Loading...
04-28-1992 1 1 2 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 5 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 6 7 HELD ON APRIL 28 , 1992 8 9 7 : 30 P.M. 10 11 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 12 13 14 15 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Eddie Perez , Chairman Connie Sharpe 16 Sharlyn Linard Beatriz Ferreira 17 Roger Lord Kay Willis 18 19 STAFF PRESENT: David Weir 20 Mark Simms Jim Erickson 21 22 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 2 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Let' s go ahead and call the 2 meeting to order . This meeting will be conducted following 3 Roberts Rules of Order . If any member of the public has a 4 comment or questions that he or she wishes to address to the 5 commission, they will be recognized by the chair and then 6 they will state their name so that it may be entered into 7 the permanent records of these proceedings . Each person 8 will be recognized once on each case for a time period not 9 exceeding three minutes. If someone has new or additional 10 information, then that individual will be given one 11 additional minute to speak after all citizens who wish to 12 speak on the case have been recognized. 13 When a large number of citizens wish to discuss the 14 case as a neighborhood group, then 15 minutes will be 15 allowed for a group spokesperson, if one has been selected, 16 by the neighborhood group as their representative . If this 17 spokesperson is elected, then all other citizens wanting to 18 speak on that case will be given one additional minute.. 19 The City of Las Cruces will make every effort to 20 provide reasonable accommodations for people with 21 disabilities who wish to attend the public meetings. Please 22 advise the city at least 24 hours before the meeting at 23 526-0000 , or TDD number 526-0795 . 24 The first item on the agenda is the approval of the 25 minutes for the March 24 , 1992 meeting. May I have a motion PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 3 1 to approve the minutes? 2 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So moved. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second. 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? 5 No discussion? 6 ( The motion carried unanimously, 6 to 0 . ) 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The next item on the agenda 8 is old business . May I have a motion to remove from the 9 table case Z2186? 10 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Mr. Chairman, I move 11 that you remove case Z2186 . 12 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The case Z2186 , a request 14 for a zone change from R-3 ( high density residential ) to 15 C-2C ( general commercial conditional ) or otherwise on a plus 16 or minus 4 . 2-acre parcel located on the northeast corner of 17 El Paseo and Farney submitted by Gary Krivokapich. 18 The applicant wishes to have the action postponed until 19 June 23rd, 1992 . Any discussion from the commissioners? 20 May I have a motion to consider postponement until June 21 23rd, 1992 . 22 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Mr . Chairman, I move 23 that we consider postponement of case Z2186 until the 24 meeting of June 23rd. 25 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Is this a motion to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 4 1 consider postponement, or is this a postponement? 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I just didn' t know whether 3 to talk about it or not. Did you have a second. 4 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Second. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? All in favor? 6 ( The motion carried unanimously, 6 to 0 . ) 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • The next item of business is 8 subdivisions . The first case is 5-85-023 . May I have a 9 motion for approval? 10 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So moved. 11 COMMISSIONER LORD: Second. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present? 13 Oh, I am sorry, I need to read this . 14 Case 5-85-023 is a request for final plat extension of 15 Sunrise Heights Subdivision. The property is located west 16 of Dona Ana County Road D-099 (McGuffey Road) and south of 17 Powers Circle The plat contains plus or minus 14 42 acres , 18 which will create 24 lots zoned R-1 . 19 Is the applicant present? Would you please come to the 20 podium? 21 MR. TOTH: There are actually two 22 applications . One is for Sunrise Heights and the other for 23 Sunset. I represent myself on the first application and, 24 also, on the second application I am here for the owner of 25 that, Michael Sadler of Santa Fe . He is unable to attend PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 5 1 the meeting. 2 David and your city Attorney have been versed on the 3 problems that we have had with this . David, do you want me 4 to begin. 5 MR. WEIR: If you would rather me give a 6 history of the case, I can do that. 7 MR. TOTH: I would appreciate if you did 8 that, and then I can amplify on this . 9 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez and commissioners, 10 on this case I would like to make a presentation on two 11 cases, both Sunrise Heights Subdivision and Sunset 12 Subdivision. 13 Both of these subdivisions were submitted for approval 14 prior to their annexation into the city in 1985 . At that 15 time, the subdivisions were required to receive approval 16 from both the County Planning and Zoning Commission and 17 County Board of Commissioners, and the City Planning and 18 Zoning Commission. 19 They received this approval from the city June 11 of 20 1985. From that date, neither of these subdivisions have 21 been filed or accepted into maintenance by the city. The 22 original approval also granted them a couple of variances . 23 The first was to allow them to provide paved streets without 24 curb and gutters and sidewalks . They were allowed to use 25 header curbs in lieu of standard curb and gutters . Their PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 6 1 approval also required that the water system within the 2 subdivision meet city specifications and that McGuffey Road 3 be brought up to the county standard for dedication. 4 Prior to the subdivisions being completed, the area was 5 annexed into the city, and they were required to meet all 6 the standards of the City of Las Cruces for the development 7 of a subdivision. 8 Sunrise Heights, the subdivision to the south, 9 requested a final inspection in October of 1989 . At that 10 time, there were certain items that needed to be addressed 11 to bring the subdivision up to the standards . 12 From an engineering standpoint, it dealt with the 13 drainage and grading of the lots and some of the work on the 14 roads . 15 Another item that came to the attention of the city 16 was discovered by the Utility Department . They found that 17 the water system that was put in place for Sunrise Heights 18 did not meet fire-flow requirements of the city, and the 19 pipe placed within the system did not meet city 20 specifications . Due to this problem, the developer at that 21 time requested a variance from the Planning and Zoning 22 Commission to allow the water system to be accepted, and the 23 fire-flow requirements not to meet city standards . 24 The Planning and Zoning Commission denied this request, 25 and it was appealed to City Council . At City Council , they PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 7 1 approved the subdivision with the water system in place with 2 the fire-flow requirements and the pipe specifications . But 3 they stated that if this water system was to ever be tied 4 into the city water system that it would have to be brought 5 up to city specifications . 6 How that was done was, it was initially tied into the 7 Moongate water system, which is a private water utility on 8 the east mesa. 9 Additional final inspections for Sunrise Heights took 10 place in January 1989 and November of 1989 . There were 11 still outstanding comments on the subdivision at that time. 12 One of these comments was McGuffey Road still had not been 13 brought up to county standards, which was a 14 double-penetration, chip-sealed street. Therefore, an 15 agreement was worked out between the developer and the City 16 of Las Cruces, and that agreement has never been executed, 17 and that road has never been brought up to that standard. 18 This is just a short background history on this to 19 date . Neither of these subdivisions have been filed, as I 20 have already stated. Sunset Heights has never been started. 21 None of the improvements are in place on that subdivision. 22 In Sunrise Heights, all the improvements are in place, but 23 they are still at a stage where the final inspection needs 24 to be made. And all of the items on final inspections need 25 to be addressed. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 8 1 There are several issues that the commission needs to 2 be aware of before they make a decision on this case . The 3 first one is that the approval of these subdivisions was 4 back in 1985 . And at that time, the city' s period for final 5 plat extension was a two-year period. To date there hasn' t 6 been any extension requested on final plat approval of 7 either subdivision, but there have been continuing steps 8 towards developing both of these subdivisions . You can see 9 in Sunrise Heights that there were improvements that were 10 placed in the subdivision. 11 For Sunset Heights there was an agreement with the city 12 to improve McGuffey Road. After that date, the property 13 owners went into bankruptcy proceedings, and they were also 14 involved with a foreclosure of the savings and loan that was 15 backing up the property. And the legal department has 16 reviewed this and has stated due to the continuation to 17 develop the property and these legal proceedings that the 18 commission can hear this case and decide whether to extend 19 the final plat approval . 20 The second issue involving this case is the lots within 21 the subdivision. Each subdivision has 24 lots. And they 22 are a half acre in size . On February 1st of 1990, the New 23 Mexico Environmental Improvement Division passed a 24 regulation stating that if you were to develop a subdivision 25 and use septic tanks you would be required to have at least PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 9 1 three-quarter acre lot size for use in subdivision. If a 2 subdivision was approved prior to that date, they would have 3 until July 1st, 1992 , to develop those lots and use septic 4 tanks . 5 As I have already stated, to date neither of the 6 subdivision plats have been filed. So they would need to 7 get the plats filed prior to July 1st, 1992 , to allow septic 8 tanks . And just to add, as you probably know, there is no 9 existing - - no city sewer to serve this property. 10 The third issue in this case is the water within the 11 Sunrise Heights subdivision. Again, as I have already 12 stated, it does not meet city standards . It does not meet 13 the fire-flow requirements and the specifications of the 14 pipe isn' t what the city standard is . And the utility 15 department has stated that they would not accept this system 16 into the overall city system until it was replaced and 17 brought up to city standards for the pipe classification and 18 the fire-flow requirements . 19 A fourth issue that the commission should take into 20 consideration is the time ; from the initial approval to the 21 date when it was initially approved, it was within the ETZ . 22 And since it' s been annexed into the city, since that time, 23 the city has developed a formal set of development standards 24 for developing residential properties . And the commission 25 just needs to decide if the original approval was adequate PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 10 1 for the standards today. 2 The last and fifth issue is the status of McGuffey 3 Road. The approval of both subdivisions originally stated 4 that McGuffey Road would be paved from the subdivision to 5 U.S . 70 . The standard for that was the county standard, 6 which is just a double penetration, chip-sealed surface . 7 It' s not the two inches of asphalt that the city requires. 8 Basically, the commission has two options before them. 9 The first is to approve the request for extension. And in 10 this request, what they need to consider is the approval 11 going to be just to July 1st for septic tanks, or are you 12 going to grant them a two-year period and say, if the plats 13 are filed after July 1st, city sewer would have to be 14 extended. 15 The second option available to the commission is to 16 deny the request for extension. This option would require 17 anyone who develops that property to resubmit the two 18 proposals, and either bring them up to current city 19 standards or request variances where they don' t meet city 20 standards. The staff' s recommendation on this request 21 before you is to deny final plat extension. Staff would 22 like to reiterate that they would not like to discourage 23 development of this area, but they would like to make sure 24 that all the I ' s are dotted and the T' s are crossed, and 25 that it' s brought up to city standards . There are so many PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 1992 11 1 loose ends involved in this that a resubmittal is probably 2 the best way to clean up the development . 3 If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer 4 them. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir . 6 Would you care to make a statement . 7 MR TOTH: First of all , if - - Mark , would 8 you like to give your comments regarding the legal end of 9 it? 10 MR. SIMMS : My name is Mark Simms . I am 11 deputy city Attorney. Two persons came to me asking for a 12 legal opinion on the tolling of the two-year time period 13 that they had to develop their property. Looking at the 14 cases, my research showed that in this situation there are 15 no cases on point in New Mexico. There are other cases 16 elsewhere in the country that talk about this same type 17 issue . 18 Basically, the issue is, does the bankruptcy and the 19 foreclosure toll the ability to develop the property. And 20 my response to that was, one it depends on the case . You 21 take it on a case-by-case basis . The first case that came 22 to me was--and I have forgotten your name . There are two 23 cases . There was one from Michael Sadler and the other from 24 ,john Toth. Mr . Toth came to me first and unrelated, at a 25 later time, Mr . Sadler came to me . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 12 1 Mr . Toth, when I examined his facts , he just - - the 2 facts didn' t quite allow him, from the cases I read, to go 3 forward. Then Mr . Sadler came in, and the facts were 4 different They were at least different enough that I felt 5 that we would be required to allow him to toll . At least, 6 that' s what all the case law was saying when I compared the 7 cases . 8 Then I found out that they are neighbors . They have 9 adjacent properties . We looked at the comprehensive plan, 10 and we considered that what we would end up with is having a 11 type of checkerboard effect. You would have one property 12 that could be in compliance with the current law, and then 13 you would have another which had a variance which was based 14 on older law, and the two would not look anything similar . 15 So to err on the side of caution, so to speak , we could 16 allow both in under the tolling statute . There is plenty of 17 case law to support it It simply says , when you go into 18 bankruptcy proceedings, and you can' t get at the property to 19 do anything, or if you are in a foreclosure , and in this 20 case they were in both, so you can toll that statute . 21 The tolling would mean everything would be stayed. 22 Once they are out of the bankruptcy or the foreclosure, once 23 they are out of it, then they would be placed back into the 24 same position that were in previously, and then their clock 25 would start running for their two-year time period. Once PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 13 1 they were out of that bankruptcy, the tolling would stop, 2 and then the clock would start up again. 3 They are at a point, just from a legal standpoint, that 4 they have variance based on a 1985 decision, and that' s why 5 he is here to ask for an extension. All the other issues 6 that follow that in Dave ' s discussion, I don' t have anything 7 to do with I am just commenting on that one little point. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mark . 