip centers , when 99 percent of us drive cars and go to 16 strip centers to buy our groceries , for our health care , for 17 almost everything we don' t ride bikes . And in this case 18 when you do move toward that urban village type where they 19 can walk to it, you have got people up in arms ready to 20 shoot everybody. That' s what I am basically - - what I am 21 saying There is sort of a discrepancy. 22 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Well , I guess my idea 23 of urban village and yours are two different things . 24 I believe that' s all , Mr . Chairman. 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Thank you, Commissioner PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 51 1 Linard. Any other comments from the Commission? 2 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I just had a 3 clarification question here . 4 This chart that you provided for us with the uses that 5 you have here and the definition of these terms , is this 6 basically what you are proposing at this time, because the 7 original application was different from this? 8 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: Right. This is what 9 we are proposing. This is our final list that we have cut 10 down as far as we can cut down, and the restrictions that we 11 put on it. 12 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: And was this 13 basically the result of the meetings that we had with the 14 neighborhood? 15 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH: Yes, the restrictions 16 were put in there with the meetings with the neighborhood, 17 especially on the times . Our financial advisors said not to 18 put those on there , but we went ahead because the 19 neighborhood was very concerned about the times . 20 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Well , I recall some 21 of these restrictions because we had some discussions on the 22 operating hours and the sizes of some of the businesses . 23 And I do remember some of those conversations . 24 You know, we spent lots of hours with the neighborhood 25 out there, trying to understand what they wanted and trying PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 52 1 to work out a balance between the applicant and the 2 neighborhood. And perhaps if we could have had ten more 3 meetings, we might have been able to please everybody. And 4 I think there are advantages and disadvantages on both ends 5 of the R-3 versus the 0-1 PUD. And I noticed that each time 6 we met in the neighborhood workshops , sometimes our uses 7 would change , and the opinions in favor of it, of the 8 different uses, would change . And my understanding, then, 9 from the spokesperson for the Crescent Park Area Residents 10 Group, is that these uses that they have submitted on this 11 particular list are the latest recommendations; is that 12 correct? 13 MS . BENNETT: Yes . 14 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I have no other 15 questions . 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Any other comments? 17 COMMISSIONER DAW: I had another question, 18 probably for the chairman. If one approves the PUD and the 19 people asking for it suffered financial reversal or 20 something occurred, a hurricane came up here or whatever, 21 and they could not carry that out and sold the property, 22 would the restrictions of the PUD carry forward, or would 23 the zones carry forward, or would one start all over again? 24 I am going for specific clarification. 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : My answer would be yes , but PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 53 1 I am going to let staff answer on that. Mr . Weir . 2 MR WEIR: Chairman Perez , commission 3 members, what I am doing is going to refer to the section on 4 the special use permits , planned unit developments , and try 5 to get some clarification. 6 COMMISSIONER DAW: I can' t hear a word you 7 are saying. 8 MR. WEIR: What I am going to do is refer to 9 the section of the zoning code that deals with the special 10 use permits and planned unit developments . In the scenario 11 that you are you have drawn, are you saying that the 12 applicant gets approval , and it' s been built out, and there 13 is an existing center , or there' s been no development to 14 take place? 15 COMMISSIONER DAW: My question relates to, 16 nothing has occurred other than it was approved, and then 17 for whatever reason they can' t carry the plan out as 18 approved and sell the property. What are the consequences? 19 MR. WEIR: The stipulations of the code state 20 that they have a two-year period to develop the property 21 from the time of approval , and then that approval expires . 22 There is also a requirement on the conditional zoning of the 23 property that if it' s not developed within two years that it 24 will automatically revert to the R-3 zone . And so if no 25 development takes place per the approved plans , it would PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 54 1 revert back to the previous zoning. 2 If it was sold in the interim at that time - - what I 3 would like to do is check and see if there is anything that 4 addresses that as far as revisions to the document, if final 5 ownership would change that proposal . But off the top of my 6 head, I would say that if the approval was still in effect, 7 and they sold it to someone else , they would still have the 8 right to develop that per the approved plan. But I would 9 like to review that and check and see if that. is a valid 10 interpretation or or not . Will you give me a few minutes to 11 look through that section of the code? 12 COMMISSIONER DAW: Mr . Chairman, could I 13 follow on with that? 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Certainly. 15 COMMISSIONER DAW: You think the person who 16 bought the land would have the right to proceed on that 17 approval . Would he also have the obligation? , 18 MR. WEIR: I am not sure I understand the 19 question. 20 COMMISSIONER DAW: Would he be required to 21 conform with the rules that were put down? 22 MR. WEIR: He would surely have the right to 23 do it . 24 COMMISSIONER DAW: But could he say, Well , I 25 want to change that - - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 55 1 MR WEIR• Well , any changes that would be 2 made would have to come before this commission and be 3 approved, as far as the uses or the layout of the property 4 through the PUD process . And he can also have the option to 5 not develop it and allow it to expire and then go back to 6 the R-3 use of the property 7 MR. GARY KRIVOKAPICH• Can I say something 8 here? 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Let' s wait for a 10 clarification from Mr . Weir . 11 MR WEIR: What I was looking at was on the 12 zoning ordinance It' s page 6-78 . And it' s section 6 . 4F. 6 , 13 Section F . And it specifies amendments and revisions, as to 14 what are major changes and what are minor changes . Section 15 F doesn' t directly address the questions you are asking 16 about the sale of the property But if you look on down at 17 Section G on conditions , it says in the second sentence , 18 "The Planning and Zoning Commission may require any such 19 conditions to be included as a covenant or deed restriction 20 in any subsequent conveyance of the subject property. " So 21 you could make it a condition of approval that anybody who 22 purchases property is aware of the condition of the PUD and 23 what they are deeded with their deed restrictions . And 24 those are the requirements that they would have to follow to 25 develop the property PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 56 1 COMMISSIONER DAW. Thank you. 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : That' s the way that I 3 understood it and we have done it in the past. So that' s 4 why I was referring to the list that the applicant has 5 approved or has submitted. If we approve this PUD, we need 6 to define under which conditions it' s going to be 7 approved--which means consideration of both lists , meshing 8 both lists together, and going on and placing those 9 conditions . 10 If we act on it without those conditions, then it' s 11 open season so that the applicant can put whatever he wants 12 in there . And I don' t think we as a commission want that 13 particular situation to exist. So my question at this 14 particular point in time is , do you wish to consider the 15 list that have been submitted to us by the residents in 16 comparison to the list that has been submitted by the 17 applicant? 18 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Commissioner . 20 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I make a motion that we 21 deny the PUD. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We have a motion to deny the 23 PUD. Do I have a second? 24 COMMISSIONER LORD: Second. 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 57 1 Roll call . 2 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: No. 3 COMMISSIONER DAW: I am in favor of the 4 motion 5 COMMISSIONER LORD: I am also in favor of the 6 motion 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIS No . 8 COMMISSIONER LINARD: It' s my motion. I am 9 in favor of it . 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . And the chair votes not in 11 favor . 12 We are tied, the motion fails . We shall continue on 13 with discussion. The count was three to three . 14 ( The motion dies in a tie vote 3 to 3 . ) 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We are going to take a 16 shorts recess at this point in time . We are going to get a 17 clarification on this issue . 18 We think we know what has to be done, but we want the 19 staff to make sure , so we will take a short recess . 20 (A recess was held. ) 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We have had a clarification 22 from our legal staff, and it' s as I had called it 23 originally The motion failed, and we continue into 24 discussion. 25 Based on parlimentary procedures , we cannot bring PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 58 1 another main motion before the floor, so the only option 2 that we have at this particular point in time is to postpone 3 until a later date when we think we can bring another main 4 motion to the floor . 5 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Mr Chair, is this 6 based on the advice of legal counsel? 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : It is . 8 MR. SIMS : Yes, it is . 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So based on that, do I have 10 a motion to postpone for 30 days? 11 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Mr. Chairman, I move 12 to postpone this matter for a period of 30 days . 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do I have a second? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? All in favor. 16 All opposed? Motion carries . 17 ( The motion carried 5 to 0 , with one 18 abstention. Commissioner Linard did not 19 vote . ) 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Under subdivisions, our 21 first case is 592-014, a request for replat of the College 22 Mesa subdivision, replat number twelve . The property is 23 located on the northwest corner of Monte Vista Avenue and 24 Hagarty Road The plat contains plus or minus 1 . 568 a.cres 25 and has three lots Zoned R-3 , high density residential . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 59 1 Submitted by Williamson Construction, Incorporated, of 2 Alamogordo, New Mexico . 3 Is the applicant present? 4 MR GREINER: He is present, but he is making 5 a phone call . 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay. We will go ahead with 7 our staff presentation. 8 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez, Commission 9 members, this is a replat of lots that you've already noted 10 are at the corner of Monte Vista and Hagarty Road. They are 11 creating three lots . The application meets the requirements 12 of the zoning regulations and also the subdivision 13 regulation, and staff recommends approval of the replat. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir . 15 Is the applicant present for the case S92-014? Would 16 you care to make a presentation? 17 MR. PUTNAM No, thank you We will just 18 answer some questions if you have any. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. 20 At this point in time, then, we will open it to public 21 participation. Does anybody in the audience wish to make 22 any comments on this application? 23 Would you please come up to the podium and state your 24 name? 25 MS GOOD: My name is Emily Good, and I would PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 60 1 like to ask what the purpose of the division is? 2 MR. GREINER. Kerry Greiner , Diamondback Land 3 Surveying. Apartments . 4 MS . GOOD. But why three lots instead of one? 5 Is the purpose to sell the three as three separate lots , or 6 I just wondered what the purpose is? 7 MR GREINER. There is going to be - - yeah, 8 there are three separate complexes, I guess, is what you 9 would call them. They need to be separated. 10 MS . GOOD: To sell them? 11 MR. GREINER: They are not going to sell 12 them. The developer needed them in three lots , I would 13 imagine , for financing. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Does that answer your 15 question? 16 MS . GOOD: No, not really. But I guess , 17 okay. 18 MR. GREINER: They are not for sale, I can 19 tell you that. 20 MS . GOOD: Who are the developers? I don' t 21 quite see the purpose of doing that. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We will probably be asking 23 some more questions along those lines in commissioner input, 24 and we might be able to clarify that point for you. 25 Anybody else in the audience wish to make any comments PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 61 1 regarding this application, S92-014? Going once, twice . We 2 will close it and go on to commissioner input . Anybody on 3 the Commission wish to make any comments on this 4 application? 5 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, I have 6 the same question I have looked at the property, and it' s 7 all in one nice chunk there on the corner . Why would 8 somebody wish to subdivide it, unless they plan to sell 9 three different lots . 10 MR. PUTNAM: Commissioner , my name is Jim 11 Putnam. The reason for the three-part subdivision, is that 12 we are each buying one of the parts , the larger part if you 13 look at the drawing there . The two other parts, there is 14 another builder that is buying that. And he already has 15 land adjacent. So that rather than buying it as a whole, 16 either one of us, we had to subdivide it so we could 17 purchase our portion, and he could purchase his . Neither of 18 us wanted to go all the number of units financially; so, 19 therefore, he wanted to do his half and we wanted to do 20 ours . That' s why the subdivision. 21 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, I would 22 also like, since this seems to be a construction company and 23 a surveying company--and I have nothing in my packet that 24 says who is making application for this, who the owner is or 25 anything--I take it you both are not owners . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 62 1 MR. PUTNAM: No. 2 COMMISSIONER LINARD: But you are acting on 3 behalf of the owner . 4 MR. PUTNAM: That is correct, they are out of 5 town, the owner who owns the whole parcel now. 6 No, I don' t own it now, but we are purchasing it. The 7 present owner is the one who is subdividing to sell it to us 8 and to X other people . He has to do that to get the 9 financial commitment . Without the subdivision, neither I 10 nor the company I represent could buy it from the owner, and 11 we wouldn' t buy it in its entirety. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments from the 13 Commission, or questions? 14 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: For staff. The City 15 has recommended approval , and it states that it meets the 16 minimum requirements of the Subdivision Code and Zoning 17 Code . And this is with this particular plat that' s up there 18 on the overhead. 19 MR. WEIR: That is the plat that was reviewed 20 by staff. What we do during our review, we review it 21 against the requirements for final plat and replat approval 22 within the City limits . And all that information has been 23 provided on this plat. 24 We also review it against the Zoning Code . And what we 25 look at from there is does it meet the minimum area PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 63 1 required? Does it have the frontage requirements, the depth 2 requirements? Does it have legal access? Those types of 3 situations And Hagarty and Monte Vista are both developed 4 side streets to city standards . The lots all conform and 5 all information required of the subdivision code has been 6 provided; therefore , we have recommended approval of the 7 subdivision. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I have one question and that 9 is just for the purpose of making sure that the application 10 isn' t jeopardized. You said that you weren' t the owner 11 currently? 12 MR. PUTNAM: Correct . 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : You' re purchasing this 14 subject to the zone - - I mean to the subdivision? 15 Because we have been through this before, are you 16 designated as the agent for this application? 