9 MR TOTH: If I might amplify on that. 10 David, in his report, is perfectly right. He is a 11 planning consultant, and he is doing what he has been hired 12 to do, to see that the property is put to its best use . But 13 we, on the other hand, are dealing strictly with the legal 14 end of it. When that was first approved in 1985, there were 15 subsequent variances that were requested And those 16 variances , some of them, were approved. The latest one was 17 in July 1988 , where it was a road agreement. And if you 18 look at your last page , if you have that package that was 19 given to you regarding the subdivision, it' s the final page . 20 And it would be resolution 89-025 . 21 On the top paragraph, the resolution approves the 22 roadway funding agreement between Jesus Gomez and the City 23 of Las Cruces . And it had to do with the improvements for 24 McGuffey Road, which for all intents and purposes are still 25 in full force and effect . In paragraph 3 , it specifically PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 14 1 states , upon signature of the agreement by both parties and 2 satisfactory completion of the final inspection, so on and 3 so forth, staff is directed to approve for filing the final 4 plats of Sunrise and Sunset Heights Subdivisions . 5 There were different agreements worked out at different 6 junctures of the subdivision; however, because of a series 7 of unfortunate circumstances--one was the foreclosure filed 8 by Silver Savings . And second, the bankruptcy filed by the 9 owner and developer . And then Silver Savings having been 10 successful in their foreclosure, then failed and 11 subsequently was taken over and by the RTC and foreclosed 12 last year . 13 We have been working on this property, to try to get 14 it, for probably two and a half, three years . Everytime we 15 went to buy it off, somebody - - something else failed. The 16 last one was the bank . And we established a contract with 17 RTC . This deals specifically with Sunrise Heights . Sunset 18 Heights is one that' s just north of this particular 19 subdivision. They are both directly related, because part 20 of the roadway that was put in for Sunrise is part of the 21 roadway that affects Sunset subdivision. And the waterline 22 is in on both of those properties . The unfortunate thing is 23 nobody was in a position to make better or make worse these 24 particular properties . If we punish the property, that 25 wouldn' t be real fair, because the improvements are in on PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 15 1 that one subdivision, aside from the fact that there may be 2 some minor things that have to be done to it, such as 3 resealing portions of the road, minor grading and such like 4 that . That subdivision for all intents and purposes is 5 ready to be inspected and recorded 6 We will stand by whatever agreements were in effect 7 relative to these subdivisions and that deal specifically 8 with road issues for McGuffey Road. I believe it was about 9 a $35 , 000 or $40 , 000 agreement that was worked out, where it 10 would be put into escrow, and it would be the city that 11 utilized that money to either improve that portion of the 12 road or put it together with some other funds and make it 13 better . 14 MR. WEIR: That is correct. 15 MR. TOTH: If the city water system is close 16 by, and I understand it' s in part of Jornada North, if we 17 can utilize that system, we would be willing to put in the 18 new pipes and lines within the subdivisions , provided we 19 don' t have to go a couple of miles to get at it. 20 The approval was granted on that variance to reduce the 21 fire-flow requirement for these two subdivisions . Those 22 water lines are in for both of them. And that particular 23 subdivision, the first one, Sunrise Heights, is ready, for 24 all intents and purposes , to be utilized. I could have gone 25 and had the inspections processed and said, Now, we have PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 16 1 done our job, we want to record this plat, and be turned 2 away by the city clerk or county clerk . 3 So we felt the best way was to come before you 4 commissioners and have you understand We had no part in 5 the failure process . We are here to reconcile problems and 6 make them viable subdivisions and get on with it, get that 7 subdivision that has been laying around there for seven 8 years and put it to a useful taxable purpose . 9 Your city Attorney has stated what we are dealing 10 specifically is the legal end of it, that the clock stopped 11 when bankruptcy was filed, and the clock stopped us when 12 foreclosure was filed. But most importantly, when Silver 13 failed and the Feds took it over, we know what the Federal 14 government can do as far as bureaucracy. Everything just 15 stops until somebody picks it up, and we have done that. 16 We are trying to do this in a proper way, as it was 17 approved years ago . We can' t really conform to whatever the 18 standards are in the city today, because it would render 19 those subdivisions useless . 20 The first one , as David might agree with me, is all set 21 to go, other than some minor repairs and improvements . The 22 other, Mr. Sadler , from Santa Fe is willing to bring his up 23 to whatever standards were applicable at that time to get it 24 on the record and record it . Even if it can' t be done prior 25 to July 1st, to have his road improvements in, he is willing PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 17 1 to bond that particular portion, if necessary. And simply 2 speaking, we are seeking approval of that extension to at 3 least July 1st 4 I have nothing further . Any questions? 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We may have some questions a 6 little bit later on. 7 At this point in time , we will go ahead and open it to 8 public participation. Anybody in the audience wish to make 9 any comments regarding this application? Going once, twice , 10 three times . 11 Okay, we will close it to public participation and go 12 on to commissioner participation. Anybody on the commission 13 wish to comment or ask questions? 14 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I have some specific 15 questions for Mark Simms . 16 Do you have copies of these cases that you are 17 referring to? 18 MR. SIMMS : I can provide you with copies of 19 them, but I don' t have any copies with me now. It' s really 20 just looking at the digest and at different cases nationwide 21 to try to figure out something, since I couldn' t find 22 anything in New Mexico . 23 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: The cases that you 24 found, were they allowed the extension because the tolling 25 of the statute was determined? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 18 1 MR. SIMMS : Right. 2 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA. In those cases that 3 involved bankruptcy, was that a voluntary bankruptcy or was 4 it involuntary? Did they distinguish between those two? 5 MR SIMMS What I recall reading, they 6 didn' t make the distinction It' s simply - - there is a 7 section directly under the bankruptcy law which simply talks 8 about governmental interests . The broad position was that 9 the planning and zoning could allow this or not. And 10 looking at it from that angle , it appeared to say yes and it 11 says no, depending on what part of the country you are 12 looking at in a particular case . 13 There was no real rationale except state rights, 14 basically, Tenth Amendment rights . 15 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Assume for the moment 16 that we were to apply the cases that said yes we accept this 17 tolling of the statute In this particular case , when did 18 the case come out of bankruptcy or foreclosure? 19 MR. SIMMS : I think Mr . Toth said, and I have 20 got a sheet on it, but his from his facts - - based upon his 21 facts , I have got one from Sunrise and Sunset subdivision, 22 bankruptcy was filed September 1989 . 23 Wait, we will start at the beginning. Foreclose by 24 Silver September 188 . Bankruptcy filed September 189 . 25 Silver failed 1990 . Bankruptcy ended February 12th, 1991 . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 19 1 Then Silver Savings closed and was taken over by RTC in 2 September of 191 . So those are all the relevant dates that 3 I was looking at . 4 And basically, we understand what the tolling means is 5 that if they still have any time left for the two years, 6 then they are still alive . But their real cutoff point is 7 July 1st, because another rule kicks in by the environmental 8 improvement that says if you don' t have your plat filed by 9 that time, then you can' t go forward. We are looking at the 10 use of septic tanks in that area. That' s basically it. But 11 I can go get the cases for you right now if you want to look 12 at them. 13 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I don' t know if I 14 want to look at them. 15 Let me ask you something. You say we are looking at 16 basically septic tanks versus connecting to the city, I 17 guess , right, and the subdivision that' s east of there is on 18 septic tanks right now? 19 MR. TOTH: Yes, they are . 20 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: And is that the only 21 problem we would have is septic tanks? We seem to be 22 looking at other things that are not in compliance with the 23 present day code . 24 MR. SIMMS : I think you are looking at other 25 things, but the date for the extension that I think Mr . Toth PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 20 1 and Mr . Sadler are asking for is July 1st, because that' s 2 their deadline from the environmental department that says 3 if you don' t have a plat filed by this time, then you will 4 be prevented from doing the type of division that they are 5 looking at. 6 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I guess the new 7 property rules wouldn' t allow the septic tanks on a smaller 8 piece of property; is that correct? 9 MR. TOTH: Yes . Up to that point, it was a 10 half acre . 11 MR. SIMMS : To my understanding, they want to 12 act prior to that time so that they could have the property 13 divided into smaller pieces, smaller lots. 14 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So, the July 1st, 15 1992 date is not related to the tolling of the statute at 16 all? 17 MR SIMMS : No, that' s related only to the 18 environmental law. 19 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Going back to the 20 tolling of the statute , then, did you figure out if they had 21 any time left? 22 MR. SIMMS : I figured out that they had more 23 than enough for two years, but nothing specific like five 24 days or ten days . I know that they had time . Maybe Mr. 25 Toth has got some figures on it. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 21 1 All I did is make sure that there was definitely a 2 tolling during that time period. 3 MR. TOTH: I can expand on that if you want a 4 date 5 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Wasn' t the original 6 date 185 , and it was a two-year period or extension, 7 correct? 8 MR. WEIR: In 185 the regulation they had 9 granted a two-year approval period for final plats . Prior 10 to the expiration of that approval , they would have had to 11 come in with an extension or file the plat. Those would be 12 the two options prior . 13 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: And that would have 14 been, what, at least by June of 1987? 15 MR. WEIR: That is correct. 16 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: And the bankruptcy 17 was filed after that date? 18 MR. WEIR: The city policy gives them a 19 little bit - - if the developer was actively taking steps to 20 develop the property, we considered them fulfilling their 21 obligation. And due to the fact that there are resolutions 22 on variances to the improvements and a road agreement, the 23 city was still considering that an active subdivision and as 24 a still-approved subdivision. And the latest date on the 25 road improvement agreement was sometime in 1988 . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 22 1 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Okay. So then it' s 2 irrelevant if they ask for an extension in two years, is 3 that what you are saying, because they were still active? 4 MR. WEIR: It was still having final plat 5 approval , because the developers were taking steps to 6 develop the property. 7 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: This July 188 8 resolution that we are looking at, paragraph one it refers 9 to a roadway funding agreement; is that what you are 10 referring to? 11 MR. WEIR: Yes . Resolution 89-025 . 12 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: And paragraph three 13 states that upon signature of the agreement by both parties 14 and satisfactory final inspection and acceptance of the 15 subdivision by the city, and then the city staff' s approval 16 for filing final plats , were all of these things 17 accomplished then? 18 MR. WEIR: No, none of them have been done to 19 date . None of the final inspections had been held on 20 Sunrise Heights, because the improvements have not been 21 accepted by the city. 22 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Were there any 23 deadlines set on any of this stuff, because we don' t have a 24 copy of this roadway funding agreement? 25 MR. TOTH: That was kind of open all along PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 23 1 through those years , and the only thing - - 2 MR. WEIR: The copy of the agreement that I 3 have in the file is not signed by any of the official 4 parties , so I have no record that it was ever officially 5 executed. All we have is the resolution that the City 6 Council approve the agreement . 7 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: And this was approved 8 in July of 188 , and here we are in 192 . They didn' t put a 9 deadline as to when this thing would have to be signed to 10 make it effective? Was it perpetually open? 11 MR. WEIR: I am not aware of that. 12 MR. TOTH: That' s what I tried to suggest, if 13 there were a time limit put on it, that time limit would be 14 stayed because of the bankruptcy, foreclosure and failure of 15 Silver Savings , which Mark has tried to allude to. 16 When you were asking about what the time limit was and 17 when the two-year tolling came into being, if you take when 18 Silver Savings was closed and taken over by the RTC - - in 19 effect, the RTC was in a position to place that property on 20 the open market, but it took them about five or six months 21 to finally get the appraisal and everything. So if we can 22 establish December 1991 as when the clock started to begin, 23 then, however , with that July 1st, 1992 requirement, that it 24 go to three-quarter acre lots , that other part becomes a 25 moot point, unless that law gets challenged in court by PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 24 1 somebody else and then there is a stay put on that. 2 It' s kind of an arbitrary type of thing. On July 1st, 3 1992 , bang, everything stops . There are a lot of people 4 that are either going to be scrambling to get subdivisions 5 recorded, or they are going to come back and do them over . 6 This is the first time that we have had to come before 7 the commission as the new proposed property owners to be in 8 a position to make this property a whole subdivision again. 9 And I could go on and on and on, and all I am doing is 10 selling the merits of it. It' s an unfortunate set of 11 circumstances that started on this property starting in 1988 12 up to the point - - almost up to today. If you listen to 13 Mark on that, as far as the statute , the time has been 14 tolled. And we have done our research on it, and he 15 indicates pretty much that he has concurred. And that' s 16 only one of the reasons I am here today, that we are fairly 17 certain of the research. 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Basically, what I 19 understand Mark to say is that it' s taken on a case-by-case 20 basis. So that it could go either way. It all depends on 21 the circumstances; is that correct, Mark? 22 MR. SIMMS : Yes . 23 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I have no other 24 questions . 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other commissioners? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 25 1 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Mr. Chairman, I have a 2 question for David. 3 At the time this subdivision was approved, it was in 4 the ETZ, and it fell outside the subdivision regulations of 5 the City of Las Cruces at that time . Since that time, we 6 have changed those subdivision regulations . 