17 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA. Are you authorized to 18 act for the owners? 19 MR. PUTNAM: Yes . Yes . 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Staff, have you verified 21 that to make sure that the application isn' t going to be 22 jeopardized? 23 MR. WEIR: What we would do, the surveyor is 24 Diamondback Land Surveying, and Kerry Greiner is the 25 gentleman who spoke earlier . And he spoke earlier to the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 64 1 review of the plat . The owner of the property has to sign 2 the final subdivision plat and that is reviewed by staff, 3 and I don' t know if you can see it or not . But there is an 4 instrument of ownership noted on the plat. And it is a 5 warranty deed with book and page . That information has been 6 provided and has been verified by staff So this 7 subdivision will be signed by the current property owner , 8 and it also has a notary on there stating that that is the 9 person who is signing, the guy who is the property owner . 10 That information is provided in this area right here . 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Who is the current property 12 owner? 13 MR. WEIR: Williamson Construction, 14 Incorporated. And this is their instrument of ownership, 15 that they are the owners of that . That has been verified by 16 staff. 17 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA• Mr . Chair, I move 18 approval of case 592-014 . 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We have a motion for 20 approval . Do I have a second? 21 COMMISSIONER DAW: Second. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? Roll call . 23 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Aye . 24 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 25 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 65 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . 2 COMMISSIONER LINARD: No. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Chair votes aye Motion 4 passes passes 5 to 1 . 5 ( The motion carried 5 to 1 . ) 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Case 592-008 . A request for 7 final plat approval of Homestead Acres No 9 . The property 8 is located on the northeast corner of Jefferson Lane and 9 Wilt Avenue . The plat contains plus or minus 1 . 823 and two 10 lots . Zoned REM (mobile residential estates, mobile 11 district ) . Submitted by Mr . Chester Gregory 12 May I have a motion for consideration of case S92-008? 13 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Mr . Chair , I move 14 consideration of case S92-008 . 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Do we have a second? 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Is the applicant present, or 18 his representative? 19 MR SCANLON. Yes, sir . I am Ted Scanlon, 20 and I represent the applicant in this case . 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would you care to make a 22 presentation of this case? 23 MR. SCANLON: Yes . 24 This action was precipitated by the desire of Mr 25 Gregory, who is deceased, by the way, and Ms Gregory, who PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 66 1 is the landowner now, by her desire to convey ownership of 2 lot one , as you see on this subdivision plat, as a gift to 3 the Mesilla Valley Radio Club. 4 And in making that conveyance , the law requires a 5 subdivision plat to be done so title can be transferred I 6 would like to point out that neither Ms Gregory nor any 7 members of the Mesilla Valley Radio Club are the recipients 8 or retainers or retain the ownership out here in any way 9 like land developers , professional realtors , builders or 10 anything like that. They are just trying to make a gift of 11 this property to the radio club 12 It' s my understanding at the present time that the 13 radio club doesn' t have any impending plans to do anything 14 with the property except own it for a while And they don' t 15 intended to further subdivide it or anything like that . 16 When I first prepared the plat, there were a couple of 17 issues that were raised in the staff report that you have . 18 One being a requested variance to the street improvements . 19 The reason that that variance was requested was 20 basically - - there were two reasons for that. Under the 21 current method of doing that in a case like this , it doesn' t 22 work for two reasons . Number one , construction of a piece 23 of street here . And here, without the benefit of having 24 connecting streets here and here built at this time , it 25 would cause the roadways to` deteriorate . It would cause PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 67 1 disruption in the natural drainage pattern out there . And 2 it would cause maintenance problems for the City. And for 3 both of those reasons, it really doesn' t make much sense to 4 go in here and construct street improvements when there are 5 not any streets or no other construction from that. It' s 6 just a waste of time and money. Really, the other options 7 in that regard is the payment of a fee for road improvements 8 and the payment of a fee now for road improvements . 9 For the City to demand payment now and hold that money 10 and have the benefit of holding that money for a period of 11 time with no guarantee to the owners when those street 12 improvements would ever be constructed, if ever, is at best 13 inequitable and probably illegal . So we have another option 14 that we can look at in that regard. 15 And I know that there have been several cases very, 16 very similar to this that have been approved by your 17 Commission in recent months . Typically in lot splits like 18 this, in lieu of the required improvements, in lieu of the 19 requested development fee, we would ask that approval of 20 this subdivision be conditioned on - - we will supply to 21 planning staff of the City of Las Cruces a statement either 22 on the plat or by a separate instrument stating that when 23 and if ever a paving assessment district is requested in 24 this area for the improvement of streets , we will not oppose 25 it in any way, and that we would become participatory PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 68 1 members as required. It would not be opposed by these 2 owners , and I know that type of subdivision has been 3 approved in the past that way. And that' s the method we 4 would like to take , to condition the approval of that 5 subdivision in that way. 6 The other concern that was brought up by staff was this 7 40-foot-wide private road and utility easement that I am 8 pointing to here . In my zeal to sometime - - sometimes I am 9 somewhat zealous in trying to protect people' s property 10 rights to the fullest extent. This property and this 11 property were acquired by the Gregorys by separate 12 instruments , which left a division line here . It was my 13 intent to leave that division line in so that if there was 14 ever a desire for them to sell this piece of property back 15 here, they could do that without having to go through all 16 the subdivision process and all that . They could just do 17 it . 18 Ms . Gregory was here until just a few moments ago . She 19 is quite elderly and was feeling tired and so she went home. 20 She tells me she doesn' t have any desire to sell that. So 21 what we will do, we can do in light of that, is to eliminate 22 this easement completely and just combine it into one piece 23 of property which is contiguous ownership, thereby 24 eliminating that line Then this lot has full legal 25 frontage there and this lot has its frontage there, and we PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 69 1 don' t have any more need for that access easement. So we 2 can eliminate that. So I would request The Commission to 3 condition the approval on the two things--the one thing that 4 I said about the roadway improvements , that we will supply a 5 letter stating that we will not oppose the pavement and 6 assessment district in the future , or put a note on the 7 plat--however , the staff would prefer that it be handled in 8 that record--and take out that lot line and make that lot a 9 contiguous parcel , and eliminate that easement. 10 I would be happy to answer any questions . 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Scanlon. We 12 will go into staff input now. 13 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez , commission 14 members, the proposal as amended by Ted Scanlon for the 15 property owner would be in conformance with the Sudivision 16 Code for the City. And it would also eliminate the variance 17 request for access for the - - from the 30-foot easement . 18 In actuality, it would also not increase the impact of 19 that area, potential impact on the streets in that area 20 because initially Ms . Gregory owned two separate parcels. 21 And by combining this parcel into one and just creating this 22 one rather than one lot here and one large lot in this area, 23 there is not a potential third lot being created and 24 additional traffic on Jefferson and Wilt Road. Therefore, 25 staff would recommend approval of the subdivision and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 70 1 variance to read improvements based on the facts and the 2 conditions requested by Mr . Scanlon. 3 The only other thing that the Commission would need to 4 do is condition approval upon final staff approval of the 5 plat, because he would be required to amend his boundaries 6 on the survey and to include that parcel , the northern 7 parcel , into one And that would have to go through review 8 by staff and to check to make sure any notes have not been 9 provided on the plat. 10 MR SCANLON. I would have no objection to 11 that condition either . 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay. Any input or comments 13 regarding case 592-008 from the audience? Going once, 14 twice We will close it and go into commissioner input. 15 Do the commissioners have any comments or questions 16 regarding this application? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I had one question, Mr . 18 Chairman, for Mr . Scanlon. And I guess I wasn' t sure about 19 the use of this , what they are going to do on that. 20 MR. SCANLON: They don' t really have any 21 plans to construct anything on it right now. As I stated, 22 Ms . Gregory had indicated her desire to make the gift to the 23 radio club. And there are no impending plans for them to 24 construct anything on it at the present time . 25 COMMISSIONER DAW: I intend to not vote on PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 71 1 this matter since I am a member of that club, but I think 2 that one ought to ask a member of the club to say a little 3 bit about the community service it renders and what it does . 4 That' s just for propaganda purposes 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • At this point, do you wish 6 to recognize someone from the audience? You are certainly 7 welcome 8 COMMISSIONER DAW: Mr . Block in the back 9 might say a word about that . 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would you please come up to 11 the podium and state your name . 12 MR. BLOCK: I speak quite loudly, but I ' ll 13 come up. 14 My name is Arthur Block . I am treasurer of the Mesilla 15 Valley Radio Club. And it' s a pleasure to appear here . The 16 Mesilla Valley Radio Club is a group of volunteer folks , who 17 have - - most of us have a long-term interest in radio We 18 do communications for our enlightment, and we do it as a 19 public service . I was awakened last night about 11 : 30 with 20 a phone call from a local who had gotten my phone number . 21 He had relatives in the Bahamas , and they were unable to 22 contact them. So I was kind of an intermediary in that . 23 I didn' t do it, but one of our members took it and 24 probably worked much of the night getting some kind of 25 report back from the Bahamas on these folks We do all PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 72 1 kinds of services , and we enjoy doing them. We provide 2 communications For example , when there are street races , 3 in case there is ever any problem with the bicycle races , or 4 the run through the pass up here , we post people along the 5 way with handie-talkies , and that' s what we do . We are 6 volunteers , and we enjoy what we are doing We do hope 7 eventually to answer the questions that Mr . Scanlon answered 8 for us . We do hope eventually to establish some kind of a 9 building facility there where we could hold our club 10 meetings once a month and operate our club station from 11 there . 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other questions from the 13 Commission? 14 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, I can 15 tell the gentleman that I have been a recipient of a radio 16 person' s good will when my brother was wounded in Korea, and 17 all I knew was that he had been seriously wounded. But I 18 found out through the benefit of radio people that he was 19 still alive . So I know it does a lot of good things . Thank 20 you. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other input from the 22 Commission? 23 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Mr . Chair, I would 24 move for approval of case 592-008 with the conditions that, 25 if I understand the applicant right, if pavement assessments PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 73 1 are requested they would not oppose it, and with the 2 condition that the City staff would approve the final plat 3 as amended 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Okay, and you are simply 5 amending the application to read that it will be replatted, 6 taking out that line dividing those two lots , taking out 7 this one partition and eliminating that easement? 8 MR. SCANLON: Yes . 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So then Commissioner 10 Ferreira ' s motion is accurate ; is that correct? 11 MR. SCANLON Correct. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we need a second? 13 COMMISSIONER LINARD. Second. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : we will go into roll call 15 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Aye . 16 COMMISSIONER DAW: Abstain 17 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye 18 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The chairman votes aye . 21 ( The motion carried 5 to 0 with one 22 abstention. ) 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Case 592-020 , a request for 24 plat amendment approval of the Villa Alameda No . 1 25 Subdivision, Replat No. 2 The property is located on the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 74 1 northeast corner of U S . Highway 70 (Main Street) and Las 2 Alamedas Boulevard The plat contains plus or minus 2 . 7394 3 acres and three lots Zoned C-2 , general commercial . The 4 applicants are requesting to vacate a 30-foot private road 5 easement which is adjacent to and north of U. S . 70/North 6 Main Street right-of-way. Submitted by Mr . Frank Gutierrez , 7 Ms . Kathleen M. Gutierrez , and Mr . William E. Bullock. 8 May I have a motion to approve case S92-020? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I move that we approve 10 case S92-020 . 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second? 12 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have the applicant 14 here? 15 MR. BULLOCK: Yes , sir . 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Would you care to make a 17 presentation at this point? 18 MR. BULLOCK: Certainly. Was that a motion 19 to approve? 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Yes, sir. 21 MR. BULLOCK: Yes , sir, I sure would. 22 What currently exists along Highway 70 right now is a 23 27-foot wide road easement that goes from this area here 24 down this way and into a 30-foot easement, private-road 25 easement that goes this way. The properties are owned by PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 75 1 myself - - and I have some partners in this particular 2 property. What we are wishing to do, since this road serves 3 no one ' s property, is to vacate our private-road easement. 4 We put that private road easement in replat number one in 5 the beginning because we thought we were going to divide 6 this property and sell it off As it looks right now, we 7 are going to have to go ahead and do a joint venture and 8 build on that property; therefore , we can create our own 9 easement for that property. Of course , we do have Highway 10 70 frontage here And we have been granted egress from the 11 Highway Department and the City of Las Cruces on replat 12 number one , which is not changing. The only change to this 13 plat is the vacation of the 30-foot and 27-foot private road 14 easement. We are still maintaining a twelve-foot utility 15 easement that we are not trying to take away. Actually, 16 there was a ten-foot existing easement that belonged to U. S . 17 West, and we have increased that to 20 feet to accommodate 18 the City. And I guess that' s it. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We will not go into staff 20 input. 21 MR. WEIR: Mr . Chairman, commission members , 22 as Mr . Bullock has already stated, this request is just to 23 vacate a private road easement that' s platted on this 24 subdivision. Staff at this time does not recommend approval 25 of this vacation And the basis for that is that the road PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 76 1 easement is adjacent to U. S . 