7 How does this subdivision match up with the ones that 8 we have in use today? 9 MR. WEIR: The regulations haven' t changed 10 greatly. Let me start back at the time this was approved. 11 The subdivision had to meet the requirements of the county 12 subdivision regulations and the city regulations . 13 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Which was the more 14 stringent or stricter of the two? 15 MR. WEIR: In most cases that was the city' s 16 regulations . 17 At the time, under the old regulations, most people 18 submitted their preliminary and final plats at the same time 19 for approval. And in 1991 , you adopted a new set of 20 subdivision regulations for the city. And the major change 21 in the regulation was, on a phased project of over 20 lots, 22 you required a master plan to be approved, then a 23 preliminary plat to be approved, and then a final plat to be 24 approved. It would require three separate approvals before 25 it could go to the construction phase . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 26 1 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: That isn' t what I am 2 getting at. What I am getting at, David, is how about the 3 requirements for the design standards? 4 Well , maybe I should back off of that. I don' t mean 5 design standards , either . I am talking about McGuffey Road 6 as it pertains to our present subdivision regulations . Do 7 our present subdivision regulations address this kind of a 8 collector? 9 MR. WEIR: The current subdivision 10 regulations state that a developer is responsible for 50 11 percent of the road improvements adjacent to his property. 12 The Planning and Zoning Commission has it within their 13 power to place more stringent requirements on a development 14 if they deem it for the public good. And that' s where you 15 would get into your access requirements . 16 Is there adequate infrastructure to develop this piece 17 of property? That could be a reason for you to halt or not 18 approve a development, saying that the road is not to city 19 standards . 20 Are their provisions for drainage inadequate? And this 21 is a reason you could give to deny a proposal . 22 As far as the subdivision itself, what they would be 23 responsible for improving from a strict interpretation of 24 the regulation would just be that 50 percent that is 25 adjacent to their property. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 27 1 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: But my question is , 2 what do you do with that road from there, from that property 3 to the latest dedicated and city-maintained right-of-way? 4 What happens to it? 5 MR WEIR• The commission has a series of 6 options available to them. 7 One , you could require the developer to pave that road 8 from his subdivision to the city right-of-way that is up to 9 current city standards . 10 The second would be to deny the proposal because of 11 inadequate infrastructure . 12 The third option would be to go ahead and approve it 13 and not require them to improve the roadway and leave it the 14 way it is 15 And any one of those options could be chosen by the 16 commission 17 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Thank you, David. 18 Mr . Toth, I don' t have any problem with granting you an 19 extension to July 1st, although it seems a little unusual . 20 But I do have problems with the fire flow and with McGuffey 21 Road, so what are your plans? What will you do about the 22 fire flow? 23 MR. TOTH: What we are trying to do is, do it 24 just the way it was orchestrated when it was originally 25 approved. However , as I mentioned to you earlier , if the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 28 1 cost of bringing the water line from that subdivision up to 2 city standards is relatively inexpensive--and by that I mean 3 it doesn' t cost $50 , 000 to $100 , 000 to put in a water line 4 for those two subdivisions--we would be willing to do that, 5 in fact, tie into the city water system onc.e we find out 6 where it is . 7 To do it with Moongate water - - I think right now 8 there would be over 7 , 000 feet of useless pipe to bring 9 water from where their main is, because right now they 10 service that with a four-inch main that comes to that 11 subdivision. There is six-inch pipe in the subdivision 12 itself, but it' s four-inch pipe into the subdivision. If 13 you would bring it up to the city' s fire flow, it would 14 require that six-inch pipe be extended from the main all the 15 way to the subdivision. That' s over 7 , 000 feet of pipe , and 16 that may cost $50 , 000 , and we would still be under Moongate 17 water service . 18 However, if the city has a main close enough that we 19 could tie in, we would sooner do that. 20 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Why didn't you check on 21 that? 22 MR. TOTH: We didn' t get that far into it. 23 What we are trying to do is get the extension so we can make 24 the improvements necessary to effect the recording of the 25 plat prior to July 1st of this year . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 29 1 Regarding McGuffey Road, as far as the agreement that 2 was executed by the owners at that time, Gomez and his 3 partners, with the city, we will honor that agreement, and 4 put in our fair share in the escrow, if the city decides to 5 improve that portion of McGuffey Road. 6 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Was any money placed in 7 escrow? 8 MR. TOTH: We would be willing to contribute 9 it with no problem, that' s part of the cost of developing. 10 The owners at that time would have done that, and we see no 11 reason to ask for any changes in that regard. 12 I will find out tomorrow or the next day regarding the 13 city water system, what it would cost to extend the city 14 water line . And I understand that Jornada subdivision has 15 city water . So it may just be a matter of going across 16 somebody' s property line . I honestly don' t know. Or we may 17 have to go all the way across Highway 70 and come across and 18 come back down, rather than being able to go directly in 19 with whatever was in place at the time when the subdivision 20 was included and all the subsequent variances were granted. 21 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I think for the safety 22 of the people who buy in a subdivision, you should have 23 found out about the water and really checked into this part, 24 the fire flow requirements . 25 MR. TOTH: Well , whatever was necessary was PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 30 1 done at that time . The fire hydrants are in place , I think, 2 in Sunrise subdivision, but not in Sunset. They were going 3 to put in a reduction valve of some sort--and I don' t know 4 the technical name for it--but what in effect it does would 5 be make the four-inch line that comes into six-inch line 6 count as four-inch line , and the pressure would be there . 7 I will , however , check as far as putting in the city 8 water system. We would prefer that. It' s a lot less 9 expensive as far as the cost per thousand gallons . 10 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: And what about as far 11 as improving the road, McGuffey Road, alongside the 12 subdivisions . 13 MR TOTH: Whatever the agreement was in 14 effect at that time . We will honor it without any problem. 15 Any of the improvements necessary for those two 16 subdivisions , we will do exactly what was supposed to be 17 done 18 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Don' t you feel you need 19 to do something about McGuffey Road to make your subdivision 20 salable and attractive? Wouldn' t you want to improve the 21 whole of McGuffey Road to increase the value of your 22 subdivision? I can understand your not wanting to pay the 23 entire cost of that . 24 MR . TOTH: We would be willing, as I said, to 25 put in our fair share , whatever we could do, to effect PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 31 1 something along those lines . 2 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: The approval did 3 require all streets to be composed of two-inch asphalt . 4 MR. TOTH: This first division has the roads 5 in place already. So all we are talking about is the other 6 subdivision, and that owner , Michael Sadler , is ready, 7 willing and able . The only thing that delayed us from doing 8 anything was this series of unfortunate circumstances . He 9 has had his property back from foreclosure, but couldn' t do 10 anything with his until the Sunrise subdivision was resolved 11 with the RTC. And they had just executed the contract a 12 month ago. So we are in a position now to do something 13 about the properties. So it was kind of a catch-22 . One 14 could not do anything without the other . But he advised me 15 anything that was in place at that time regarding any 16 resolution or agreements , that we would both honor it, 17 making life simple , so to speak . 18 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I wish you were making 19 it simple for us, but you are not. 20 MR. TOTH: I am going to try. 21 COMMISSIONER LORD: I am wondering about what 22 $35 , 000 can buy now compared to what it could buy in 1988 . 23 And I wonder if that is the limit of their obligation, the 24 $35, 000 , to pave that road. It also sounds like we have an 25 unsigned agreement floating around somewhere for $35, 000 . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 32 1 That doesn't sound like it' s going to be sufficient to get 2 the job done. Do you know if it is? 3 MR. WEIR: I don't know exactly what the cost 4 estimates are. Chairman Perez may know what the costs may 5 be for a chip-sealed surface for a roadway. But you are 6 right in your assumption that there hasn't been any signed 7 agreement. A new one would have to be drawn up and signed 8 by the present owners and city representatives . 9 COMMISSIONER LORD: So if we were to extend 10 this to July 1st, would they have to bring back answers to 11 all of these unanswered questions , between then and now, to 12 us? 13 MR. WEIR: I don' t believe they would come 14 back to you. But the developer of the property would have 15 to solve these problems prior to the plat being filed. He 16 would have to come up with an agreement between - - well , he 17 would have to first resolve the utility problem with our 18 utility department. He would have to bring up the grading 19 and drainage and the streets that exist to a standard that 20 is acceptable for city maintenance. And then the agreement 21 for the improvement of McGuffey Road would have to be 22 settled, also. 23 COMMISSIONER LORD: But by your department, 24 not the commission? 25 MR. WEIR: Not by the commission. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 33 1 And what I am basing that on, the last time the 2 agreement was made , it was between the developer and the 3 City Council The amendment to the agreement would require 4 City Council action. 5 MR TOTH: This may well take us long beyond 6 July 1st. That' s the first thing. If we live with the 7 agreement and stick to the letter of the law the way it was 8 prescribed at that particular time and not make one party to 9 the other - - the agreement for McGuffey Road and the escrow 10 account, I think, it was separate from the original 11 resolution. One did not have anything to do with the other . 12 It was a known fact that the developers and owners were 13 going to contribute their fair share in a separate escrow 14 agreement. But one didn' t have anything to do with the 15 other . The fact is that the improvements to that 16 subdivision were done in a timely, orderly fashion. And the 17 power was with the planning commission to have the plats 18 signed by whoever would sign them and then record the plats . 19 In addition to that, that road agreement was made an 20 additional part of it, that McGuffey Road would be escrowed 21 to $35, 000 . 22 I mean if it' s a situation that, you know, $35, 000 23 isn' t going to be enough, I think it' s like 60/40 on that. 24 If you took into account cost of living increases , whatever 25 the difference would be from 1988 , and project it to this PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 34 1 year , you may come up with a 15-percent increase in cost. 2 We have no problem living with that additional amount of 3 money. $35 , 000 should be adequate to do that particular 4 work . 5 But if we get into a whole bunch of checking with this 6 one and checking with that one , July 1st is going to come 7 and go and nothing will be resolved. So if you can see your 8 way clear on the original merits of that subdivision that 9 was approved to grant that stay or time limit to July 1st, 10 we could be in a position to go do what we have to do and 11 iron out any of the things that have to be ironed out. But 12 to make everything part and parcel of that continuation, if 13 we make that road agreement part of it, then today' s meeting 14 won' t mean anything, because July 1st will have come and 15 gone . 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Sir, would you speak up a 17 little louder . 18 MR. TOTH: July 1st will have come and gone 19 and nothing will be arrived at . 20 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I have a question for 21 staff. 22 How far is the city water from this parcel of land? Do 23 you know? 24 MR. WEIR: The Jornada North subdivision is 25 fed by city water . And the Las Colinas subdivision is also PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 35 1 fed by city water . The main would be in the right-of-way 2 for North Main Street or U. S . 70 . It would have to be 3 brought up McGuffey Road. 4 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So right now there is 5 water right under Main Street/U. S . 70 at the edge of 6 McGuffey Street? 7 MR WEIR: That is correct. 8 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Is it on what would 9 the be the north or south side of Highway 70? 10 MR. WEIR: I am not aware of which side it' s 11 on. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Mr . Moore, can you shed some 13 light on that? 14 MR. MOORE: I don' t think so. 15 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: We have a lot of 16 concerns every time we are presented with these requests 17 that refer to all of these agreements that were never before 18 us, these unsigned agreements . And I feel kind of limited 19 in the information that we have before us . 20 I understand the applicants' position. And the 21 difference that I see between option one and two, please 22 correct me--because I am trying to understand these two 23 options here--is, basically, the sewage problem? Is that 24 it? I mean everything else would have to come into 25 compliance with present day code? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 36 1 MR. WEIR: No. 2 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Then I am not 3 interpreting this correctly, because it says to be improved 4 to city standards . 5 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Up until and subject to 6 the already existing agreements . 7 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Which do not exist 8 because you don' t have these agreements signed by anybody. 9 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: According to our 10 attorney, they are in full force and effect. 11 MR. WEIR: I may be able to help shed some 12 light on this for Commissioner Ferreira . 13 The variances for the water system and fire flow would 14 be in effect, so that statement isn' t quite correct. So, 15 the only time they would have to bring the water system up 16 to city standards is if they were to tie it in. If they 17 were to no longer be served by Moongate and be served by the 18 city water system. 19 The statement about the drainage is also true . That 20 would have to be brought up to acceptable standards, and 21 also for city maintenance of the roads by present day code . 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : But up on top, on issue 23 number three , it says the water system for Sunrise 24 subdivision, the system as installed, does not meet current 25 city standards . The variance received for the subdivisions PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 37 1 in 1987 does not allow the existing system to hook up to the 2 city water system. 3 MR. WEIR: That is correct. And what the 4 utility department has stated is, if that particular 5 development ever wanted to be served by the city water 6 system, they would have to pull out the existing pipes and 7 put in a city system, to city standards, and approved by the 8 city utility department before they would be allowed to tie 9 into the city system. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : If we grant the approval 11 through July 1 , 1992 , that would - - 12 MR. WEIR: They would still not be allowed to 13 tie into the city system unless they were willing to replace 14 the system. 15 COMMISSIONER LORD: Are we talking about the 16 water pipes coming into the subdivision, just the main line 17 coming into it, or are we talking about digging up the whole 18 thing? 19 MR. WEIR: We are talking about the existing 20 water systems on the two phases. 21 MR. TOTH: If we left that system intact, 22 it' s sufficient from a private water source, correct? 23 MR. WEIR: The variance has been granted to 24 allow them to use that system 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Going back right now, if we PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 38 1 were to approve to extend the final plat approval until 2 July 1 , that would enable him to get in under the wire , so 3 to speak , to stay within the half—acre development criteria 4 that was in effect for septic systems at that point in time? 5 MR. WEIR: That is correct , Chairman Perez . 6 What he would be required to do is file that plat prior to 7 July 1st, 1992 , and that would either be by getting the 8 improvements up to standards accepted by the city or posting 9 a letter of credit with the city guaranteeing that those 10 improvements would be brought up to standard, and that would 11 allow him to file the plat. And that would allow him to use 12 septic tanks on the half-acre lots . 13 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Mr . Chairman, is our 14 attorney here? Mark, according to what you told us , this 15 subdivision is still legally in effect, right? 16 MR. SIMMS : That is right . 17 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: So then, my next 18 question is , if that subdivision is still legally in effect, 19 it hasn' t expired yet And if all of these other conditions 20 are also in effect, then why is it being brought to us at 21 all? 22 MR. SIMMS: Didn' t we determine the 23 expiration date? We had some date for expiration. 24 MR. TOTH: I did, before July 1st. 25 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I don' t have that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 39 1 information, I am sorry. I think he' s got it. 2 MR TOTH• Well , the one subdivision would be 3 extended until September of 1993 , but that would be 4 pointless, because the July 1st, 1992 requirement that all 5 plats be recorded, the other subdivision which is north of 6 it, that' s Sunset, I believe would expire, if you took the 7 true course of events when Michael Sadler finally got that 8 out of foreclosure , that would expire at the end of May. I 9 think May 28th of this year . But he could do nothing until 10 the RTC released the other property, because one is directly 11 related to the other . 12 MR. SIMMS : So you are looking at two pieces 13 of property at the same time . 14 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: One of them is still in 15 effect, it' s still satisfying his needs, because it doesn' t 16 expire until September of 1993 So only one really needs an 17 extension, which is property number two; isn' t that right? 18 MR. SIMMS : Right. 19 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: But July 1st of this 20 year, if you take that into account, you both need the 21 extension for the septic system? 22 MR. TOTH: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I still don' t see why. 24 MR. TOTH: Let me put it a different way. If 25 I went to the city recorder ' s or city clerk ' s office to try PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 40 1 to record the plats--assuming I would--and I did all the 2 work necessary, she would start laughing, because of the 3 July 1985 date on the original lien. That is why we thought 4 it best to come before the commission so everything was 5 understood along the line . 6 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Her sense of humor is 7 hers , and ours is ours . 8 MR. TOTH: We would have been turned down and 9 time would have been lost. See, it' s really a very specific 10 legal issue . 11 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: So, you want us to 12 clean up the dusty paper and put back the cart before the 13 horse . 14 MR. SIMMS : As a point of order, I could add 15 that I could write a legal opinion, but the opinion is only 16 worth the paper it' s written on. It has no real power or 17 authority other than that this is the opinion of Mark Simms, 18 deputy city attorney who represents the City of Las Cruces . 19 And through various means that are yours, the Planning and 20 Zoning Commi.ssion' s, you have the authority that would clear 21 it up for them, and then they would understand what was 22 going on, if it was granted from you. If I wrote the 23 letter, it might be good, but I doubt with this short time 24 period that he would be able to make that July 1st deadline . 25 MR. TOTH: That' s why we need something PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 41 1 that' s clear . That' s part of the reason why. 2 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Might I ask another 3 question? 4 All right. Assuming he runs down there , and just 30 5 minutes before time expires , says here are my plats , they 6 have all been filed of record. So now, how long does he 7 have before he needs to start construction as far as the EID 8 is concerned? Is there a length of time? 9 MR. TOTH: Do you mean once the plats are 10 recorded, how long after that are you allowed to complete 11 the improvements? 12 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Yes . 13 MR. TOTH: we would expect most of the 14 improvements , at least to Sunrise , to be done prior to July 15 1st. The second section, Sunset subdivision, would be done 16 hopefully by that time or bonded to allow the recording of 17 the plat, either of which - - 18 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I am still not sure you 19 answered my question. 20 MR. TOTH: You are worried about once the 21 plats are recorded, when is somebody going to get in there 22 and do the work? 23 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: No, I am saying, how 24 long a period of time does EID give you to complete the 25 subdivision, or are they concerned about that? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 42 1 MR. TOTH: That' s the part that deals with 2 the septic systems and all? 3 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Yes . 4 MR. TOTH: That' s what I am talking about. 5 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: If we approved that 6 today, if you didn' t do anything about it for the next 20 7 years, and there is a lot of underground pollution, what do 8 they do then? That is what I am saying. 9 MR. TOTH: The thing we are concerned with is 10 the July 1st, 1992 deadline . 11 To eliminate a lot of problems, I know what you are 12 saying. In other words, if somebody didn' t build on the 13 lots for ten years , would they still be allowed to put a 14 septic system in? 15 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: What I am wondering is, 16 because there are a lot of regulations, I am sure the 17 legislation is going to be introduced once that statute 18 takes effect July 1st, 1992 , that' s going to state that any 19 lots that have been platted and recorded prior to July 1st, 20 1992 , have until such—and—such a time to install an adequate 21 septic system. At least this had been the case in other 22 areas throughout the county, where a time limit is set. 23 If you don' t do it, you have to go in for specific 24 exception. And you either stand to lose, or you' re allowed 25 to build. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 43 1 MR. TOTH: Well , in this particular case, we 2 intend to get in, make the improvements, construct the homes 3 and finish the two developments within probably a year to 18 4 months . 5 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: After July 1st, they 6 still have two years, don' t they, according to our 7 regulations? 8 MR. WEIR: If they posted the bond, they 9 would have two years to make the improvements to the 10 subdivision as a whole . 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Currently in that area 12 around Las Colinas and Jornada, what kind of septic system 13 is being used? Is it a septic tank system or is it city? 14 MR. WEIR: The Las Colinas development is on 15 the city sewer system. Jornada, their lots are all an acre 16 or greater in size , and they are hooked up to septic tanks . 17 And they meet the minimum requirements of the new 18 regulations for the use of septic tanks . And I believe they 19 are going to continue that use . 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : You have got less density in 21 this particular subdivision, so how would the EID or even 22 the city look upon that situation? 23 MR. WEIR: Currently, what EID is doing is 24 that when there is a subdivision in question, they call the 25 city planning office and ask when that subdivision was PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 44 1 approved. And what we do is , we keep an action form of the 2 Planning and Zoning Commission' s decisions on subdivisions , 3 with the date of approval on it, and we send that to the 4 environmental department . So they are aware when the plat 5 was approved. And they also are aware of when the plat was 6 filed, so they can get that information from either our 7 records or the county clerk ' s records . 8 How they have treated the septic tanks is that, if 9 subdivisions had been approved prior to the February 1st, 10 1990 date , and had been filed prior to the July 1st date , 11 they have issued the septic tank permits for lots less than 12 three quarters of an acre in size . So between the two of 13 them it would be approximately 68 lots that would have 14 septic tanks . 15 MR. TOTH: Generally, a rule of thumb is, as 16 long as there is a water utility, the chance of polluting 17 anything is very, very low. In addition, if the septic tank 18 is maintained like it' s supposed to be and pumped out once 19 every year or two years , they are good for 30 , 40 years 20 without failure . If they do fail , there is adequate reserve 21 area on each of these lots . 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The other problem that still 23 haunts me is, going back to the water system and that at 24 some point in time , what system would you be hooking up to, 25 now? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 45 1 MR. TOTH: Moongate is already tied into 2 that. As a matter of fact, there is a new home under 3 construction at the end of this new road--and I don' t know 4 the people ' s name . It' s a rather large home They hooked 5 into Moongate water running into this line that serves this 6 subdivision. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : What would be the 8 possibility at some time in the future of having it 9 necessary to hook up to the city water system, and what' s 10 the point? 11 MR. WEIR: I don' t think I can really answer 12 that question. I can only give you an assumption. If 13 Moongate water had some problem supplying water to that 14 development, then they would have to seek an alternative 15 source of water . 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Well , I don' t know this as a 17 fact, but I think there has been a problem in that area up 18 there with water pressure , or has that been corrected now? 19 MR. WEIR: The city is currently working on a 20 project to increase water pressure for the Las Colinas 21 subdivision, and they have a major project in which they are 22 drilling new wells on the east mesa to address those water 23 pressure issues . And that is with the city water system. 24 And what the problem was, they had to use a booster station 25 to get the water up from the valley up to Las Colinas . Once PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 46 1 they get their new improvements in, there will be water up 2 there with no problem in the subdivisions that are served by 3 the City of Las Cruces . 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I am thinking about, we had 5 a similar situation about a year or two ago--and you might 6 remember--with the Dona Ana system, that the city was also 7 hesitant to hook up to their system because , again, the 8 water lines were not up to city standards . That' s what 9 concerns me , that if that were to occur, then what kind of a 10 position would the potential homeowner be put into if, let' s 11 say that worse comes to worst, and the subdivision found 12 itself in a position to have to hook up to the city water 13 system. What kind of exposure would the homeowner have at 14 that point in that subdivision? 15 MR. WEIR. This gets back to the current 16 stance of the city, that they will not accept this system 17 until it' s brought up to their standards . So that community 18 would have to either put in a system to city standards or 19 come to an agreement in which the city would replace it, and 20 they would - - either the city would replace it at their 21 cost, or they would work some type of agreement out in which 22 the homeowners would pay for the replacement of the water 23 system. 24 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: What water system is 25 servicing that subdivision directly east of there? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 47 1 MR. TOTH: City water . 2 COMMISSIONER SHARPE. Mr Chairman, this is 3 one of those Catch-22 situations . I can understand what the 4 man is trying to do, but if we disapprove this the worst 5 thing that can happen to him is he goes back and replats it 6 at three-quarter acre lots , and then he conforms with the 7 EID requirements , and then he would have to come back and 8 all of these old agreements will have to be redrawn in a 9 manner that would be comprehensible and fair to everyone . 10 So that is one option I can see that he has . This doesn' t 11 put him out of business , if we deny this subdivision. 12 The other thing that I can see is that he still really 13 has time on one subdivision, and it' s only the other 14 subdivision that we are giving our blessing to . But he 15 wants this one to be blessed at the same time . I have a 16 problem trying to figure out where we stand as a commission 17 on doing something like that 18 However , if the commission feels that they wish to go 19 ahead and approve this subdivision, I would like to impose 20 certain conditions . And there would be two conditions. The 21 two conditions would be that the water system would be 22 brought up to city standards . I mean the water flow be 23 brought up to city standards by whatever means Mr . Toth 24 spoke off. But what in effect is going to happen by the 25 time any of that is resolved, July 1st will have come and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 48 1 gone , and then we ' ll - - all of this would have been for 2 naught 3 MR. SIMMS : Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 4 Sharpe, the problem is , he ' s already had final approval of 5 the plat. What he is asking for is an extension. You can' t 6 put conditions on a final approval . 7 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: You are right. I stand 8 corrected. I am sorry about that. 9 Mr . Chairman, call for the question. 10 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 11 COMMISSIONER LORD: Nay. 12 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Nay. 13 COMMISSIONER LINARD: No. 14 COMMISSSIONER SHARPE: Aye . 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Nay. 16 The motion fails . 17 ( The motion failed 4 to 1 , with one 18 abstention. ) 19 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: You can appeal this to 20 the City Council . 21 MR. TOTH: I realize that. I would have 22 hoped that you would have just accepted that continuance . 23 If I may still continue, even though it' s not part of it. 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Well , there is the other 25 case . I guess the issues are similar . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 49 1 MR. TOTH: Right. 2 MR. SIMMS : That may be, but as a point of 3 order, at some point in time , we will have to go through the 4 formality, since we didn' t ask for a motion for approval for 5 its consideration. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : If you will allow me , I ' ll 7 go through it real quick , and then we can make the motion 8 for approval . 9 The next case is S-85-025 , a request for final plat 10 extension of Sunset Heights Subdivision. The property is 11 located west of Dona Ana County Road D-099 (McGuffey Road) 12 and north of Powers Circle . The plat contains plus or minus 13 14 . 42 acres which will create 24 lots. Zoned R-1 . 14 Would you like to make a presentation on this one , Mr . 15 Toth? 16 MR. TOTH: Not necessarily, because both of 17 them would be tied in together And if that one were 18 approved by some quirk of fate , nothing would be done on 19 that unless something was done on the first one . I would 20 just say, call your vote on it and we will leave it at that. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Well , let me go through the 22 motions . Staff input? 23 MR. WEIR: I think our presentation from the 24 previous case will suffice . 25 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: This is the one that' s PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 50 1 delinquent, right? 2 MR. WEIR: This is the case to the north that 3 has never been developed. 4 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: There is nothing in 5 there? 6 MR. WEIR: No . 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I ' ll open it up to public 8 participation. Once , twice , three times? If not, I ' ll 9 close it and go on to commissioner input. 10 Any discussion? 11 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Let me ask staff this 12 question. If we deny Sunset subdivision like Sunrise was 13 denied, does that do anything to their request for — — I 14 mean, their time frame that they have left over? Isn' t this 15 the one that has some time remaining? 16 MR WEIR: I believe this one is until May. 17 COMMISSIONER SHARPE. Oh, this is the short 18 term one . Okay. Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments? 20 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Call the question, Mr. 21 Chairman. 22 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Second. 23 COMMISSIONER LORD: No. 24 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: No. 25 COMMISSIONER LINARD: No. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 51 1 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Aye . 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : No. 3 Motion fails 4 ( The motion failed 4 to 1 , with one 5 abstention. ) 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : You have the right to appeal 7 through the City Council . 8 MR. TOTH: You realize, of course, that we 9 are going to continue towards the goal of making the 10 improvements . I can understand your position somewhat - - 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We are not trying to 12 discourage the development, it' s just that it' s got a lot of 13 things that aren' t exactly up to the standards of today that 14 need to be addressed. 15 MR. TOTH: We had hoped that you would see it 16 the way it is Actually, it is a legality, but we are still 17 going to continue . 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I would expect that David 19 would be more than willing to sit down and resurrect some of 20 those old documents that give testimony to the fact that we 21 have to set aside the funds for escrow. I am sure that you 22 will find that that will be the case . 23 Like I said, one of the things that we have worked 24 towards is trying to get subdivision issues addressed before 25 they come to us . The development and review committee PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 52 1 addresses any outstanding issues that need to be taken care 2 of, so that when it comes before us everything is clear . 3 And in this particular case there are some areas that need 4 to be , I think , taken care of that would probably be best if 5 you negotiated with the city staff to try to eliminate those 6 problems . 7 - MR. TOTH: We will try to make it work . 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The next case is 5-91-036 , a 9 request for final plat approval of Homestead Acres number 8 . 10 The property is located south of Highway 70 and east of 11 Compas Road. The plat contains plus or minus 3 . 87 acres 12 which will create four lots . Zoned REM. Submitted by 13 Richard E. Madrid. 14 May I have a motion for approval . 15 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Mr . Chairman, I move for 16 approval . 17 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Second. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present? 19 MR. MADRID: We don' t have a presentation at 20 this time, but we will be glad to answer any questions . 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Fine . If you would, still 22 take the podium. We will probably be addressing some 23 questions to you later on. 24 Mr. Weir , would you like to make the city' s 25 presentations? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 53 1 MR WEIR: Chairman Perez , commissioners , the 2 case before you is a four-lot subdivision located just south 3 of Pecan Lane and east of Compas Road What the applicant 4 is requesting to do is plat the four lots . His home is 5 currently located on one . He has his son located on two of 6 the proposed lots, and he would like to sell a fourth lot. 7 The applicant has requested three variances with the 8 submittal . The first one is to request that you allow this 9 plat to be approved for preliminary and final plat approval 10 at the same time, and basically waive the preliminary plat 11 requirement. 12 One of those requirements is a master drainage study. 13 And the engineering department has reviewed this proposal , 14 and they are willing to allow that requirement to be waived, 15 if the applicant was willing to provide drainage easements 16 across his property to allow for historical flows to pass 17 through the property. The applicant has agreed to this . 18 And the plat I handed out to you prior to the meeting will 19 show that there is a 15-foot easement, drainage easement 20 located on the plat for each of these parcels . And no 21 structure could be erected in that drainage easement. 22 The second variance the applicant requests is that he 23 not be required to provide for any additional right-of-way. 24 Currently, Pecan Lane and Compas Lane are 30-foot 25 rights-of-way that have been dedicated to the city to meet PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 54 1 the requirement of the subdivision code . They would be 2 required to provide an additional ten feet of right-of-way 3 on those two roads . The applicant again is requesting a 4 variance from that requirement, because, when this area was 5 in the county prior to annexation by the city, all the 6 access to these properties were from a private easement. 7 And within the last year, the applicant has dedicated 15 8 feet for Pecan Lane and Compas Road to the city. So it 9 would now be their property, and the city would be 10 responsible for maintenance. 11 The applicant has also agreed on the plat to provide an 12 extra setback should the city ever need that additional ten 13 feet for street improvements. The front-yard setback 14 requirements on this property are REM zone, which is 25 15 feet. They have agreed to put 35-foot easements on the 16 parcels . 17 The third variance they have requested is to not to 18 make any road improvements to the roads that are adjacent to 19 the property. Again, the subdivision code requires or 20 states that the developer is responsible for 50 percent of 21 the road improvements adjacent to the property, and that 22 they are built to city standards, which again is the curb 23 and guttering and the asphalt pavement. 24 The applicant has stated that none of the roads 25 surrounding his property are improved, and that it' s an PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 1992 55 1 Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the plat 2 meets all the requirements of the zoning code and the 3 subdivision regulations with the exception of the variances 4 requested. Staff is willing to support the variance 5 requests for allowing preliminary and final plat approval at 6 the same time , but staff cannot as much support the other 7 two variances . 8 If you have any other questions, I will be happy to 9 answer them. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is there any statement you 11 want to make at this points? 12 MR. MADRID: No, sir , not at this time . 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : If not, we will go ahead and 14 go on to public participation. Anybody in the audience wish 15 to make a statement? 16 MR. THURSTON: Can I have Dave repeat which 17 two that you cannot support, which two variances he would 18 not support? 19 MR. WEIR: The requirement for waiving the 20 additional right-of-way and the street improvements . 21 MR. THURSTON: The street improvements being 22 the curb and gutter and paving? 23 MR WEIR: Um-hum. 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Anybody else in the audience 25 wish to make any comments? Going once , twice . We will PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 56 1 close it to public participation and go on to commissioner 2 input. 3 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Mr . Chairman, which one 4 of these plats is the subject subdivision? Is it Homestead 5 Acres or Charro Subdivision? 6 MR WEIR: It' s Homestead Acres . 7 COMMISSIONER SHARPE. What is this, then? 8 MR. WEIR: When it was originally submitted, 9 it was called "Charro. " 10 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: So then, that jog is 11 not really there , the jog in the narrowing of the road 12 right-of-way? 13 MR. WEIR: I believe it is still there . 14 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: It isn' t on this one. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I think I remember we took 16 it out when we reviewed this application before . 17 MR. WEIR: This is an area that the city is 18 actively trying to receive dedicated rights-of-way from, so 19 that there could have been a change . And the second plat 20 that you received is the updated plat. And that would be 21 the correct plat. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Wasn' t there a 15-foot 23 right-of-way on both sides of the property that was granted? 24 MR. WEIR: That is correct. This is the one . 25 From that point to the proposed property line is 15 feet, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 57 1 and to the center line to his property is 15 feet. So there 2 is a 30-foot dedicated right-of-way in there . 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : This is the same one we had 4 reviewed before that I was recommending - - 5 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Yes , I think we did 6 take out that jog the last time . 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other commissioner 8 input? 9 COMMISSIONER LORD: This problem has had to 10 have come before this commission, hasn' t it. 11 And what' s the precedent that has been set? Do we have 12 some 50-foot rights-of-way and some 20 and some 30 , and it' s 13 just kind of what happens to come before , or are we setting 14 something that we want to live by for a long time? 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I think the policy was, at 16 that particular point of time , was a 30-foot right-of-way. 17 MR WEIR: Probably what happened is when 18 this property was initially - - well , a lot of these areas 19 were initially developed under county regulations . And at 20 one time, their requirement was a 30-foot access 21 requirement. And what you get is a series of conflicting 22 policies . You have roads that have been platted under the 23 county regulations, and you have roads that have been 24 platted under the city regulations . And then you have the 25 city working on acquiring these easements of dedication. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 58 1 And what they initially asked for was 15 feet from each 2 property owner so they could get 30 feet. Now your 3 subdivision regulations require 50-foot easements or a half 4 of the required easement to meet the standard for a local 5 street right-of-way. So you are correct in your statement 6 that there is a hodgepodge of rights-of-way throughout the 7 east mesa 8 COMMISSIONER LORD: What system prevails or 9 is more common out there? Is it the 30-foot? And is it 75, 10 80 percent of all the rights-of-way, or do we know in this 11 particular area? 12 MR. WEIR: I am going to defer to the 13 division director . Do you have an idea, Jim? 14 MR. ERICKSON: For the record, Jim Erickson. 15 Mr . Chairman, Mr . Lord, the majority of the 16 rights-of-way, if we can use that term, on the east mesa are 17 generally about 50 feet, a series of two 25-foot access and 18 utility easements . There are some sections that are 30 to 19 40 feet, but again my guess is that the majority are 50 . 20 COMMISSIONER LORD: I am not thinking of the 21 whole east mesa, but I am thinking about this general area. 22 We drove around there today, and it' s the kind of a 23 neighborhood with lots of unpaved toads and a lot of common 24 ground there . And it looks like a subdivision to me, a big 25 common subdivision, and we would want it to be consistent. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 59 1 At least I think I want it to be consistent. 2 MR. ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 3 Lord, without having specifically reviewed all the streets 4 in this area, I would probably still stand by my statement 5 that the majority of them, including in this neighborhood, 6 are probably two, adjacent 25-foot access and utility 7 easements . 8 COMMISSIONER SHARPE : David or Jim, wasn' t 9 the county regulation a 40-foot wide road or street? 10 MR. ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 11 Sharpe, I don' t recall the specific regulation. 12 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: The county told me at 13 one time that they wanted 40-foot rights-of-way. 14 MR. ERICKSON: It may have been. The county 15 has changed their regulations a couple of times over the 16 years . 17 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: If they change it, it 18 would depend on who you talked to? 19 MR. ERICKSON: Yes, ma'am. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : At the time we addressed 21 this particular application once before, Connie , I do 22 remember that that was something we discussed quite at 23 length, and it was a 30-foot right-of-way. As a matter of 24 fact, at that point in time , I believe they were trying to 25 ask for more right-of-way, but the regulation at that point PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 60 1 in time only required 30-foot, and that' s why they gave us 2 30 , 15 on each side . 3 As a matter of fact, they wanted to take more on Mr . 4 Madrid' s side of the property, and we came up with making it 5 15 on each side . The property on the left side didn' t want 6 to give up any right-of-way, and we finally wound up asking 7 for 15 from each one . 8 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: We also visited other 9 areas that I think have been approved. They were city 10 property when they were approved, and it was in Las Colinas . 11 And they had some 24-foot rights-of-way. So I think it 12 would be unfair to impose a stricter standard on these 13 people when we have 30 feet to begin with. And also, I 14 remember when we were out there driving around, there were 15 structures built alongside of these roads . Some of them 16 look like fences that probably cost quite a bit to erect. 17 And I think to impose that kind of hardship on these 18 individuals would be unfair . 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Yes, that was another issue 20 that we did discuss, the fences that have been erected. 21 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Because I think those 22 were erected upon reliance with what was standard at that 23 time . 24 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Mr . Chairman, but the 25 right-of-way doesn' t have anything to do with where they PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 61 1 have their fences , does it? Jim, do they have to remove it 2 from the right-of-way? 3 MR. ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 4 Sharpe, as part of the city' s effort to acquire 5 rights-of-way on the east mesa, the city has entered into 6 agreements with property owners called encroachment 7 agreements , wherein the city will make a signed agreement 8 that an improvement--and this applies to not only the east 9 mesa but other parts of the town as well--where the city 10 will accept something that is in the city right-of-way or 11 city easements with the provision that at such time as the 12 city widens the road that the owner is required to move it 13 at his or her expense . The Jack-in-the-Box at the corner of 14 Telshor and Lohman has an agreement like that, as far as 15 drainage and landscaping. There are a number of others on 16 the east mesa that have been agreed to as a part of the 17 efforts to acquire right-of-way. 18 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: So then, if the city 19 doesn' t need the right-of-way, they don' t need to move the 20 fences? And the city may not exercise the power to take 21 that right-of-way for some time? 22 MR. ERICKSON: Right. 23 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Then I don' t see why 24 they shouldn' t give the right-of-way. Is there a reason? 25 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Would the city be PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 62 1 willing to pay for the expense of using it, if they needed 2 it, if they decided eventually to use it? 3 MR. WEIR The property would be - - excuse 4 me , Commissioner Ferreira. The property would be dedicated 5 to the city with a plat, and there would be no compensation. 6 What the subdivider is doing, he is creating four parcels of 7 land, and he would be able to sell those lots for a profit. 8 So he is going from having one parcel of land to four 9 separate lots that can be sold. So it' s not - - 10 compensation is not granted to the property owner . It' s 11 considered a portion of the subdivision approval , that he 12 provide the additional rights-of-way. 13 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: What is that street 14 currently classified as? 15 MR. WEIR: It would be a local street. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments . 17 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I would like to ask 18 him, when will you give the city right-of-way? 19 MR. CAMPOS : For the record, my name the 20 Ernie Campos . I am with Moy Surveying. We are representing 21 Richard Madrid. I would like to state in the first place , 22 the reason why he does not want to provide the 10-foot 23 additional right-of-way is there is a row of trees on that 24 ten-foot right-of-way, and this was his question, who was 25 going to remove that if he was to provide the ten-foot PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 63 1 right-of-way. He does not want it to come out of his 2 expenses . That' s why we came in front of you. 3 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Jim, can you answer 4 that? 5 MR. ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 6 Sharpe , the city would be willing to negotiate an 7 encroachment agreement with Mr . Madrid whereby the 8 improvements could remain until such time as the city 9 widened the road. 10 COMMISSIONER SHARPE• That sounds like a 11 reasonable compromise . In other words , the city does remove 12 the trees, removes the encroachment, at the city' s expense? 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I don' t think that' s what he 14 is saying. 15 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: That isn' t what he 16 said. 17 MR. ERICKSON: That is not beyond the realm 18 of possibility. At this point in time, I cannot make that 19 commitment. I am not saying it can' t be made, but I believe 20 that it would take the approval of the city manager . 21 Again, I believe that it' s something - - it' s possible 22 the city would remove it. It' s a question as to whether or 23 not the city would move it as opposed to remove it. It may 24 sound as if that' s semantics , but it really isn' t. Moving 25 it would be physically relocating it to another location, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 64 1 and that is something else than removing them. 2 COMMISSIONER SHARPE : Relocating the trees to 3 somewhere else? 4 MR. ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 5 Sharpe, it is possible . Our city parks crews relocate some 6 rather large trees on occasion 7 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I see . 8 MR. ERICKSON: I don' t know how large these 9 are , but if you are familiar with the section of Solano 10 between Lohman and Amador, the city recently, in the process 11 of widening that street, the city recently moved the trees 12 on the property that was purchased from PEP Boys to another 13 location, to other city property within the city. And they 14 were relatively sizeable trees . 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : But they became property of 16 the city? 17 MR. ERICKSON• That is correct . 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : In this particular case , if 19 the city were to relocate, would they would become the 20 property of the city? 21 MR. ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, the specific 22 details on the disposition of the trees would be something 23 that would have to be worked out in the specifics of the 24 agreement. It could be negotiated either way. 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Okay, I understand. I just PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 65 1 don' t know what position Mr . Madrid would have in regards to 2 that, if the city were to, at some point in time in the 3 future , exercise its right to use the right-of-way, and they 4 wanted to move or remove the trees . There is a possibility 5 at this particular point in time that the city would be 6 owners of those trees , but that would be subject to 7 negotiation between you and the city at this point, as to 8 what kind of an agreement you could come up with to 9 regarding those trees . 10 We understand that Mr . Erickson, at this particular 11 point in time , is only opening up the option. He is not 12 committing, because he doesn' t have the authority. 13 MR. MADRID: I would like to say that I have 14 got about $3 , 000 worth of landscaping throughout two acres. 15 Also, it' s not only trees , there is a fence all the way 16 around two acres now, around my home . That fence currently 17 is in the desired right-of-way. And well , see , this is 18 going to be our second time . This is the second time we 19 have had to hire a surveyor to survey this land. 20 On this one, I am on a grandfather clause, you call it. 21 It' s been resurveyed. In 1982 , I had it surveyed. And now 22 I am having to pay someone else with Mr . Moy' s survey, 23 again. 24 MR. ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, with respect to 25 relocating the lines for the right-of-way, I can commit that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 66 1 the city will pay for the resurvey of that segment of the 2 property and transfer it by a separate deed, the additional 3 ten feet to the city. If Mr . Madrid chooses , he will not 4 have to pay Mr . Moy to resurvey it, the city will pay the 5 costs . Again, if he chooses to agree to that. 6 If he doesn' t, that' s fine , too, but the city will pay 7 the costs of surveying and preparing the deed for the 8 additional ten feet. 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : This is only for the survey. 10 This is for nothing else . 11 MR. ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, no. Again the 12 city has discussed the issues of paying for relocation, and 13 those are subject to negotiations . But I can' t at this 14 point in time - - I can' t commit to saying that we will pay 15 for it or will not . 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I understand. 17 I just want you to understand, Mr . Madrid. Do you 18 understand what Mr . Erickson is saying? 19 MR. MADRID: What they are saying is they are 20 going to pay Mr . Moy for the $700 deal, and I am saying that 21 I have got $3 , 000 plus in landscaping. I would rather pay 22 the surveyor, and we some way or other take care of this 23 other . See , I feel when I did build on it there was a 24 15-foot road easement on that land. And I feel - - before I 25 ever built on it, before I had my home built, those trees PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 67 1 were already on it . I have been planting trees a long time 2 ago, because I knew I was going to build on it. That' s why 3 I developed it more , to make it look nicer, my home . And 4 now I 've invested a lot of water and a lot of time , and I 5 would rather pay my surveyor than lose all that. 6 COMMISSIONER SHARPE : Mr . Chairman, I was 7 wondering if we couldn' t just postpone this to give the city 8 a chance to talk to this gentleman and see if the city, you 9 know, could come up with an agreement to compensate him for 10 the cost of his landscaping or whatever , which would exist 11 at the time that the city would need the right-of-way. 12 MR. MADRID: I am reserving this land. If it 13 comes to a point they need the ten feet, fine . What I want 14 to know is, who is going to pay me for it. 15 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: That' s our point. The 16 city has got a policy of trying to acquire all the 17 rights-of-way it needs on the east mesa. So that places the 18 commissioners - - we don' t want to oppose what the City 19 Council is trying to do by granting you this variance . We 20 do want to try to help you and help the city. And there was 21 an alternative that I thought - - I don't know how we can 22 hammer this out tonight and come up with anything 23 reasonable . I was just asking you to talk to the city and 24 see if there is something you can resolve here, and then 25 come back next month and have the commission then vote for PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 68 1 your subdivision. 2 MR MADRID: Whatever we can work out, I am 3 here to listen. 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would that be agreeable , Mr . 5 Erickson? 6 MR. ERICKSON• Mr . Chairman, sure . 7 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I would like to move to 8 amend the motion, and move that we postpone for 30 days, or 9 until the next meeting. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We have a motion to 11 postpone . Second? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : All in favor . 14 THe motion carries . 15 ( The motion carried unanimously 6 to 0 . ) 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Madrid. 17 The next case is S-92-006 , a request for final plat 18 approval of Mall Hill Estates . The property is located east 19 of Telshor and south of Foothills Road. The plat contains 20 plus or minus 6 . 6946 acres and will create 26 lots . Zoned 21 R-2 . Submitted by J.R. Crouch. 22 May I have a motion for approval? 23 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Mr . Chairman, I move we 24 approve case S-92-006 . 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do I have a second? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 69 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second. 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Mr . Crouch? 3 MR. CROUCH. You approved the preliminary a 4 month ago. We are here this evening asking for approval of 5 Phase I I believe that Mr . Weir has some comments . Mr . 6 Underwood and Mr . Botsford are here to answer any questions , 7 if you have any. Thank you. 8 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez and commissioners , 9 this is the first phase of Mall Hill Estates . As Mr . Crouch 10 has already stated, you have approved the master plan and 11 preliminary plat at a previous P & Z meeting. The plat is 12 in conformance with both the master plan and preliminary 13 plats and the zoning code . And there are just some minor 14 comments that need to be addressed, some small errors on the 15 plat. Staff would recommend approval of stage one 16 contingent upon final staff approval . 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : At this time , we will open 18 it to public participation. Anybody in the audience wish to 19 make any comments regarding this application? 20 Once , twice? Okay, we will close it to public 21 participation and go on to commissioner input. 22 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: What kind of small 23 errors are we looking at? 24 MR. WEIR: It' s like misspelling of the 25 dedication, and a number transposed. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 70 1 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Nothing real serious . 2 MR. WEIR: No . It' s in substantial 3 conformance with the preliminary plat. They didn' t slip. 4 another lot in there . 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : This is not something that' s 6 going to come back and bite us . 7 MR. WEIR: No . 8 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Call for the question. 9 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Second. 10 COMMISSIONER LORD: Yes . 11 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Yes . 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . 13 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 14 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Aye . 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Aye . 16 (Motion carried unanimously 6 to 0 . ) 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I need to abstain from 18 this case . 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The next case is case 20 5-92-005 . A request for final plat approval of College Park 21 number 3 , Replat 3 . The property is located on the 22 southwest corner of Triviz Drive and Missouri Avenue . The 23 plat contains plus or minus . 899 acres and will create 3 24 lots . Zoned C-1 . Submitted by Temple Baptist Church. 25 Do I have a motion for approval . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 71 1 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So moved. 2 COMMISSIONER LORD: Second. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have the applicant 4 here? 5 MR SHEFFIELD: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. My 6 name is Larry Sheffield, for the record. And we are asking 7 for two things tonight. One is for the subdivision of the 8 one acre that is currently there into three 1/3-acre lots . 9 And also, there is some language that deals with the 10 curb cut on Missouri Avenue . And we would like for the 11 Planning and Zoning Commission tonight to address that. And 12 too, there is some restrictive language, and we would like 13 that restrictive language removed in regard to that curb cut 14 on Missouri Avenue . 15 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez and commissioners, 16 this is a replat of a one-acre parcel that was created in 17 November of 189 And at that time , the Planning and Zoning 18 Commission approved that replat . They placed a restriction 19 that this lot not receive access from Missouri Avenue and no 20 curb cut be granted. As Mr . Sheffield has already stated, 21 all they are doing is splitting this lot into three parcels, 22 and they are asking for that condition to be removed from 23 the plat. 24 The replat itself meets the minimum requirement of the 25 zoning code and the Las Cruces Subdivision Code . And based PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 72 1 on the fact that City Council has recently approved an 2 access and median cut ordinance that allows curb cuts on 3 property located on arterial streets, staff is supporting 4 both the request to remove the condition and the approval of 5 the replat 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Is there anyone 7 in the public that wishes to make a comment regarding this 8 application? Once , twice . If not, we will go on to 9 commissioner input. 10 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Mr . Chairman, I have 11 got a few questions to ask . 12 Number one , this is creating three lots from one lot 13 existent? 14 MR. WEIR: That is correct. 15 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: So the commissioners 16 actually approved one lot, but not the three lots , and that 17 is why you are here before us today? 18 MR. WEIR. Yes . 19 COMMISSIONER SHARPE : Number two, what are 20 the trips per day for the development, the average daily 21 trips? 22 MR. WEIR: we couldn' t find any. Staff did 23 research on your request, Commissioner Sharpe , and for a use 24 like a small commercial use or office use on that property, 25 the general number we came up with was between 25 and 50 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 73 1 daily trips on that property. 2 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: What if it were a 3 restaurant, the very highest traffic generated? 