70 . And our basis for that is 2 that the U. S . 70 frontage road study calls out for a 50-foot 3 right-of-way on the north side of U.S . 70 . And we feel that 4 this right-of-way easement should remain on the property 5 rather than having to go back at a later date and create - - 6 to get an additional 50 feet. 7 As it stands now, we would only need to acquire another 8 20 feet and, therefore , we are not recommending approval . 9 And in your packet information, there' s a typographical 10 error . The recommendation should have been denial from 11 staff. 12 If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer 13 them. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any questions for Mr . Weir 15 at this point? 16 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA. I have a question 17 On this frontage road, is there a time frame as to - - when 18 is this coming? The frontage road study has a 20-year time 19 frame for development of it. What date do you see this 20 coming? 21 MR. WEIR: It' s taking place - - I think it 22 was finally adopted by the MPO within the last two years . 23 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So we have got about 24 18 more years we are looking at, if not longer? 25 MR. WEIR: Yes . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 77 1 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA• The second question 2 is , on the handouts to us it says that the easement, the 3 access via U. S . 70 , will require a permit from the New 4 Mexico Highway Department . At the time of these packets, 5 you had not received any comments on the proposal from them? 6 MR WEIR: We still have not . 7 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Is there a permit at 8 this time , or is that still in the process? 9 MR. WEIR: We still have not received any 10 word from the Highway Department. The way that generally 11 works is that the property owner submits a request for 12 direct access to the highway, then the State Highway 13 Department grants that permit. 14 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: And because this is a 15 state highway, the City has no control over that; is that 16 correct? 17 MR. WEIR: Yes What the City does in those 18 cases , they ask for approval from the state and then they 19 review it from their policies . And there are curb cut 20 policies and seeing where other roads are tying into 70 . 21 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: And the applicant, 22 you were indicating that you at one time had subdivided this 23 for different uses , but now you want to use the entire 24 parcel in a joint venture of some sort? 25 MR. BULLOCK: That is correct. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 78 1 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So that would 2 eliminate those lines that we see in the middle? 3 MR. BULLOCK No . It seems to me that they 4 can be set up as condominium units . We have Discovery day 5 care right on the back piece has acquired some other 6 properties in the City, and their thinking was , if we can 7 build some type of center there for common use , we can 8 create the easement, needless to say, between us, necessary 9 for any utilities and/or access . 10 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So it would not 11 eliminate any lines? 12 MR. BULLOCK• No . 13 I would also like to address, since you brought up the 14 question, if I can, the City concerns about widening Highway 15 70 . I am a New Mexico native . I have heard this being 16 talked about for 20 years , and probably will for another 20 17 years . I do have a report here , and I also have had Ronald 18 Fletcher from the State of New Mexico, Hugh Perry from the 19 State of New Mexico Highway and Transportation Department, 20 and several other individuals fly down to meet with Mr . 21 Gutierrez and I . 22 I have letters here addressed from them saying, "Thank 23 you for your letter . While empathizing with your concerns , 24 the department is not presently in the position to acquire 25 your property, nor do we have any plans for its proposed PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 79 1 acquisition from 1992 through 2007 . A lack of funding 2 dictates that any advance acquisition will not take place at 3 at this point in time " 4 I am paying $2 , 000 a month in acquiring this property 5 currently. I would like to be a good Samaritan and carry 6 this for the City for another 20 years , but $2 , 000 a month 7 for 20 years is quite a heavy obligation. If the State is 8 successful in keeping this easement or extending it an 9 additional 20 feet , I think you will recognize that both of 10 these building sites are useless . 11 When I met with the Commission here and presented my 12 case on April 15th, 1990 , it was a public hearing. Edward 13 F. Southward was in here and Ricardo Sanchez was also here . 14 I addressed this situation and said I would be happy to sell 15 this property to the City of Las Cruces at this time for 16 what we owe against it . I was told, "We do not have the 17 funds to do that " 18 The State says , "We do not have the funds to do that. " 19 The Feds do not have the funds to do that There are no 20 funds to acquire that property. If that 50-foot building 21 setback were initiated, that would kill us . 22 Now, the City will have other opportunities to condemn 23 the property and buy it; however, I am 40 years old, and I 24 don' t know what I will be like when I am 60 , if I will still 25 be alive , and if I can have that property acquired at that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 80 1 time . But I think it would be a little bit remiss in 2 thinking that the State or the Federal government are going 3 to come in and buy that property and help me out right now. 4 In the meantime , I still have an obligation, 5 financially; and I also have a right to maintain and to 6 build on my property zoned C-2 and currently meeting 7 setbacks that the State does require . We are addressing 8 those, and have met that design. The only thing we are 9 doing is eliminating an easement that we created for our own 10 use , not really for the City' s use . 11 At this time , if the State would like to buy that 12 parcel , I am open to you, saying I am willing to sell at any 13 given time . Or if staff can come up with the money, let' s 14 do it. I am ready. 15 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: How much do you want? 16 MR. BULLOCK: We paid $2 . 75 a square foot, 17 and we will take three . 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: This proposed 50-foot 19 additional right-of-way, then, is really kind of way in the 20 future at this point? 21 MR. WEIR: It' s for frontage roads to augment 22 the traffic system in that area. 23 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Okay, that answers my 24 questions . 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Any more questions of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 81 1 staff? 2 COMMISSIONER DAW: Mr . Chairman, I wanted to 3 ask about, if you take that easement along Highway 70 and 4 you cross their back property line , does the easement 5 continue to go? Do you follow what I am talking about? 6 MR. WEIR: You are talking about in this 7 area? 8 COMMISSIONER DAW: No, I am really talking 9 about that area on across the back there . 10 MR. WEIR: I am not aware of what the plats 11 for that area show, but I would say that there is probably 12 not an easement on that property at this time . 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any more questions of the 14 staff? 15 Okay. If not, we will close it and open it to public 16 participation. Would you please come up to the mike and 17 state your name , please? 18 MS NOLEN: I am Lewcile Nolan, and I live in 19 Jornada subdivision Sometime back there was a discussion 20 about access roads on Highway 70 . And our subdivision 21 borders Highway 70 And the reason it was decided that I 22 had to put it or have it on the north side in particular was 23 because of the utilities on the south side . And the 24 developer and other property owners, I can' t say all of 25 them, but I know some of them, have already set aside that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 82 1 property so that that access road is available when the time 2 comes . And with Onate school going in there so near by, I 3 think it ' s very important that we reserve those areas to 4 take some of that traffic off of Highway 70 . So I would 5 suggest that you look at that very carefully before you vote 6 on that particular issue . 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Thank you. Anybody else 8 from the public for public participation. 9 Okay, we will close it and go on to commissioner input. 10 And I would like to - - I remember this particular 11 application way back in 1990 . And the reason there was an 12 easement there was for a deceleration lane . 13 Mr. Bullock, if you' re going into your property off of 14 Highway 70 , would you propose to go into that into those two 15 parcels of land? 16 MR. BULLOCK. Thank you for asking that . It 17 was not a deceleration lane at all , sir . What this easement 18 was set up to do was - - there is a cut that was on replat 19 number one in here . And what we had to do was cross from 20 the highway. There is a margin in there . I can't give you 21 the dimensions of the margin, but it had to be at an angle 22 rather than a straight in cut. But there was no 23 deceleration lane set up on the easement at all . 24 I do have the original replat if you would like t.o see 25 it. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 83 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I seem to remember that was 2 a lot of discussion on it . Over here there was a big 3 drop-off on the Las Alamedas Boulevard. And I remember that 4 the commissioners , the other commissioners , had a concern 5 about access into those properties coming off of Highway 70 6 without a deceleration lane . And that rings a bell to me . 7 MR. BULLOCK: It was on the other side . It 8 was on this side . There is - - a stacking lane was asked to 9 be put up on this side when we came off - - came off the 10 property to be able to move in here without blocking Las 11 Alamedas . It didn' t deal with this at all . Again, I have 12 the replat if you would like to view it. But the 13 deceleration lane was actually set up as a stacking lane 14 back up in here so people , when they piled up, you wouldn' t 15 corner them right here at the corner of Las Alamedas and 70 . 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Well , I would have to go 17 back and look , but I remember that was a great issue , and 18 that we discussed it quite at length. And it revolved 19 around a deceleration lane for that area. At least that' s 20 what I remember . 21 Any other comments or input from the Commission. 22 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I have a question for 23 staff on this . If we were to approve the elimination of the 24 30-foot easement, this private road, and then the City came 25 in and needed the 50-foot easement for the frontage road, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 84 1 could it then go in there and do what it needed to do to 2 make use of that? 3 MR. WEIR The City would have to go through 4 a condemnation process or ask the current property owners if 5 they would dedicate that to the City for that purpose And 6 it would have to be addressed at the time the project was 7 being proposed 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments or input 9 from the Commission? 10 If not, we will go ahead. And are we ready to vote? 11 COMMISSIONER DAW: I ' ll call the question. 12 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Is this a motion for 13 denial or approval? 14 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would move to approve . 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do I have a second? 16 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? Roll call . 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Aye . 19 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 20 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . 22 COMMISSIONER LINARD: No. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The chair votes aye . 24 The motion passes . 25 ( The motion carried 5 to 1 . ) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 85 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, the next case is 2 592-019 . A request for final plat approval of Esperanza 3 subdivision. The property is located on the northwest 4 corner of Esperanza Streeet and Utah Street . The plat 5 contains plus o Stc��� and 12 residential lots . 6 Zoned R-2 (medi bmitted by Skyline 7 Engineers for T g Corporation. 8 So moved. 9 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present? 11 Would you care to make a presentation? Please , state 12 your name? 13 MR. KING: My name is Ron King with Skyline 14 Engineering, and I would like to explain the project a 15 little bit. Tierra del Sol had a contract with the City to 16 supply 31 affordable housing units in the infill areas 17 throughout the city, as defined by the City, and the 18 Nehemiah Project up on Hernandez was one of them. It was 19 ten lots . 20 This is the second project we are trying to get 21 approved, which is 12 lots . It' s a townhouse project. It' s 22 duplexes, two stories , about 1100 square feet per house and 23 it' s a HUD approved project. And we are here to answer any 24 other questions that ya' ll may have . 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. We will go on to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 86 1 staff input . 2 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez , commission 3 members , there is an infill subdivision that went through 4 the infill process of the City Subdivision Code . At first 5 they submitted a concept plan which was reviewed by a 6 development review committee , which approved at that time a 7 variance request. It was evaluated by the review committee 8 to allow the storm water from this area to drain into a city 9 storage pond. 10 In your packet there was a memo from Dave Church for 11 the engineering department that said the City has no problem 12 with that. Then the initial plat was submitted and again it 13 was reviewed by the development review committee . And they 14 are recommending approval of the subdivision and of the 15 variance request . And therefore , staff recommends approval 16 of this subdivision 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any questions from staff or 18 from the commissioners at this point? 19 If not we will go into public participation. Anybody 20 in the audience wish to address case S92-019? 21 MR. ARAGON: My name is Eric Aragon. I am 22 representing my father Nick Aragon, Frank Mancha, Felix 23 Mancha and Arturo Jimenez . They are all neighbors who live 24 adjacent to the property. The first question I have is, I 25 am noticing that we all got a letter last week for a final PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 87 1 plat approval . And I was wondering, is that a standard 2 procedure? Should we have gotten a notice or a letter from 3 somebody about this a long time ago so that the neighborhood 4 could have gotten together to look into this? It seems it' s 5 going to happen, and from the people that I have talked to, 6 nobody was notified about anything until like Thursday or 7 Friday of last week when they got their letters . And lot of 8 people didn' t show up. I know a number of people that did 9 receive letters , but there are like four of us here . And I 10 was kinds of requesting that this be denied for maybe 30 11 days or postponed so that the neighborhood could get in and 12 take a better look at what' s going to happen, because with 13 the housing that' s coming, I think it may devalue my 14 parents ' property, and the other people ' s property that is 15 adjacent And you know it' s a big decision for the 16 neighborhood as well as the people in front of me . And I 17 just request that we get these 30 days so that I can sit 18 down with the people in the neighborhood and notify them of 19 what' s going to happen, because I know that Tierra del Sol , 20 it' s more or less low-income housing, from what I 21 understand. And I don' t think this final plat approval 22 should be approved. That' s all I have . Thank you. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Mr . Weir , can you answer 24 some of those questions? 25 MR. WEIR: Yes . This is considered an PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 88 1 infill subdivision so the way the code has been written, 2 they can submit a conceptual plan instead of a preliminary 3 plat, and that is reviewed by staff and the development 4 review committee . And then once that' s approved by the 5 staff, it will go into the final plat approval . 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • So is this the standard 7 procedure for approval of a subdivision of this type? 8 MR. WEIR: Yes . And as far as the question 9 on public notification, the subdivision code also addresses 10 that. And it has requirements that three types of 11 notification takes place . One is that the case be 12 advertised in a newspaper, local circulation, nine days 13 prior to the board meeting, and that form of notification 14 took place . 