4 MR. WEIR: Then it would probably be a figure 5 of 200 trips per day That' s just a general figure . 6 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: What is the paving 7 width of Triviz? I know the right-of-way is 50 feet, but 8 what is the paving width? 9 MR. WEIR: Oh, 61 feet. No, that' s Missouri . 10 Excuse me , 36 feet. 11 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Will that accommodate 12 four lanes? 13 MR. WEIR: No, Commissioner Sharpe, it would 14 not accommodate four lanes , but you don' t have any access to 15 Triviz Drive to the east of Interstate 25 located there, so 16 there is no property receiving access to Triviz Drive . 17 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Well , I spoke to 18 traffic engineering today, or to Mike Johnson' s office , and 19 I was informed that there is currently funding being 20 obtained to realign and redo the intersection at Triviz and 21 Missouri . Are you aware of that, what they are talking 22 about? 23 MR. WEIR: No, I am not. 24 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Well , what they are 25 talking about on Triviz , going north, they would have one PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 74 1 talking about on Triviz, going north, they would have one 2 lane . And then they would have another lane for a left-hand 3 turn, and one lane going south. So my question is, will 4 this - - will two curb cuts on Triviz cause a hazardous 5 condition at that intersection? 6 MR. SHEFFIELD: Chairman Perez, Commissioner 7 Sharpe, I have a letter from Michael Johnson. I know you 8 spoke about speaking with his office today. And I have a 9 letter that he wrote to me that states that the department 10 has reviewed the proposed driveway curb cuts on the property 11 at the corner of Triviz and Missouri Avenue . And he says in 12 this letter that they meet the requirements of the city' s 13 recently revised access median cut ordinance . I would like 14 to submit this letter to the commission and allow you to 15 read it. 16 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Please do, Larry. 17 I have another question to ask you. Instead of having 18 a curb cut, two curb cuts on Triviz , couldn' t you - - you 19 need one curb cut for lot number two, is what you told me 20 today. So couldn' t you just have the next curb cut on John 21 Street so that you create on lot number four a corner lot? 22 MR. SHEFFIELD: Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 23 Sharpe, at this present time, what you see as lot four on 24 the plat--which is the third lot, basically--at this point, 25 that' s undeveloped, and we don' t have the - - don' t have a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 1992 75 1 going to be there , you know, I don' t think I could commit 2 tonight that - - we would not want to preclude having a curb 3 cut to that particular lot 4 If it' s a low-use type of establishment, maybe a 5 service-type business that could require a curb cut on John 6 Street, I am sure we wouldn' t have any problem doing that. 7 But I would hate to commit myself tonight to not allowing us 8 to have a curb cut on lot four due to the fact that we don' t 9 have plans at this point with lot four . 10 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Larry, could you please 11 go over here to the overhead and point out approximately 12 where those curb cuts are planned. 13 MR. SHEFFIELD: Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 14 Sharpe, at this time we are asking for the restrictive 15 language to be taken off for a curb cut right here . And in 16 meeting with the city staff, they recommended if there was 17 any way that we could share the access , egress and the curb 18 cuts between property owners , that that would just - - that 19 that would save one curb cut in itself. And so we've 20 negotiated with potential users of these two lots, and have 21 come to the conclusion that both of them would be more happy 22 with the curb cut right here, and then also a curb cut right 23 here . So there would be two curb cuts on Triviz . And being 24 that lot four has been - - we don' t have any plans at this 25 point, we are not sure about a curb cut on John Street. But PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 76 1 at least for right now, we are looking at a curb cut that 2 will be shared by lots two and three , and a curb cut that 3 will be shared by lots three and four . 4 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I would like to make 5 sure that that' s all the curb cuts we get. And I would like 6 to condition your approval here to limit it to those two 7 curb cuts at those locations that you are talking about. 8 MR. SHEFFIELD: I don' t think we have a 9 problem with that Mr . Chairman, Commissioner Sharpe . In 10 fact we could have a curb cut that could be shared between 11 lots two and three , and curb cut that should be shared - - 12 or not shared, but just for the exclusive use of lot four, 13 because the property - - the use that we have planned for 14 lot two and the use we have planned for lot three, one curb 15 cut would be sufficient. If and when lot four is developed, 16 we could apply for a curb cut that might even be further 17 away from the middle of that property line . 18 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: That' s important . The 19 further away you can get from the intersection and from each 20 other the better it is, the safer condition you have . 21 MR. SHEFFIELD: I think there would be no 22 problem in trying to do that. 23 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I am going to stipulate 24 that we will condition - - that it be a condition of this 25 subdivision, so that we have it in writing, and we know what PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 77 1 we are saying here . 2 Okay, so basically would you like to state it again 3 what you are talking about, a curb cut between these two, 4 and a curb cut somewhere along the frontage of lot four? 5 MR SHEFFIELD: That is correct, Mr . Chairman 6 and Commissioner Sharpe . And I don' t think there is any 7 problem with doing that if the commission feels that that' s 8 the best way to go 9 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Okay, thanks . 10 Whenever you are ready, I would like to make the 11 motion. But go ahead. 12 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I don' t have any 13 comments . 14 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Mr . Chairman, I would 15 like to amend the motion to approve this subdivision subject 16 to a curb cut - - two curb cuts only on Triviz . Preferably 17 one , but two curb cuts only. One between lot two and lot 18 three , and one in the vicinity of the frontage of lot four , 19 all subject to approval by the city traffic department. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, we have an amendment 21 as stated by Commissioner Sharpe . 22 MR. SHEFFIELD: Mr. Chairman, could I also 23 add to that some language that would take the restrictive 24 language out? 25 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I am going to get to PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 78 1 that . I think that' s next. I just wanted to get this one 2 out of the way. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We have an amendment as 4 stated by Commissioner Sharpe . 5 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Second. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Is there any discussion? 7 Okay, Commissioner Lord? 8 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 9 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Aye . 10 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 11 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Aye . 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The chair votes aye . 13 The motion passes . 14 ( The motion carried 5 to 0 , with one 15 abstention. ) 16 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Okay, Mr . Chairman, if 17 nobody else wants to say anything, I just want to talk about 18 the curb cut on Missouri for a moment. May I address that? 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Certainly. 20 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: The commission had this 21 once before , and I didn' t have any problem with a gurb cut 22 on Missouri . I talked to Jim Erickson this afternoon, and 23 he said he would prefer to see no curb cuts on Missouri . 24 And the curb cuts were okay on Triviz . So if you will allow 25 me , I would like to try to pursue this for what it' s worth PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 79 1 to see what exactly he is referring to and what he means . 2 He was here , and I am just sorry he left 3 No, here he is . We were just talking about you. 4 Mr . Erickson, you told me over the telephone that you 5 preferred to see no curb cuts on Missouri , could you please 6 explain that to us? 7 MR. ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 8 Sharpe , I said if I were to design the development, my 9 personal preference would be to see two curb cuts on Triviz , 10 and if necessary a curb cut on John Street. The glitch in 11 that is that that is my personal preference . The city has a 12 relatively detailed curb cut ordinance that' s been approved 13 by City Council that specifies when and where curb cuts can 14 and cannot be granted. And that' s what would control a 15 decision on where the curb cuts would be . The council has 16 established that as part of the city code . 17 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I am sorry, Mr . 18 Erickson, you came in in the middle of the show. I realize 19 that now. 20 We have already voted and approved the curb cuts on 21 Triviz Drive . You had alluded to me this afternoon over the 22 phone that you would prefer not to see a curb cut on 23 Missouri . I mean, notwithstanding the new ordinance 24 approved by the city. Did you have a reason why you didn' t 25 want to see a curb cut on Missouri? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 80 1 MR. ERICKSON: Basically, it relates to 2 traffic flow on a major arterial . The theory in traffic 3 engineering and traffic design, Mr . Chairman and 4 Commissioner Sharpe , is that a local street provides almost 5 exclusive access to property, whereas an arterial street 6 provides , generally, substantially more movement of traffic 7 and property exits . Traffic engineers have designed a curve 8 on a graph to show it. Again it' s preference, it' s not an 9 absolute, witness E1 Paseo. 10 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Well , given the width 11 of Missouri and the fact that it is not like E1 Paseo, where 12 you have center lanes that are maddening to drive on, I mean 13 to get on and try to get off of, bearing in mind that 14 Missouri is really a two-way street, four lanes, do you 15 still feel that it' s a hazard? 16 MR. ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 17 Sharpe , Missouri does have five lanes . There is a center 18 left-turn lane . 19 COMMISSIONER SHARPE : That' s right, there is 20 a left-hand-turn lane . 21 MR. ERICKSON: Any time you have a turning 22 movement, you increase the potential for an accident. If 23 you look at accident statistics around the city, most of 24 them are at intersections . So again, it' s just another 25 conflict point . But with appropriate design it can be PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 81 1 resolved. 2 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Could it be resolved 3 with a right-turn-only going east on Missouri? 4 MR. ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 5 Sharpe , without a median on Missouri , that would be next to 6 impossible to enforce . In looking at the traffic pattern, 7 it seems logical that much of the traffic attempting to 8 access that property would turn left, that the westbound on 9 Missouri coming under I-25 would turn left on Triviz 10 southbound, and access it off of Triviz , merely because 11 there is a traffic light there . I believe it has a 12 left-turn green arrow, and it would be much easier to access 13 from Triviz for the average driver . Most of average drivers 14 take the path of least resistance . So my feelings are that 15 if there was a curb cut on Missouri , most of the traffic 16 would probably be right turn in and right turn out. 17 There are probably a few brave souls that would try a 18 left turn in and left turn out, but I don' t know how many, 19 and that' s pure speculation on my part. 20 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: So you think, 21 attempting to sum up what you've said, you would say that 22 Missouri Street is an iffy thing as to whether it should 23 have a curb cut at that point or not? 24 MR. ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 25 Sharpe , my response would be that I would direct the traffic PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 82 1 engineer to review that and determine whether or not he 2 believes it' s appropriate to issue a curb cut permit. It' s 3 within his purview and not specifically mine to issue it. 4 If he chose to approve it, then it would stand approved. If 5 he denied it, the applicant could appeal that denial to the 6 City Council . 7 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: What we could do, Jim, 8 is remove the contingency that was placed on it and then 9 allow the traffic engineer to do his thing; is that right? 10 Would that be the proper thing to do, if we were going to do 11 this? 12 MR. ERICKSON: Commissioner Sharpe, that 13 would be correct. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay. 15 MR. SHEFFIELD: Mr . Chairman, in anticipation 16 of this very conversation taking place, that is why we met 17 with three different people and city staff, just on that 18 curb cut on Missouri . We met with the traffic engineer and 19 stated that we would like a letter stating what his views 20 are on the curb cut on Missouri . And that' s why we 21 submitted the letter tonight. 22 He stated that at the time that this restriction was 23 made for the curb cut on Missouri that there was no city 24 ordinance in effect. And now a city ordinance has been 25 established, and there are plenty of examples of curb cuts, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 83 1 that this falls within curb cuts allowed on big and busier 2 streets . 3 And I also wanted to add that we will be the maximum 4 amount of distance from the intersection, which is 75 feet . 5 And 75 feet is quite a bit of space between the intersection 6 and where cars would be slowing down to turn in. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any further comments from 8 the commission? 9 COMMISSIONER LORD: Larry, is there vacant 10 land between these lots and the church? 11 MR SHEFFIELD: Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 12 Lord, yes . There is a one and a half acre lot that is 13 directly behind this property that belongs to Temple Baptist 14 Church. We have a representative from the church here 15 tonight. In conversations with them, I think that at this 16 point in time I don' t know that they have any plans to put 17 any additional curb cuts on that vacant property. I know 18 they have some plans on maybe landscaping and maybe making a 19 park—type area for the church' s use . I don' t feel like 20 there will be curb cut after curb cut after curb cut. I 21 think this will be the only curb cut between the church curb 22 cut that' s on the far northeast side and then the curb cut 23 that' s proposed. 24 COMMISSIONER LORD: Thank you. Well , you 25 know, this problem occurred on Missouri in a case that I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 84 1 know very well , where a curb cut was shared between two 2 properties to eliminate lots of curb cuts . Do you think 3 that might help this church and help this property, to move 4 that farther left, to have the property line right between 5 the two, so that you will have access to the vacant land if 6 you need it? 7 ( Commissioner Ferreira left the meeting. ) 8 MR. SHEFFIELD: That' s a possibility. 9 My personal opinion is we are moving the curb cut as 10 far as we possibly can to the west. We are going to be 11 within five feet of the property line . And being that the 12 church really has no current plans for a curb cut in that 13 area, I feel like , you know, we are trying to stick that 14 curb as far west as we possibly can. I think if we were to 15 move it another five feet and ten feet and try to share it 16 with them, what you would probably find is that there would 17 be an extended period of time that it would just be single 18 user , which would be for lot number two . 