15 The second form is that all property owners within 200 16 feet of the site be sent letters . As the spokesperson just 17 identified, again, these are sent out nine days prior to the 18 Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. 19 The third form of public notification is the posting of 20 a sign on the site of the proposal . And that was also done . 21 And that gives the adjacent property owners an opportunity 22 to make comments on the proposal So all of those items 23 have conformed with the requirements of the Sudivision Code 24 for the approval of a subdivision and the approval of an 25 infill subdivision, also . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 89 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would you please come up to 2 the podium, please? Please state your name . 3 MR. MANCHA: My name is Ruben Mancha. I live 4 adjacent to this property here , and I did not read none of 5 this in the newspaper . And there is no sign on this 6 property stating that' s it' s going to be developed into 7 this . 8 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Sir, when did you 9 receive your notice in the mail? 10 MR. MANCHA: Last week . 11 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: What day? 12 MR. MANCHA: Thursday. I am a student at 13 NMSU, and I am working on a business major . And I haven' t 14 had too much opportunity to look into this . I thought there 15 was more than to it than just to hand a final notice to us , 16 to the adjacent landowners . 17 As far as I am concerned, there were only several of 18 these letters passed out, obviously, because there are only 19 four owners here . I would like to know how many letters 20 were sent out. 21 MR. WEIR: I don' t have a figure on the exact 22 number, but the code requires a minimum of 15 certified 23 letters be sent out to the adjacent property owners . 24 MR ARAGON: Well , in light of this, I ask 25 for a 30-day postponement. If you don' t have the accurate PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 90 1 number of letters that were sent out. As far as I am 2 concerned, only four people received these letters . 3 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I have a question on 4 the notice requirements . 5 These options that you were outlining on notice, is 6 this an and or an or? 7 MR. WEIR: All three must be done . 8 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Okay. And the 9 notices were appropriately posted? 10 MR. WEIR: A minimum of 15 letters were sent 11 out. And it was advertised correctly. And a sign was 12 posted on the site nine days prior to the meeting. 13 What happens oftentimes is that the wind blows the sign 14 down. And if staff doesn' t go by the property or no one 15 informs them, the sign does not get posted again. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I pass by this property 17 every day, and I have never seen such a sign. 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I was just going to 19 say, if you received this letter last Thursday, which would 20 have been August 20 , and today was the 25th, that' s about 21 five days ago. That means it would have been mailed four 22 days before . Which means it would have taken four days to 23 get from Las Cruces to Las Cruces . 24 MR. ARAGON: Well , we only received the 25 yellow tag in our mailbox on Thursday, or whenever . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 91 1 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Okay. 2 MR. ARAGON: Because the letter is dated 3 August 12th, but we never seen this . We never seen this 4 letter on August 12th. We never seen this letter before - - 5 Well , we feel we should have been given further notice, 6 you know, as far as letters and such, because this is a big 7 step. You know, it can drop the value of our property down. 8 It could bring crime into our neighborhood, because it' s a 9 low-income development. Only somebody who lives next door 10 to it is going to understand. 11 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Low income doesn' t 12 always mean crime . 13 But let me say this . I am going to make a motion that 14 we defer , postpone this because - - in view of the fact that 15 we gave this Crescent Park neighborhood over here lots of 16 hours to meet and discuss that one shopping center that was 17 coming into their area. I think we should postpone for 30 18 days and that would be my motion, to allow these folks to 19 have an opportunity to review it. And maybe I would also 20 recommend that you meet with Tierra del Sol so that you can 21 understand what it is that they are doing. And perhaps 22 that will also help everybody decide what kind of comments 23 they can bring forth to us at the next meeting. 24 It always works much better if people can communicate 25 and talk about what' s going on in the neighborhood so PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 92 1 everybody is informed about what' s going on, okay. And it 2 would help us to be able to make a decision in the next 3 meeting. So I would move to postpone for 30 days . 4 MR. MANCHA: This decision is a lot bigger 5 than any shopping mall . 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We have a motion on the 7 floor to postpone . Do I have a second? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I second. 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion. Roll call 10 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Aye . 11 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 12 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . 14 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The chair votes aye . 16 Motion carries . It' s postponed for 30 days, and you 17 might follow Commissioner Ferreira' s suggestion, and that is 18 to get in touch with the Tierra del Sol and discuss the 19 issues with them. 20 MR. ARAGON: Yes, sir, I will . Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr. Chairman, I have to 22 ask Mr . Weir a question. Is this a rental unit, or is this 23 one of those similar to the one off Madrid where it' s bought 24 by the participants? 25 MR. WEIR: I am not certain what program it PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 93 1 will be . 2 MR. KING: I didn' t hear the question. 3 COMMISSIONER LINARD: There were some of 4 these units off Madrid that was an infill area where 5 townhouses were to be purchased. Is that what type it is , 6 it' s to be purchased, not rental units? 7 MR. KING: No, ma'am, it' s purchase . 8 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Thank you very much. 9 MR. KING: The reason we were trying to get 10 this through, we have got a deadline on this grant. 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We understand that and know 12 Tierra del Sol works on those timelines, but 13 unfortunately--and I don' t say this in a manner of 14 admonition, I say this only as a constructive criticism--and 15 that is , sometimes when these projects are coming about it 16 would be wise to, during the planning stages, try and 17 communicate with the surrounding neighborhood so that this 18 problem doesn' t arise in the future . That' s just because we 19 do have a certain obligation to the public whenever there is 20 a concern regarding their neighborhoods . 21 MR. KING: Tierra del Sol had been handling 22 getting people signed up for this project, and I was not 23 aware that they informed the people . I thought we had met 24 all the City requirements for advertising and everything 25 else . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 94 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : You apparently have met the 2 minimum requirements of advertisement, but it appears that 3 the residents have not been contacted nine days - - had been 4 reduced to five days, and they apparently don' t have enough 5 information about this particular project. That causes 6 concern for their neighborhood. So to give them the benefit 7 of the doubt, that' s why we took the action to postpone it 8 and try to get this meeting with these people and get the 9 issue resolved or clarified for them. 10 MR. KING: Was there any input from the 11 citizens to this staff? Were there any comments in writing 12 or phone calls or anything? 13 MR. WEIR: I have a packet that there were 14 not. 15 MR. ROMERO: My name is Ron Romero . Is 16 this - - you said it was for ownership. Is that based on 17 income? 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Let me suggest this to you. 19 We have referred this issue for postponement so that you and 20 the applicant can discuss the issue . And probably at the 21 meeting that you hold with each other those questions will 22 be best answered for you. 23 MR. ROMERO: That' s fine . I am just curious . 24 MR. KING: May I approach again on this . The 25 way I understand by talking to Tierra del Sol , I would like PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 95 1 to request a reconsideration of this , because the grant will 2 be up the 31st of this month, and the land they 3 purchased - - 4 MR. MANCHA: We have been living there a 5 lifetime . 6 MR KING: Yes, sir . Yes , sir . 7 MR. KUESTER: My name is Paul Kuester, and I 8 am project coordinator for some of the subdivisions . And I 9 will be glad to answer any of these questions that these 10 people have . Now, the City has given us until the 31st to 11 start this project, and we have had problems with it before, 12 where they gave us an extension because of a disagreement 13 with HUD. HUD required drainage into the streets and the 14 City required drainage on the property. So we finally 15 settled that with this variance that we asked for. So at 16 the same time, like I said, we are under the gun, and we 17 need to get it started, because the City is behind us on 18 this . And if anyone has any questions, I will be glad to 19 answer . 20 MR. ARAGON: We can' t make a decision like 21 that, because there are only four of us here . 22 MR. KUESTER: As far as referring to it as 23 low income, it is not low income . We have received a grant 24 from the Nehemiah Project, which is a government agency 25 where they are allowing low and medium income people - - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 96 1 they are giving them a grant of $13 , 000 to help them reduce 2 their mortgage . And that' s the only way these people can 3 afford to go into a home . 4 Now, they have to go through the same credit 5 regulations that any other homeowner does . So we are 6 getting people in that that do have a good credit rating, 7 and they want to own a home and this is the only way they 8 will be able to get it, because they cannot afford to 9 accumulate the down payment that is required. 10 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA. I am very familiar 11 with the work that Tierra del Sol does, and I support it 12 wholeheartedly But in the job of the Planning and Zoning 13 Commission, we have to balance the needs of the community 14 with these requests . And I have a problem with the notice 15 requirement, the certified letter that is supposed to go 16 out, if a minimum of 15 went out, and they just got them on 17 Thursday. See , this is what I am having a problem with, and 18 I have a difficulty making a decision when I know that there 19 are people out there that may not have gotten the notice in 20 a timely fashion. And we don' t have all the information 21 before us . And it does affect people' s immediate interests 22 in the surrounding area . And I am not sure if there is any 23 other way we can cut it even shorter , because - - Mark, is 24 there any way to cut this shorter? I mean, is there any way 25 these folks could meet within a certain amount of time? Can PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 97 1 we call a special meeting or anything? 2 MR. SIMS Yes . That' s the only way I am 3 aware of. You would call a special meeting on this because 4 of their deadline . 5 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Would there be any 6 problem if it' s a public meeting, would there be a problem 7 with public notice if it' s an emergency? 8 MR. SIMS : There is a 24-hour notice under 9 the Open Meetings Act . So you could do it. 10 MR. KUESTER: More as matter of record, we 11 did receive calls from several people asking what we were 12 going to do . And what we were doing there , and what was the 13 purpose of it. I don' t think any of these people are here 14 tonight, so it' s evident that some people got their notices . 15 Now, whether these people did or not, I have no way of 16 telling. But the City can show that they sent it out in 17 time and met the criteria that' s required. So I feel that 18 you should go ahead and approve this at this time and not 19 keep us and the City waiting any longer, because they have 20 got an obligation to HUD to take care of this, also. 21 MR. ARAGON: And I also know that they have 22 no soil - - they don' t have any support to that soil under 23 those buildings . 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Let' s keep it orderly. 25 MR KUESTER. We have got only six days PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 98 1 before the 31st . 2 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: What' s happening on 3 the 31st? 4 MR. KUESTER: That' s when we are required to 5 have this subdivision approved so we can commence with the 6 subdivision development. 7 COMMISSIONER LORD: Can I ask a question 8 of - - 9 MR. KUESTER: See , all funds are withheld by 10 the City at the present time . And it' s not all our fault, 11 because of their other problem, so - - 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The commissioner wishes the 13 floor. 14 COMMISSIONER LORD: For one of the residents, 15 if they brought a subdivision that was architecturally 16 pleasing and had nice landscaping and looked like a nice 17 addition to the neighborhood, do you know in your head what 18 you are looking for? 19 I mean they have a right to develop the property. Are 20 we going to postpone this and have a meeting and have the 21 neighborhood basically against anything going in there? If 22 you are, there is no use in doing this . 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Just a minute . If you are 24 going to address the Commission, please come up to the 25 podium and state your name . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 99 1 MR. ARAGON: Aragon. No . The reason that we 2 are here is because we don' t have that information. There 3 is a lot of stuff that nobody knows about, and that' s all we 4 are asking We want to know what' s coming into our 5 neighborhood. We are not so against it. What we are 6 against is something coming in that nobody knows anything 7 about 8 Granted, our neighborhood isn' t real rich or anything 9 like that, but people need to know what' s coming. And that 10 way they can make a decision for themselves, because it' s 11 not fair for me to come in for my dad. I mean, he couldn' t 12 be here , but I would like my father and the people around me 13 to know what they are getting. 14 I am sure if they know about it, they might have a 15 different idea about what' s going on. When nobody knows 16 anything. 17 COMMISSIONER LORD. Do you think if we give 18 them a chance and postpone this until another meeting and 19 try to serve the neighborhood, you will go in with an open 20 mind and work with Tierra del Sol? 21 MR. ARAGON: Definitely. Nobody knows 22 anything about this . I mean it' s kind of hard not to be 23 negative about it when you don' t have the information in 24 front of you. 25 MR KUESTER: The plans are available , along PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 100 1 with the elevations . Anyone who wishes to come into the 2 office , we are willing to have a meeting with them, any of 3 the neighbors , and get this job pulled off quickly. 4 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Let' s see . Today is 5 Tuesday. The 31st is next Monday; is that correct? 6 That means you could call an emergency meeting on 7 Monday. 8 MR. KUESTER: I don' t think that' s necessary, 9 just because one person says he hasn' t been notified. 10 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: It' s more than one 11 person. 12 MR. KUESTER: Well , the post office can prove 13 what was delivered on time . We don' t have to take their 14 word for it. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Mr . Chairman, I have a 16 question for Mr . Weir . I am a little confused about the 17 basic issue here . The property right now is zoned R-2 ; is 18 that correct? 19 MR. WEIR: That is correct. 20 COMMIMSSIONER WILLIS : And the applicants 21 aren' t applying for a variance on anything except the 22 drainage situation; is that true? 23 MR. WEIR: That is correct. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : So the applicants have 25 every reason to expect to develop this the way it' s zoned; I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 101 1 mean, except for the drainage . 2 MR. WEIR: Currently, it' s one large parcel , 3 and they have the right to put a duplex on that property. 4 By subdividing the property, they are increasing the number 5 of units that they can place on that parcel of land. 6 They have gone through the subdivision requirements of 7 submittal for a subdivision by the City Subdivision Code , 8 and they have met those requirements . Now it' s before you 9 to make a decision as to whether this subdivision is 10 adequate for that parcel of land, if that can support the 11 density that they are proposing, if the street network is 12 adequate to service it, and drainage improvements, if that 13 will be met. 14 This is a question of subdividing and creating more 15 parcels . It' s not a use variance that - - the property is 16 zoned for residential use ; however, it is divided for them 17 to meet the requirements of the R-2 zoning district. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I am trying to 19 understand what' s going on here . The people that are 20 opposing this right now are opposing it because of the 21 variance request for the entire subdivision application? 22 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Or do they not know. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : They claim that they do not 24 know what is going into this subdivision. The process that 25 took place is that a preliminary plat was approved through PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 102 1 the development review committee ; is that correct? 2 MR WEIR. That is correct . 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : So they never knew 4 about that? 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : They never knew about that. 6 That' s the flaw of that process , because it comes down to 7 this point now, kind of a shortcut, and it doesn' t give the 8 residents enough time to review the process . 9 MR. KUESTER: And that' s because they didn' t 10 receive their notice until Thursday. But they still had 11 ample time to call us and come visit us about the issue 12 here . 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Well , sir, there is a flaw 14 in the system, and that flaw in the system is that when we 15 have a preliminary plat approval through an administrative 16 process , it denies a certain due process to the segment of 17 the community that is being affected. And that' s where we 18 are at right now 19 If we had gone through the preliminary process through 20 the Commission, we would have probably discussed this issue 21 69 days ago, and it would have given enough time to the 22 residents to become acquainted with the issue . We 23 understand that the City has gone through the process of 24 notification, but it apparently hasn' t been enough time . 25 I myself question even nine days notice to be able to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 103 1 respond to this issue . And so that' s their concern right 2 now. 3 If we hold a meeting on the 31st, is that going to be 4 enough time to satisfy them, or are they going to want more 5 time? 6 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: See, the problem with 7 this process is that for those of us who are involved in it, 8 we know if we get a notice we would go directly to these 9 people or the applicant and voice our opinion, because we 10 have done it before . When it' s a first-time situation and 11 people have never been involved in this process , we can' t 12 railroad them. And that' s what I kind of see sometimes 13 happening out in the public, is that they get railroaded 14 through a system or a process , and they don' t have any idea 15 what happened. And this is what I kind of see happening 16 here . And these people apparently were interested enough in 17 what was happening in their neighborhood to come here 18 because the notice says there is going to be a public 19 hearing that affects your property at this time on this 20 date . 21 And I understand the deadline that we are working 22 under . But I personally do not feel I can make a decision 23 tonight, either . So this is why I have moved as I did. 24 And maybe on behalf of the other commissioners, are you 25 going to be able to make a decision on Monday the 31st? I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 104 1 would not have a problem calling an emergency meeting for 2 Monday if during the weekend or the next couple of days you 3 called a meeting at the offices of Tierra del Sol and had 4 the people come over If you let people know to come over, 5 they have an invitation. 6 MR. KUESTER: I think the proper way to do it 7 is to come to the office tomorrow and talk to our director 8 I have given them the card and the director ' s name . And he 9 can go over the whole project with them. 10 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: That may be all that 11 it takes , because it may be just a need for information that 12 they have at this point to make an informed decision. And 13 if they can meet with you and see how the plan works , and 14 you let them know what Tierra del Sol does, that these are 15 ownerships , that these are very different than rentals , that 16 these people who own this property, that they are going to 17 take care of their investment. Townhouses can be very 18 attractive in a neighborhood and may increase the value of 19 the neighborhood. If they see how they are designed and 20 built, if they see the designs and they understand the whole 21 picture , I think they can make a decision by next Monday. 22 And I think I am available next Monday. I will have to make 23 myself available next Monday or resign. 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So is it the pleasure of the 25 Commission to call a special meeting for next Monday? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 105 1 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: It' s not a pleasure , 2 but - - 3 COMMISSIONER DAW: I was going to ask that it 4 be called earlier . In order for him to meet his deadline, 5 it would have to be called on Monday during the day. 6 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Whose deadline is it, 7 the City' s or the Federal government, or who? 8 MR. WEIR: The City has funds granted through 9 the government development block grant and evidently it' s 10 their deadline . 11 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So if it' s the City' s 12 deadline , can' t they be flexible and give another 24 hours? 13 MR. WEIR: I think under CDBG the City has to 14 comply to the Federal government' s guidelines or directives ; 15 is that correct? 16 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Has anybody explored 17 the possibly of a quick phone call to the feds saying, 18 "Could we have 24 hours? FAX it to us . " 19 COMMISSIONER DAW: It sounds to me like the 20 notification procedure was in fact carried out, if I heard 21 the dates right. The post office apparently wasn' t quite as 22 fast as one might like them to be . And perhaps people' s 23 obligations meant that they didn' t get to look at their mail 24 as soon as they may have done it. But the procedures were 25 carried out right, it seems to me . Now that that has been PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 106 1 done, if we grant any extended time, it could be a very 2 short time . And we could meet on Thursday, for example . 3 People could do down tomorrow, or they can go down the next 4 day, and then we could get this matter resolved rather 5 quickly, if the people that are concerned will respond 6 quickly. 7 MR. MANCHA: We all have our own obligations 8 as well . We still have our own obligations . 9 COMMISSIONER LORD: We are looking for a 10 large commitment. The Board is going to make a large 11 commitment . And when we do this, we make large commitments, 12 we are going to look for large commitment from Tierra del 13 Sol and the community, to really get this solved, or it' s 14 all going to blow up and we are going to have to make a 15 decision that you might not like or he might not like . 16 Somebody is not going to not like it . You need to make a 17 large commitment for everybody' s sakes . Get together and 18 get satisfied one way or the other, and then come back to us 19 and we will meet again in emergency session. I think I am 20 speaking for myself, but we are willing to make a 21 commitment, so we want you guys to, also. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay with that, enough said. 23 Let' s go ahead and decide if we want to and when and where 24 we want to have a special meeting. 25 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: We would need a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 107 1 quorum, and I don' t know how many people are available 2 Thursday. I am not, because I am out of town. 3 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I would be available . 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Who would be available on 5 Thursday night? 6 COMMISSIONER DAW: I think I could be 7 available 8 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Yes . 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I think so. 10 Is this legal , also? 11 MR. SIMS : At the beginning of the year, you 12 passed an amount on public notification. In that statement 13 you included emergency meetings and 24-hour notice . 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : According to Mr . Sims, 15 that' s in the Board' s ordinance for emergency meetings . So 16 we have got one, two, three , four, five commissioners that 17 would be available on Thursday 18 At what time , 7 : 30? 19 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would suggest 8 : 00 , so 20 that one can be sure to get the commitment covered. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : That' s fine . Okay. Can we 22 then make it official , have a motion to call a special 23 meeting for Thursday at eight o' clock? What' s the date? On 24 the 27th. 25 MR. KING: I would like to make it a matter PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 108 1 of record that they are welcome to come in, and we will talk 2 to them tomorrow and the next day, whatever day they want. 3 We want it known that we have offered that to them, if they 4 don' t come in. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : A point of order . We have 6 had a motion that we postpone for 30 days . We need to have 7 a motion to amend the postponement from 30 days to Thursday 8 the 27th. 9 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would move that we amend 10 the motion to hold a meeting on Thursday the 27th at eight 11 o' clock . 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do I have a second? 13 COMMISSIONER LORD: Second. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : All in favor, aye? 15 ( The motion carried unanimously, 6 to 0 . ) 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We have now set the meeting 17 for eight o' clock Thursday Here at city hall? 18 Now, it' s up to the principals, namely the residents 19 and Tierra del Sol , to get together between now and Thursday 20 and take a look at the plans and make yourselves aware of 21 what is taking place . At that time on Thursday, we will 22 then vote on approval or denial of the application. 23 COMMISSIONER DAW: Before you move to the 24 next item, I am concerned that there are three of these 25 documents in here which says HUD doesn' t like onsite PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 109 1 ponding, and I don' t know what HUD has to do with that. 2 Isn' t that sort of a City requirement about how we handle 3 our drainage water and shouldn' t HUD line up - - get in line 4 with what the City requires relative to that? I mean it has 5 nothing to do with whether we approve this project or not, 6 it has to do with statements that HUD doesn' t like it 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : May I get an explanation for 8 this from the first guy that spoke . 9 MR. KING: This is a HUD approved project and 10 for HUD to participate in this project, their requirements 11 have to be followed And they will not allow on-lot ponding 12 in front of the house or in back of the house, and stuff 13 like this . 14 The City requires that you have on-lot ponding or 15 onsite ponding And the difference - - and HUD and the City 16 have been in battle over this for three or four months . And 17 they did come to a decision that the City - - that will 18 allow the City, since this is a small project and it is next 19 to the Munson pond, that the City would allow the drainage 20 to run off site into the Munson pond. 21 COMMISSIONER DAW: Through which process was 22 it amended, or through which process was the requirement 23 amended? 24 1 MR. KING: HUD - - we asked for a variance 25 through the engineering department to allow us to run off PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 110 1 the site into that pond, which satisfied the HUD approval . 2 COMMISSIONER DAW. I just think HUD hadn' t 3 ought to be telling us what the City requires . 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The only problem is that 5 they are the ones with the money. 6 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: It' s our money, okay. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . What have we found out? 8 MR. WEIR: The City Council chambers have 9 already been scheduled for Thursday evening for an open 10 grievance hearing. 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So where can we hold the 12 emergency meeting? 13 MR. WEIR: We can schedule it for the 14 downstairs conference room in this building, or we could 15 check with the public library and see if we could get one of 16 their conference rooms . The problem is they might already 17 be scheduled 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the conference where we 19 met in work session on the other neighborhood matter in the 20 City building, is that taken, on the second floor? 21 MR. WEIR: I don' t believe there are any 22 meetings scheduled for the second floor . There' s one that' s 23 a lot bigger downstairs . 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, so can we schedule it 25 for that location? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 111 1 MR. WEIR: Yes , I don' t think that would be 2 any problem. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have to have a motion 4 on that? 5 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Just announce it. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, the emergency meeting 7 will be held at the City/County building on the south side 8 of the building, either on the second or first floor . 9 That' s the old hospital . 10 Okay, now, have I got any more questions about 11 procedure or whatever? 12 I suggest that you get in touch with the City staff 13 tomorrow and have them give you whatever information you 14 need. 15 Okay, we are now going on to zoning case 22195 , a 16 request for a zone change from R-1 , residential low density, 17 to 0-1 , office . The zone change is to develop the property 18 for a medical office . The subject property consists of two 19 lots and is currently in the summary replat process to 20 combine the two lots into 0 .8455-acre lot. This action is 21 being take to accommodate the proposed office building. 22 Submitted by David Coyle for the property owner Dr . Robert 23 Villalobos , M.D. 24 May I have a motion to approve case Z2195? 25 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Mr . Chair , I move for PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 112 1 approval of 22195 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second? 3 COMMISSIONER DAW: Second. 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present? 5 COMMISSIONER LINARD: As much as I hate to do 6 this , I have been told that because I own property in that 7 neighborhood, even though it was not near enough to receive 8 a certified notice from the City, it may be embarrassing to 9 the Commission if I participate in this . And since I have 10 owned the property for over 35 years, I feel I would not be 11 able to have a wee bit of prejudice, so I am withdrawing for 12 this particular case . 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Commissioner 14 Linard. Is the applicant present? 15 MR. COYLE: My name is David Coyle , and I 16 represent Dr . Villalobos And if you want me to, I ' ll go up 17 here and explain what we are doing. 18 Okay, here ' s the subject property, which is currently 19 two R-1 lots facing Solano Drive . And that zoning would 20 allow one single family residence on each lot. The R-4 you 21 see there is currently a medical office building. On the 22 south side, there are apartments . Across the street, as you 23 can see here, the lots there are mostly single family 24 residential . 25 Behind it on Howard Street , this is currently not an PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 113 1 improved street . It' s a dirt street that leads back to one 2 residence . That' s the current status of the area . Dr . 3 Villalobos wants to combine those two R-1 lots and change 4 the zoning to 0-1 , conditional , as has been recommended by 5 the City He would like to change that zoning to build his 6 own medical office building. 7 His medical office building would be the only building 8 on the property, and it would be used for his medical 9 practice . And other than that, I guess I ' ll just take your 10 questions . 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any questions from the 12 Commission for the applicant? If not, are you ready for 13 input from staff? 14 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez , commission 15 members , the request before you is a zone change from R-1 , 16 single family residential , to 0-1C, as the applicant or the 17 applicant' s representative already stated. It' s for the use 18 of a medical office . 19 The applicant also submitted a letter placing three 20 conditions - - requesting three conditions on the property. 21 The first is that it will be used - - the property will be 22 for a medical office building; that the structure will be 23 maintained at one story; and that no other uses within this 24 0-1C, other than a medical office building, will be allowed. 25 Staff would like to note that the use of the property PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 114 1 is compatible to the uses that are west of Solano Drive . 2 There is currently a medical office building to the north of 3 the property. There is an apartment complex south of the 4 property, and there is a telephone utility station west of 5 the property. 6 When staff reviewed this, they looked at it and felt 7 this would be an appropriate use in light of the conditions 8 that have been requested. The only thing in your packet, if 9 you look under planning and zoning comments, were some 10 recommendations to the applicant. We would like to ask that 11 only one office building be permitted on the property, that 12 the building shall be one story and not exceed - - we have 13 15 feet in height in this staff report, but after discussion 14 with the building inspection department, we feel that that 15 would be very difficult for , or would be very tight for the 16 applicant to put a pitched roof on the structure , and 17 probably a maximum height of 20 feet would meet that need. 18 And then, also, there was a request by staff that there 19 be a number, a limit on the number of doctors who would be 20 operating out of the building. There is a concern about the 21 traffic that more than one practice would create, along with 22 the support staff. But subject to those comments, staff 23 would recommend the zone change to 0-1C from the R-1 zoning. 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir . 25 MR. COYLE: Could I address those three PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 115 1 conditions . 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Yes . 3 MR. COYLE: I think Dr . Villalobos is still 4 concerned, even with the 20-foot requirement, and would 5 prefer to have 25 feet . He has already stated in number one 6 that only one office building will be permitted on the lots , 7 so we will just be building the one building, which would be S his office building. 9 Number two, it will , the building, be one story. And 10 we would like to have the wording "and shall not exceed 25 11 feet in height . " He may have a fairly high-pitched roof on 12 there; however, there are no intentions as stated here to go 13 over one story. And I have a feeling we will be under the 14 20 feet . But I just think that he feels more comfortable 15 with the 25 and not having to have the responsibility of 16 having to alter his plans at some point because he goes to 17 21 feet 18 The third item, permitted use as one medical office 19 building for one medical practice, it will be just his 20 medical practice . And as to the maximum number of doctors, 21 we would like to have that be three . But they would be 22 associates of Dr . Villalobos , as opposed to separate 23 practices . 24 One other thing I might mention about the property. I 25 believe that property has never been developed. I don' t PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 116 1 think there ' s ever been anything there . It' s in an older 2 neighborhood. Dr Villalobos is going to build a real nice 3 building. I think it' s going to be a really nice addition 4 to the neighborhood, and I think it will enhance the value 5 of the properties around it. He ' s a surgeon and a 6 specialist and does not attract real heavy traffic . I would 7 think probably pretty light traffic compared to most 8 buildings that you might have there . I think it' s highly 9 unlikely that two single family residences will ever be 10 built there . 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Is that your 12 presentation? 13 MR. COYLE: Yes, thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : At this particular point in 15 time, I will open it to public participation. 16 Anyone in the public that wishes to make a comment. We 17 will go with this gentleman first 18 MR. REED: I am Donovan Reed, and my lot is 19 behind the property. It' s to the west, if I can find it. 20 Okay, my property is this piece of property here . And one 21 of the reasons I purchased this property was the amenity of 22 the view of the Organ Mountains . And I have no objection to 23 a single-story building as long as it' s not over 14-foot 24 high. Anything over 14 is going to cut me out. 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, is that the extent of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 117 1 your presentation? 2 MR. REED: Yes, that' s it. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, we will take that into 4 consideration. Thank you. Anybody else from the public? 5 MR. ROMERO: My name is Ron Romero. I don' t 6 know if you have a letter that I wrote . I submitted it to 7 the Commission I object to this because of the fact that 8 we have individual developers buying property, residential 9 property, and saying, "Okay, fine, I can buy it cheaper . I 10 can take this property, I can rezone it, " like he' s asking, 11 "and put a doctor ' s office there . " 12 I don' t think that' s right. I think you people zoned 13 it as R-1 for a reason, to have residential there . I think 14 that it can have two homes there , because of the road that 15 runs here , it could have been resubdivided and two homes 16 could face the road. What he is saying is that it' s not 17 actually developed at this time , but it could be developed. 18 I think what you are getting into here is a domino effect. 19 I live here on Solano. People do like to live on Solano. 20 And what you are doing is you are nit-picking at places that 21 you are saying, "Okay, let' s do this over here, and let' s 22 make this an R-4 , " and make different types of buildings 23 there that we don' t want . We wanted residential ones there., 24 and that' s it. 25 If the individual wants to buy or build a commercial PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 118 1 building, he should buy commercial property. He should not 2 buy residential property because he gets it for a cheaper 3 price, and turn around and rezone it. I mean, if he ' s in it 4 for the money, build two homes on there and sell them. You 5 can sell them. A couple of weeks ago in the newspaper - - 6 it' s really hard to find a place to live in Las Cruces . 7 It' s a perfect example of, you can build it, sell it, and 8 make just as much money. 9 I live right here . Right there there is a dentist' s 10 office, right in front of me . You talk about a pain. 11 People parking on the street; there is not enough parking to 12 accommodate four dentists that work in there . I mean that 13 actually work in there . I live next to it. I can' t do 14 anything. I can come down here and voice my opinion, but 15 it' s already been zoned. I disagree with it. I think that 16 you all should, because I am a prime example of that right 17 there And those people that live next to here are going to 18 be next to these things . 19 They are going to say and propose that, no, there is 20 not going to be a lot of traffic by just putting three 21 doctors in there, but I don' t believe that. That' s very 22 misleading, and I am very against it. And I think it would 23 be best that he should build his commercial building on a 24 commercial property. Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any more input from the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 119 1 public? 2 MS . LINARD: I am Sharlyn Linard, and I have 3 been told by the attorney that just because I am member of 4 the Commission I did not lose my civil rights, so I can 5 speak up 6 I own the property at 1295 Gardner, and I have owned it 7 for over 35 years When I came here 42 years ago, I wanted 8 a house on Solano, but at that time there were no utilities 9 in, and one must have the land plus the cost of all the 10 utilities, to have them installed, and then one half of the 11 price of the house . I venture to say there would be hardly 12 any houses in town if people had to have half the cost of 13 the house nowadays . 14 Anyway, there was nothing between Solano Square 15 Shopping Center and the university except Dr . Baker' s office 16 building, which is bordered by Wofford and Howard and this 17 property which Mr . Romero has discussed. And in these days 18 that was zoned so that they could have that, the rule for 19 the City was if nobody complained within 100 feet, anything 20 went. And nobody ever knew anything was going to be put in 21 anything, or we would have complained and not wanted it. 22 This has been a terrible flood zone . For 42 years I 23 have watched the water run over Solano in that very same 24 area. It undermines Dr . Baker' s parking lot. There is sand 25 all over the street which has to be removed by the City PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 120 1 And to take two lots 195 by whatever and cover it with 2 asphalt and building, where is this water going to go? We 3 would like to keep the integrity of the neighborhood. 4 Thank you, Mr Chairman 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Ms . Linard. 6 Anybody else from the public? 7 Yes , sir . 8 MR. SPENCE: Commissioners, my name is Tony 9 Spence, and I live on Sharon Circle , also. I live on the 10 property right behind the property in question, right here 11 on Sharon Circle . I have always wondered about that 12 property out there that has been vacant for quite a while, 13 what was going to end up on it. One of the nice features to 14 the people on Sharon Circle is the beautiful view of the 15 mountains, part of which we had to give up when that 16 apartment complex went in behind our property, right along 17 here , and that was a big disappointment 18 But we went out there and surveyed a little bit with a 19 transit and figured out what the maximum height of the 20 building would be that wouldn' t provide any obstruction to 21 our view, and that was about 14 feet. That' s about roughly 22 the height of the rest of the residential area around there, 23 the tops of the roofs are about 14 feet. 24 This office complex right here , the doctor' s office 25 is--I measured that to be about a 16-foot high roof, which PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 121 1 is little high. But it shows that a person can build a 2 single—story office complex 14 to 16 feet high. There are 3 several around town that are built that way, with flat 4 roofs . I don' t see a reason for a 20—foot pitched roof. 5 There is one about that tall over here on the Church of 6 Christ, right across this street, right there . The pitch on 7 that roof is roughly 20 feet . That' s definitely up above 8 the mountains for us . So I just wanted to come in and 9 object. 10 I have no objection to the building of the doctor' s 11 office as long as I can keep the roof line where it doesn' t 12 obstruct my view, which would be roughly 14 feet above curb 13 level . That' s all I have . Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Anybody else in the public? 15 Yes, ma'am. 16 MS . KEARNS : May I speak from here? I can 17 make myself heard Thank you. 18 I am Mary Kearns , and I live on Solano. I have been on 19 Solano for many years . When I moved there, it was a dirt 20 road. There was nobody between me and town for quite a ways 21 except just in the few blocks right next to the university. 22 At the time that that little shopping center went in at 23 Solano and Missouri , we objected strenuously and were 24 assured that the City didn' t want anything commercial or 25 even relating to commercial south of that spot . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 122 1 And then somehow, without our being aware of it, Dr . 2 Baker ' s place went in, and what is now Dr . Carver and Dr . 3 Bowen next door to Mr . Romero' s . 4 We were unable to stop those, because we didn' t know 5 they were going in, or we would have tried You know, it' s 6 not that we would object so much to Dr. Villalobos ' 7 building. It would be convenient for me , because he ' s my 8 doctor . But that' s really not the point. The point is that 9 we hate to see strip zoning happening on Solano any further 10 than it already has . 11 If that goes , then the next thing you know, down at 12 Wyoming between Wyoming and Monte Vista on Solano, exactly 13 one house away from me, as a matter of fact, there is a 14 great big strip of vacant land, and that will be the next 15 one . And I have fought that off and on over the years, a 16 number of us have I didn' t do it alone , of course . But 17 they will say, "Well , if you have got that, why can' t we 18 have this, " and so on It' s going to make life considerably 19 more difficult. 20 I am like Mr . Romero, I don' t think R-1 zones should be 21 changed, I really don' t, because you don' t want to ruin the 22 approach to the university any more than it has been 23 already. Thank you. 24 One more thing, please I don' t think a homeowner 25 should have to be constantly in a state of insecurity, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 123 1 worrying over the years about what' s going to happen to the 2 value of their property because of the zoning I fought my 3 first zoning battle before we were in the City limits , and 4 it has never let up. Many of you have seen me many times . 5 I 've never missed a meeting for fear somebody would get 6 something in we didn' t know about. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Anybody else in the public 8 wish to make a comment? 9 MR. APODACA: My name is Alfred Apodaca, and 10 I am here because I got the certified letter , and I have 11 never met the gentleman before . And to this day I haven' t. 12 But I have on apartment complex right next to it, and I 13 would like to just state that I have no objection to it. I 14 think it would be an asset to that vacant lot that' s been 15 there for 20 years . 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Anybody else 17 from the public wish to make any comments regarding this 18 case? 19 Okay, we will close to it to public participation and 20 go into commissioner input. 21 MR. COYLE: Could I mention one more thing? 22 The City, I think, feels it' s compatible because of what' s 23 on both sides of it. I ' ll let him speak for the City. But 24 I feel that they feel it' s compatible for the area because 25 of what' s on both sides . And while it is legally allowed to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 124 1 put two houses on there , I don' t know how long those lots 2 have been sitting there , but I am sure a long time . And 3 it' s very unlikely that somebody would want to come in 4 between the projects that are there now and put houses on 5 them. But we certainly haven' t seen anybody do it in the 6 past. So it' s unlikely they will be doing it in the future . 7 People usually don' t want to go into older neighborhoods and 8 build brand-new houses . And Dr . Villalobos , I think , is 9 doing this with a building that will enhance the 10 neighborhood. And it' s not like he ' s doing an apartment 11 complex or something that' s going to draw heavy traffic . I 12 think it will be fairly light traffic. 13 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I have a question for 14 Dr . Villalobos, first, and then some questions for staff to 15 try to maybe clarify some of these concerns on parking and 16 the flooding and that kind of thing. 17 Dr . Villalobos , what kind of practice is it that you 18 have? Maybe you could describe a little bit of what you do 19 and where you do it most of the time? 20 DR. VILLALOBOS : I am Robert Villalobos, and 21 I am an ophthalmologist and eye surgeon here in town. I 22 have been here four years now in practice . My practice has 23 grown, thanks to the people of Las Cruces and thanks to the 24 patients who have referred other patients to me . 25 Where I am presently, I am leasing. And for this PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 125 1 reason I purchased this property, because I had intentions 2 of building an office here Number one , it would be my own 3 office . It would be built approximately about 5 , 000 square 4 feet. That' s what we are looking at . We were thinking of 5 putting a pitched roof in order - - we have a sketch here . 6 Would you show them that preliminary sketch. 7 Like that We would have a drive-thru for patients , 8 because I have a lot of patients like Ms . Kearns that are 9 unable to walk long distances from parking lots . That 10 entrance that we have diagrammed there is to give everybody 11 an idea of what we are thinking of doing. 12 It certainly does not rain very much here in Las 13 Cruces . But lately, the last few years I have been here, it 14 sure has picked up. But before , the previous years that I 15 can remember, it would average about seven inches of rain. 16 But we are trying to make it convenient for the patients 17 with this type of entrance for them to just drive up, and 18 they can enter the building. They don' t have to walk long 19 distances from the parking lot. 20 To address this gentleman' s issue about parking 21 overflow into his home and the parking lot in the front of 22 his house, there will be no problem like that in my property 23 that I have there , because, namely, the acreage is big 24 enough where it' s going to cover enough parking there . 25 People will not be able to park in the front on Solano . And PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 126 1 people will not be able to park on Howard Drive . And people 2 will not be able to park behind me, because there is a 3 telephone utility service station or substation, whatever 4 you want to call it. 5 The only overflow parking that I would see that would 6 be happening would be over in Dr . Baker ' s and Dr . Hernandez ' 7 parking lot . And I am sure , as busy as they are , I might 8 get some of their overflow parking in the future as this 9 comes about. 10 But to get back to Ms . Ferreira' s question, I am an 11 ophthalmologist. I am in sole practice . If my practice 12 continues to grow, there is a great need for a pediatric 13 ophthalmologist in this city. About 50 , 60 percent of the 14 children in the City are not evaluated by an 15 ophthalmologist . I feel it would be a great asset to this 16 city to bring in a pediatric ophthalmologist to help take 17 care of the children of this community. This is a type of 18 specialist or associate that I will be looking at probably 19 in three to seven years from now. It is not something 20 immediate, but something that I am looking at. So we would 21 start with probably one associate . And if we ever got to 22 the point that we ever needed another associate , that would 23 be considered. 24 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Thank you very much. 25 The other questions I have are for staff. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 127 1 What' s the present height requirement on a one story 2 right now? 3 MR. WEIR: Under code it varies , depending on 4 how the house is designed and structured. 5 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Don' t we have a 6 design standard on the R-ls? 7 MR WEIR. I don' t have my books with me . 8 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Didn' t we set some 9 kind of a maximum for the University Corridor plan which was 10 what, if it was one story? 11 MR. WEIR: For a straight R-1 zone the 12 maximum height is 35 feet, and there would be a question 13 whether that falls under the University Corridor plan or 14 not. 15 The University Corridor plan was 28 feet. 16 COMMISSIONER LORD: I thought we lowered that 17 to 18 . 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: We lowered it to 18? 19 COMMISSIONER LORD: Yeah. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I will be honest, I don' t 21 remember, but I thought it was 28 . 22 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: But presently under 23 an R-1? 24 MR. WEIR: It' s 35 feet. 25 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: The other question is PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 128 1 the concern about parking. When you reviewed this plan, was 2 there sufficient space there for parking? 3 MR. WEIR: Again, this is a zone change . And 4 as a change, what uses we allowed on the property - - the 5 parking requirement would be reviewed at the time a building 6 permit was submitted, and it would be calculated for a 7 medical office . So that was not reviewed with this request . 8 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Can you give me any 9 kind of an opinion just looking at the area and looking at 10 the size of this building that' s proposed on this particular 11 diagram, what it is? 12 MR. WEIR: It looks like from this diagram 13 there would be plenty of parking space available . And we 14 know you cannot park on Solano for sure or Howard Drive 15 because of the width of that street . 16 MR. DOYLE: I think the City requires one 17 space for every 200 square feet . So you would need 20 18 spaces . And this is way in excess of 20 . This is just 19 preliminary, though. Like he says, we will have to meet the 20 standards at the time we build. 21 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So the parking would 22 be taken care of because it would be controlled by the 23 square footage? 24 MR. WEIR: The square footage of the 25 building, if they propose a 5, 000 square feet building, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 129 1 would require a minimum of 20 parking spaces . 2 MR. DOYLE. Did you get copies of the 3 neighbors that we visited about this? 4 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Yes , I have got a 5 list. 6 MR. DOYLE. Because we went and visited the t 7 neighbors . We obviously didn' t visit all of them. But the 8 ones that we visited we never had anything close to an 9 adverse reaction. 10 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I know that at least 11 one person that spoke was not living within the area 12 required to receive notice . I don' t know about anybody else 13 that spoke, if they received notice . But we did receive 14 that list here . 15 What about this flooding issue that was raised? 16 MR. WEIR. In your packet, the City 17 engineering department reviewed this proposal . And they 18 found that the project does not lie in the flood zone . Even 19 if it did, the City has a ordinance that states the 20 foundation of the building would have to be a certain number 21 of feet above the flood plain to allow construction of the 22 building. 23 COMMISSIONER FERRERIA: Okay, thank you. I 24 have no further questions . 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other questions? PLANNING AND ZONING CONr1ISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 130 1 Commissioner Willis . 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Yes, I have a couple of 3 questions for Mr . Weir , and a comment for the applicant. 4 I think that the residential nature of the building is 5 beautiful and very appropriate for this neighborhood And I 6 am really glad to see this kind of thing come across here . 7 When you are applying for a zone change like this , it looks 8 really good. 9 Mr . Weir, could you shed some light on Howard Drive and 10 what' s going on up there? 11 MR. WEIR: Howard Drive is currently an 12 unpaved right-of-way at this section of roadway, right? 13 Here it dead-ends . There is a single family home here . And 14 this is the utility installation that' s been discussed. 15 It' s paved roughly to this point here . And also, in the 16 engineering comments , it was stated that the applicant would 17 be required to make some road improvements . What he felt 18 would be required was to put in curb and gutter along his 19 property and a sidewalk . And then if the City ever gets a 20 pavement assessment district approved for this area, then 21 they would be assessed for that improvement to that road. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Would any additional 23 dedication be required on the part of the applicant? 24 MR. WEIR• Currently, this property is in a 25 subdivision process , what we call a summary process, and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 131 1 they are combining these two lots into one parcel . And 2 through that process , additional right-of-way can be 3 required if it' s deemed necessary. The question that staff 4 will have to resolve is , since this is only serving these 5 two lots , if any additional right-of-way is needed or 6 necessary. It' s not a through street. 7 COMMISSIONER LORD: Does staff have a comment 8 about two curb cuts on Solano Drive? 9 MR WEIR: The traffic plan advises against 10 two curb cuts on that property. Solano is a major arterial 11 roadway, and we try to limit the number of curb cuts on 12 those classes of streets . But what they would have to do, 13 the applicant would have to submit a curb cut proposal to 14 the traffic engineering department. And the City has an 15 ordinance which addresses curb cuts . It would have to be 16 approved through the traffic engineering department and meet 17 all of their requirements for that . And I believe in their 18 comments they stated that any curb cut in this section would 19 have to be 75 feet from the intersection of Solano and 20 Howard Drive . But it would be reviewed. To answer your 21 questions , it would be reviewed by the traffic engineering 22 department, and they would have to grant approval of any 23 curb cuts . 24 COMMISSIONER DAW: I don' t think that vacant 25 lots look attractive They get weedy, and they just sort of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 132 1 don' t look attractive And when we can put a vacant lot 2 into use , that ' s nice . When I look at the design of the 3 building, it looks like it could fit nicely into a 4 residential area And by the way, I think that someone 5 years ago should never have put that commercial stuff in, 6 but it is there . But I wonder what would happen if Dr 7 Villalobos decided that he would go to New York and what 8 would happen then to change the zoning and the building and 9 so on. I sort of worry about that in general , because I run 10 into experiences with people who get zone changes made and 11 then their plans change and what they were going to do 12 doesn' t ever happen. 13 MR. COYLE: Could I address that? I think 14 the conditions on the zoning would restrict anybody in the 15 future that owns that land. In fact, the conditions on it 16 really restrict Dr . Villalobos and what he can do . He 17 really has his hands tied. He can only have three doctors . 18 He can only have one building. He can only have it a 19 certain height. If I am not mistaken, if he wants to sell 20 that building 10 years down the road, he has to sell it to 21 one single medical practice . So he has really limited 22 himself . 23 COMMISSIONER DAW: Is that right? 24 MR. WEIR: Commissioner Daw, what the 25 conditional zoning provisions in the code state are that the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 133 1 applicant places conditions on the zoning and that is 2 something the Planning and Zoning Commission cannot place on 3 it . It has to be at the request of the applicant . 4 Two, he has a two-year period to develop it, as he 5 says , to those conditions . If it' s not developed within 6 that two-year period, it returns to R-1 . And then if he 7 does sell the property, anyone that comes in would be taking 8 the property as developed. And if an office is placed on 9 the property, the use of that property would have to be a 10 medical office . And he would be held to the same conditions 11 that have been placed on the property now. 12 COMMISSIONER DAW: That' s probably the third 13 time you have told me that. And after a while I ' ll remember 14 it. Thank you. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any more comments or input 16 from the commissioners? 17 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I just have one 18 clarification on the height of the building. You said R-1 19 allows up to 28 feet on one story, or 28 feet, period? 20 MR. WEIR: I believe it' s 35 feet. 21 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: It' s even more? 22 And the applicant said they were hoping for - - 23 MR WEIR: I believe they requested 25 . And 24 the City was saying 15 . 25 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So we have this PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 134 1 10-foot difference . 2 MR. WEIR: I believe The City could live with 3 between 15 and 20 . 4 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Between 15 and 20? 5 So you are suggesting the 18-foot university standard? 6 MR. WEIR: I don' t think he said that. 7 MR. VILLALOBOS • As you said, I made some 8 concessions to try and keep everybody happy and to try to 9 build a building that' s not only attractive but that won' t 10 interfere with people ' s view of the Organ Mountains . And as 11 you can see , I am not going to build a building that' s 40 or 12 50 feet or 35 feet . Which if we were to keep it R-1 , then 13 we could build a couple of houses two story up to 35 feet in 14 height, and then that would make it even more difficult for 15 them to visualize the mountains . 16 I am making concessions . And I have had made some 17 conditions and agreed with the residents there . I met with 18 people such as Ms . Good in my office on August the 7th of 19 this year . And I just feel that 15 feet is a little bit too 20 low. I always like to shoot a little bit higher than shoot 21 a little bit lower on anything, okay. I think it' s better 22 to err a little bit more than a little bit less. That' s why 23 we have requested that it be changed from 15 feet to 25 24 feet. The minimum that I think we would be able to build a 25 building such as this would be 20 feet PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 135 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any more input, commissioner 2 input? 3 Do we need to make a motion for consideration of the 4 building height? 5 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I move for approval 6 of 22195 with the following conditions . That it be used for 7 a medical office , that it be one story, limited to 20 feet, 8 that it would be - - let' s see, what else is there . Only 9 one office building would be permitted on the property and 10 that it would allow the medical practice for a maximum of 11 three doctors . That' s my motion 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : That' s your motion. Do we 13 have a second? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I ' ll second that. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? 16 COMMISSIONER DAW: Do I understand by that 17 motion we would be approving 0-1C, conditional? 18 MR. WEIR: Point of order , Mr . Chairman. 19 Since it' s conditional zoning, he has to ask for the 20 conditions on the property, and I don't know that he' s 21 officially asked for a 20-foot height. 22 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I said that because 23 he would agree to 20 , and the City said they would go with 24 between 15 and 20 . 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Dr . Villalobos , the process PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 136 1 says that we cannot put a condition, you have to request it. 2 The suggestion by Commissioner Ferreira is 20 feet in this 3 particular situation. 4 MR VILLALOBOS : I would be agreeable to 5 that, to the 20—feet stipulation or condition here . 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So, the motion of 7 Commissioner Ferreira, then, would be appropriate , as she 8 stated it. 9 MR. VILLALOBOS : As she stated. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is that correct, Mr . Weir? 11 MR WEIR: Okay, that is correct. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Then we will go on to roll 13 call . 14 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Aye . 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . 16 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 17 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chairman votes aye . 19 ( The motion carried 5 to 0 with one 20 abstention. ) 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The next case is SUP92-003 a 22 request for a special use permit to operate a commercial 23 preschool Alpha School for 20 years . The property is zoned 24 0-1 , office , located at 1205 East Madrid Avenue . A 25 preshcool is a permitted use subject to obtaining a special PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 137 1 use permit. Submitted by Barbara and Gary DeDera, d/b/a 2 Alpha School for the property owners , Emile R. and Beulah M. 3 Gemoets , Family Trustee . 4 May I have a motion to approve case SUP92-003 . 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I ' ll move to approve 6 case SUP92-003 . 7 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: By the way, is the 8 applicant present? 9 MS . DEDERA: My name is Gary DeDera, and I am 10 here with with my wife Barbara. We are representing Alpha 11 School , and we are requesting a special use permit for the 12 building at 1205 East Madrid. 13 Alpha School is a private commercial preschool that 14 handles children from the ages of three to five years old. 15 We operate two sessions, three hours each session. We 16 operate five days a week between the hours of 8 : 00 and 4 : 00 17 in the afternoon. This special use will be for the building 18 and for the lot in front or I mean behind the building to 19 the north, which will be for our playground. 20 Alpha School has been operating in Las Cruces for 20 21 years, and we have owned it for four years . We operated it 22 previously in the Peace Lutheran Church, Locust and 23 Missouri . We were forced to leave there because they were 24 planning on doing some renovation to the building, so we had 25 to seek another building. This building is 2 , 600 square PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 138 1 feet It allows for some expansion in our school and it' s a 2 very excellent building. 3 Alpha School has had a very good reputation within the 4 Las Cruces community, and we have had very excellent success 5 over the past four years operating it. And we appreciate 6 the opportunity to make this request . Thank you. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Staff? 8 MR. WEIR: The application before you is a 9 special use permit for a preschool on a property that is 10 currently zoned 0-1 That is a permitted use with the 11 approval of a special use permit submittal . What I have on 12 the overhead for you is the site plan for the property. It 13 shows their parking, their landscaping and playground area, 14 and also the building or the structure . 15 This site plan meets all the requirements of the 16 special use permit . The use is compatible with the 17 surrounding uses of the property and does not have a 18 negative impact on that. Therefore, the staff recommends 19 approval of the special use permit. 20 I believe that you received a letter , also, on this 21 case . 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Yes, we received a letter 23 from citizen Ruben A. Smith. And this is not in his 24 capacity that he occupies with the City. And I have been 25 asked by the City staff to read this for the benefit of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 139 1 public . 2 "Dear Chairman Perez , I am writing as a 3 father and former client of Alpha School , a preschool 4 program run by Ms . Barbara DeDera. My family and I can 5 attest to the quality of the Alpha preschool and the 6 benefits that accrue to the community through the 7 presence of Alpha School 8 "I encourage you to consider favorably Ms . 9 DeDera' s request for a special use permit at 1205 East 10 Madrid. with your support and approval , Alpha School 11 will continue to be an important asset for families in 12 this community. 13 "Thank you for your consideration. Ruben A. 14 Smith. " 15 I read this publicly so that a clarification could be 16 made that the recommendation is coming through as a private 17 citizen, Ruben A. Smith. 18 At this point, we will open it to public participation. 19 Anybody in the audience wish to address the case SUP92-003? 20 Going once, twice . We will close it and go into 21 commissioner input. Any comments from the commissioners? 22 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: How many children are 23 involved, kind of on the average , Ms . DeDera? 24 MS . DEDERA: We will have an enrollment of 25 about 45 in each session. And there are two preschool PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 140 1 sessions each day, three-hour sessions . 2 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So there ' s about - - 3 a total enrollment of about 90? 4 MS . DEDERA• Yes , but not all at one time . 5 You have classroom one and classroom two . We operate 6 three-hour preschool sessions We have a session from 8 : 30 7 to 11 : 30 . Those families leave, and then we have an 8 afternoon class that comes in at 12 : 30 to 3 : 30 . We utilize 9 the whole school at that time . 10 COMMISSIONER DAW: I have a question for 11 staff. I would like about a 30-second explanation of 12 special use permits as it applies to uses allowed in the 13 zone . Why, then, is a special use permit necessary, if you 14 would explain that . 15 MR WEIR: A special use permit is necessary 16 or is required by the code for the uses that may or 17 potentially may have a negative impact on a neighborhood. 18 And through the special use permit, it gives the 19 neighborhood an opportunity to review what is being proposed 20 for the site . And that also requires a site plan, so that 21 the applicant has a chance to do buffering or to take some 22 steps or measures to limit any of the impacts they would 23 have on the neighborhood. 24 It also gives the City a chance to see if the proposed 25 use will have a negative impact on any of the City services PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 141 1 or city streets or any existing incompatible uses . It' s 2 really a safeguard against a use that may be inappropriate 3 for a certain area or under certain conditions , or it might 4 be inappropriate and therefore would require a public 5 hearing and review of the proposed use . All of the 6 neighborhood here was notified and there were no protests . 7 MS . DEDERA: Could I say something about 8 that, too. 9 I also walked the neighborhood to visit my neighbors to 10 see if there was even a possible problem before I pursued 11 it . I sent packets to all of the commissioners with 12 comments that my neighbors have made , both former and new, 13 and I have never gotten any negative comments, only lots of 14 smiles . 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments? 16 May I have a motion for approval or denial? 17 COMMISSIONER DAW: I would move for approval . 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Roll call . 20 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Aye . 21 COMMISSIONER DAW: Aye . 22 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye. 24 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The chair votes aye . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 142 1 ( The motion carried unanimously, 6 to 0 ) 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ The last request is for a 3 special use permit for the Unitarian Universalist Church of 4 Las Cruces, for 15 years, to operate a child-care center. 5 The property is located in an R-1 zone at 2000 South Solano 6 Drive . Submitted by Dolores Gibson for the property owner, 7 the Unitarian Universalist Church of Las Cruces . 8 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, this is 9 the action number three in the two years I have been on this 10 commission for someone to sabotage the neighborhood in which 11 I own a house, so I guess I will go home now and leave it to 12 you. 13 I must say you don' t play favorites, because you passed 14 every one that I was opposed to. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : May I have a motion to 16 approve case SUP92-004 . 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : So moved. 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present? 20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We are present. I 21 represent the board of the Unitarian Church, and we are the 22 owners. And I believe the application was made on behalf 23 of - - the application was made by the operator who desires 24 to operate the school . And we will jointly answer any of 25 your questions . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 143 1 I would like to point out to the Board that at the 2 present time there is still , I believe , a valid permit to 3 operate a preschool or a nursery school at our location. 4 It' s just that that application is - - that particular 5 permit has lapsed for a short interval because of our 6 previous operator who had a private service in the community 7 has withdrawn. And until we found a suitable person to take 8 up the community service of child care in this local area, 9 no one had fulfilled that function. So I believe that' s 10 good until - - it' s a continuing 15-year period of time , and 11 that was approved on 27th of October 1981 . So 15 years 12 would make it until , what, 8-96 . 13 However, certain investments are required in terms of 14 facilities and their upgrade ; therefore, the payback period 15 has to be considered. And the new person has requested a 16 normal 15-year period. 17 In view of the rather late hour, I would be happy to 18 deal with this thing in terms of questions unless you wish 19 to have a repeat of the previous application, because the 20 details are the same . It' s the same purpose, approximately 21 the same number of children, the same usage of the same 22 facility. What is your pleasure at this particular point in 23 time? 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We will go into staff 25 participation or input and let them make their presentation. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 144 1 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez, commission 2 members , this is a request for a special use permit for a 3 child-care center utilizing an existing church. As the 4 applicant has already stated, in 1981 a special use permit 5 was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission for a day 6 care center , but staff research indicates that has been 7 discontinued for over a year ; therefore , that special use 8 permit would expire and require a new application be brought 9 before you 10 The applicants have submitted a site plan for the 11 structure of the property, use of the property, and 12 providing a stacking lane for the unloading of the children, 13 providing access and parking requirements per the 14 requirements of the site plan and special use permit. 15 There have been a couple of protest letters received by 16 staff And what these problems are , they are concerned 17 about the location of the doctor ' s offices and the current 18 existence of two day care centers already in the 19 neighborhood. And they feel an additional day-care center 20 will add to the traffic in the area. 21 Staff reviewed this against the comprehensive plan and 22 felt that a day-care center is a positive use of a church 23 and also a positive institution for a neighborhood. The 24 applicant has met all the requirements for the special use 25 permit submittal , and the only questions we had is that it PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 145 1 should be noted that the parking would have to meet the 2 requirements of the City of Las Cruces design standards for 3 parking areas before a business registration would be 4 permitted But staff is recommending approval of this 5 special use permit . 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir . Any 7 comments regarding case SUP92-004 from the public? 8 MS . LINARD: I understand that the Unitarian 9 Church does not have a curb cut onto Solano, but they do use 10 a private drive on the north side of their parking lot to 11 whip into their parking lot. Their other curb cut is on the 12 side street, Wofford, which is adjacent to Dr . Baker' s 13 office , who also does not have a curb cut on Solano, but he 14 has one on Wofford. 15 Behind Dr . Baker ' s office is another child-care center 16 that does have a lane for unloading passengers , but all of 17 their many associated employees there park behind the church 18 in an undeveloped land. They just drive up among the 19 mesquite bushes and park their cars there . So there are too 20 many cars there already. 21 We are talking about two child-care centers and now two 22 doctors' offices with their accompanying nurses, 23 receptionists, bookkeepers, lab technicians, 24 eyeglass-dispensing interns in the summer and all of these 25 other things within one block . Not that what I am saying PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1992 146 1 will do any good, but I just wanted to point it out . Thank 2 you. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. 4 Anybody else from the public wish to make a comment 5 regarding this application? 6 MR. DAY: My name is Michael Day. I am a 7 parent of a preschool age child here in Las Cruces and a 8 former Alpha School parent as well . I would like to point 9 out to the Commission the shortage of preschools . And I 10 will call them preschools , because there really is a 11 distinction between child-care centers and preschools . 12 There are lots of child-care centers in this town; there are 13 precious few preschools . And the really high quality 14 preschools in the City, some of them, have up to a 15 three-year waiting list. 16 Before my wife and I moved here here from Albuquerque, 17 we contacted some of the preschools in the area and found 18 that this was the case . And we felt ourselves fortunate to 19 get our four-year-old daughter into preschool when we got 20 here . 21 The other point that I would like to make is that in 22 any free market economy--and certainly this 23 qualifies--competition can only be of benefit to the 24 populace , not only because you provide a greater selection 25 of good and services , but because competition encourages PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 147 1 high quality goods and services . And again, a preschool is 2 a very special business . But it' s a business nonetheless . 3 And I feel that the competition can only be of benefit to 4 the City of Las Cruces . Thank you very much. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Anybody else from the 6 audience wishing to make comments regarding case SUP92-004? 7 All right, I will close it to public participation and 8 go into commissioner input . Any comments? 9 COMMISSIONER DAW: I have some questions . Is 10 this a commercial enterprise , or is it a church enterprise? 11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The church does not 12 provide child care to the general public . This would be a 13 rental arrangement. The contract has been drawn up or has 14 been tentatively signed by the operator, who is present 15 here , if you wish to place some questions to her . She is 16 sitting right there . 17 COMMISSIONER DAW. If I understand you right, 18 she would be renting space in the church to operate a 19 school? 20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That is correct. This 21 is the same arrangement that was previously employed. The 22 previous operator was also renting space and providing 23 child—care service in the local area. 24 This is a slightly different one , because it' s a 25 preschool as opposed to just a babysitting service , which PLANNING AND ZONTNCT COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 148 1 was the previous operator . 2 COMMISSIONER DAW: I worry some that churches 3 are granted rather special privileges relative to the zoning 4 and where they might be located within the City, and I worry 5 about that because a church is located in an area that one 6 might not allow other activities . And now, in a sense , it 7 seems to jeopardize the ability of churches to be in 8 particular locations by a commercial activity. And so I am 9 a little concerned about that . I think this is all the 10 comments I have . 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Any other 12 comments from any other commissioners . 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I think what Dr. Daw 14 pointed out about churches taking on a commercial entity on 15 their property is very valid, and I would agree with that 16 except in the case of a day care or preschool situation. 17 And I agree with the gentleman in the audience . I was a 18 single parent. 19 I know what it' s like trying to put your child in a 20 decent place while you are working, and making sure they 21 have something going for them besides babysitting services . 22 I would encourage what you are trying to do in almost any 23 situation. 24 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I would move for 25 approval of this SUP92-004 . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 149 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I ' ll second. 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion. 3 I would just like for purposes of discussion to address 4 the issue of the parking lot with respect to what is there 5 now. Mr . weir , I looked at the area, and it appears that it 6 had at one time been well-paved, and it just needs 7 maintenance . And I think the applicant would just merely 8 have to go in and repair the parking lot as it exists right 9 now; is that correct? 10 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez , that is correct. 11 The church has been informed that this paved area needs work 12 and that we would have an inspector look at it to see if it 13 meets city requirements . And if it doesn' t, we would make a 14 recommendation as to what type of improvements would be 15 needed to be made and what type of maintenance steps would 16 be required for them to bring the parking area into 17 conformance . 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I just wanted to make sure 19 to point that out. Like I said, it does need some repair, 20 but I hate to have the most stringent parking lot 21 requirements be imposed on the applicant, especially if they 22 can just go in there and make the repairs . 23 MR. WEIR: I believe in your packet there is 24 a letter stating that they are aware of the improvements and 25 are willing to do that. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992 150 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Yes Okay, just for the 2 record I wanted to point that out . Thank you, Mr . Weir . 3 Okay, any other discussion? If not we will go on to 4 vote . 5 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Aye . 6 COMMISSIONER DAW• No . 7 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye. 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The chair votes aye . 10 ( The motion carried 4 to 1 with one 11 abstention. ) 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do I have a motion for 13 adjournment? 14 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Move for adjournment. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . All in favor, aye . 17 ( The motion carried unanimously 6 to 0 . ) 18 (Meeting adjourned at 12 :15 a.m. ) 19 20 cc 21 22 Eddie P e r Chairman Sharlyn% Linard 23 Harold Daw 24 Beatriz Ferreira 25 y i lis Roger Lord PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 25 , 1992