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Any further questions or 20 comments? 21 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I just want to make a 22 quick comment. Everybody has been so proud of this curb cut 23 ordinance , maybe you want to frame it, I don' t know. But 24 anyway, it doesn' t say anything - - this drawing doesn' t 25 tell me anything about the width of the street that the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 85 1 ordinance addresses It just says you have got to have a 2 75-foot minimum from the lot line to the property line 3 corner and a 25-foot minimum between driveways . But nothing 4 here says anything about how wide the street needs to be in 5 order to implement this Does it matter? 6 MR ERICKSON: Mr . Chairman, Commissioner 7 Sharpe, this version of the curb-cut ordinance is - - I 8 think is an improvement, because it does set some minimum 9 distances from the intersection for curb cuts . The design 10 is established based upon the classification of the street 11 rather than the actual width of the street. For example , an 12 arterial or collector street has a different configuration 13 for the curb cut distances than a local street. And so we 14 have tried - - we have tried to establish it based on how 15 the street is functioning, again recognizing the tradeoff 16 between property access and traffic movement. 17 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Okay. So then, that is 18 to be determined by the traffic engineer, then, at that 19 point, depending on the width of the street? 20 MR. ERICKSON: Yes . 21 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Okay, I just bring it 22 up, which may or may not play a factor in it. 23 MR. ERICKSON: The actual design of the 24 street is not going to be as big a factor as the volume of 25 traffic and the type of traffic and the speed limit. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 86 1 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Okay. Thank you, Mr . 2 Erickson 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay. Any more questions or 4 comments from the commission? Then we will go on to vote on 5 the final plat approval . 6 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Mr . Chairman, I would 7 like to amend the motion further to remove the condition of 8 the curb cut on Missouri and allow that curb cut on 9 Missouri . 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, that' s what I was 11 looking for . So that we could - - okay, we have an 12 amendment to remove the restriction for the curb cut on 13 Missouri and Triviz Do we have a second? 14 COMMISSIONER LORD: Second. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, we will vote . 16 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 17 COMMISSIONER LINARD: No . 18 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Aye . 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The chair votes aye . Motion 20 carries three to one . 21 ( The motion carried 3 to 1 with one 22 abstention. ) 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, we will go on now to 24 the main motion, approval of the final plat for College Park 25 number 3 , replat 3 . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 87 1 number 3 , replat 3 . 2 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 3 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 4 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Aye . 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : And the chair votes aye. 6 The motion passes . 7 ( The motion carried 4 to 0 with one 8 abstention. ) 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, our next case is 10 SUP-92-010 . A request for a special use permit for a 11 proposed self-service car wash. A car wash is a permitted 12 use in C-2 zone subject to obtaining a special use permit. 13 The property is a vacant parcel of land containing 1 . 552 14 acres, more or less, and is located in a C-2 zone at 4790 15 Stern Drive. The property is generally located on the 16 northwest corner of Agave Drive and Stern Drive . Submitted 17 by Dan Kiser for S-K Enterprises . 18 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr. Chairman, the 19 numbers are different from that in the agenda. 20 MR. WEIR: I am sorry, that' s a typo. The 21 case is 92-001 . Sorry. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : At this point in time, may I 23 ask for a motion for approval for case SUP-92-001 . 24 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I move we approve 25 SUP-92-001 . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 1992 88 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIS: Second. 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Mr . Kiser, would you like to 3 make a presentation at this point? 4 MR. KISER: I have no presentation, sir. I 5 will answer any questions . 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Staff? 7 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez, commissioners, the 8 subject property is zoned C-2 and a car wash is permitted as 9 a special use permit. The applicants have requested a 10 special use permit for a 20-year time period. And their 11 site plan meets all the requirements of the zoning code. 12 The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 13 The applicant has received all the proper approvals and 14 instructions on their access, water service, waste 15 management, and staff has not received at the time of the 16 packet any protests on the car wash. Therefore, we are 17 recommending approval of the special use permit. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir . 19 At this point in time , is there anyone in the audience 20 that wishes to make any comments regarding this application? 21 Once, twice. If not, we will close it to public 22 participation and go to commissioners input. Commissioners, 23 any comments? 24 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr. Chairman, I would 25 like David to explain to me about the water usage and the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 89 1 And what is the water pressure with that private water 2 system, since it costs so much per customer . 3 MR. WEIR: In your packet, you will see a 4 letter from Jornada Water Company. And they stated they 5 have sufficient supply and are willing to provide service to 6 this car wash, and that they will do so . 7 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Yes, I saw that. But 8 what does that have to do with the new Federal law that 9 requires testing all this water and the expense of the water 10 to the private water company, and the concern that they 11 might not be able to function after they have to pay all the 12 expenses for that testing? 13 MR. WEIR: I am not certain what you have 14 asked. You will have to repeat the question. 15 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I understand from 16 people who live in the area, University Estates, for 17 example , that sometimes the water pressure is pretty low. 18 MR WEIR: Again, I am just going on what the 19 water company has provided. They say that they are capable 20 of providing the water pressure, and they have sufficient 21 supply to provide it. It' s not a city water system. And 22 that, as you know, is a matter between that area and the 23 residents and the private water system. 24 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Any further questions? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 90 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : David, I would like to 2 know about the disposal of the water . It says in here that 3 EID would have to approve waste water disposal , all waste 4 water that is not on a city water system. In this case , are 5 they going to install a septic tank? And before that can be 6 installed, do they have to get the New Mexico Environmental 7 Department' s approval? 8 MR. WEIR: Yes . And they have to state what 9 the proposed use is, what the flows will be , and then the 10 environmental division will have to approve that septic tank 11 and installation of it, and that it will be adequate to 12 handle the use . 13 And there is also a letter in your packet from Johnny' s 14 Septic Tanks . And basically he cannot install a septic tank 15 unless he gets an approval from the New Mexico Environmental 16 Department And that letter states he will follow all the 17 requirements of that department. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Any other questions? 19 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Mr . Chairman, this 20 packet is lacking a number of things . And in going over 21 some of the notes that some of the staff members have 22 written - - for instance, the last page , architect. "I 23 would strongly urge the applicant to provide a clean, neat 24 copy of the document, " et cetera . 25 And then, of course , the concerns of the traffic PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 91 1 department, transportation department, where it states that 2 auto circulation on the city should also be reviewed. And 3 in looking at this site plan, this is pretty confusing. 4 And also, there is another statement here that this 5 site plan is not drawn according to scale, which makes it 6 difficult to tell who' s on first and who' s on second on this 7 thing. I guess you have all seen the site plan. There are 8 arrows going in every direction. 9 MR. WEIR: It deals with the way special use 10 permits are reviewed by staff. Special use permits go 11 through a one—step review. And they are submitted out to 12 all the reviewing departments at one time . Some of the 13 comments as to scale and the readability of the plat go to 14 what was sent out. The site plan — — there ' s been two site 15 plans . There was the original submittal and the site plan 16 that' s in your packets . The one that' s in your packet has 17 addressed all the issues that were made on the first review. 18 The scale was to the issue where staff reduced it so it 19 was easier to send the site plan out for other staff to 20 review. And that' s where the scale comment came out. The 21 one you received is correct in scale . The arrows you see on 22 that city plan is what is the circulation pattern for the 23 subdivision. Excuse me , for the special use permit. And 24 what you have is where the cars will come in through the 25 curb cut, where their stacking lanes will be for the four PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 92 1 car wash aisles . And then you also see an access aisle to 2 what is the western portion of the property to go behind. 3 There is currently construction of a convenience store and 4 storage units on the site . And that is - - 5 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: There is no landscaping 6 shown on this plat, Mr . Weir, and I know on special use 7 permits we always require that landscaping be shown. 8 MR WEIR: You are correct. One of the 9 reasons that the landscaping is not shown on this site plan 10 is that when they received their - - well , first of all , the 11 convenience store and storage units are a permitted use in a 12 C-2 zone, and they have submitted a building permit for 13 those uses . And before they can get a building permit they 14 are required to meet landscaping requirements for the 15 proposal . And that has been approved by the landscape 16 architect, so we didn' t require them to provide that on the 17 site plan for the Planning and zoning Commission. 18 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Except, Mr . Weir, it 19 has always been the desire of the commission to see where 20 the trees are being situated on the plat. And you haven' t 21 given us that opportunity in this case . And I think that 22 that' s a shame . I hope that in the future you will make 23 sure that the commission is provided with the landscape plan 24 along with the site plan so that they can know what is going 25 to go in there . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 93 1 MR. WEIR: Commissioner Sharpe , commission 2 members , staff will make sure that the landscaping is 3 provided with future special use submittals for your review. 4 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Okay. Sidewalks are 5 not required? 6 MR. WEIR: Sidewalks would be required along 7 Agave Drive , but they would not be required along Stern 8 Drive . 9 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: They won' t be required 10 along Stern, but they will be along Agave ; is that correct? 11 MR. WEIR: Correct. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other questions . 13 If not, we will go on to voting on the special use 14 permit. 15 COMMISSIONER LORD: I think the length of 16 time was for, what, 20 years? 17 MR WEIR. That is correct, Commissioner 18 Lord. 19 COMMISSIONER LORD: In the comment section it 20 is recommended that the rear of the property be landscaped 21 to buffer views to the back side of the building from the 22 adjacent subdivision Does the staff want us to put that 23 condition or has that been approved or handled through the 24 landscape architect? 25 MR WEIR: That would be addressed on the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 94 1 original building permit . 2 COMMISSIONER LORD: Did that arise because of 3 some neighbor protest of some sort? 4 MR. WEIR: Generally, what that comment is, 5 is to provide a buffer between residential areas and 6 commercial areas . And I believe that' s where that comment 7 originated from, to provide a visual buffer . 8 COMMISSIONER LORD: Are you considering that 9 in your plans? 10 MR. WEIR: That' s part of the convenience 11 store and storage unit portion of the enterprise . 12 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Commissioner Lord, would 13 you like to make a notion to require that landscaping 14 buffer? 15 COMMISSIONER LORD: Well , if it' s part of the 16 already approved convenience store , storage units? 17 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: No, no, that' s not part 18 of the special use permit . That' s not the whole thing. 19 That doesn' t take any - - 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : In the landscape ordinance 21 it requires that a certain percentage of landscaping take 22 place . I guess the question would be, is this buffer zone 23 that' s being suggested by the staff, would this be part of 24 what' s included in that percentage? 25 MR WEIR: The Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 95 1 has the power to require additional landscaping on special 2 use permits, so you could require additional landscaping 3 above and beyond the 15 percent required by the design 4 standards in the landscaping ordinance . 5 Just to clarify this issue a little bit more, this 6 subject property and these areas here are the R-1 7 properties To the south or southeasterly direction is a 8 drainage facility that will be developed as a park . To the 9 north is a property that will be developed as a C-1 use . 10 There currently exists a zoning buffer between this property 11 and residential in that this property is agriculturally 12 zoned property. There is a house located in this general 13 vicinity, and I believe that was the concern of the 14 landscape architect . 15 COMMISSIONER LORD: On your plat, though, it 16 shows that the existing land use is low density, very low 17 density. That' s what it indicates is the existing land use . 18 So I think that' s where most of the commissioners are coming 19 from. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : For the record, I did get 21 two calls from residents in that area opposing the 22 development. But I think in this particular case, the 23 frontage road in this particular development is appropriate 24 for the land use in this particular part of town. I think 25 that would provide a very needed facility of this sort in PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 96 1 that area. 2 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Chairman Perez what 3 were their reasons for objecting? 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I think their main concern 5 was that it was going to create some kind of an adverse 6 condition similar to undesirable elements gathering in that 7 area. But I think the way it' s laid out and everything 8 else, I think it would be a very big plus to the community. 9 COMMISSIONER LINARD: There is already a car 10 wash in there like a convenience store and things of that 11 nature . 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : No, I think it' s further 13 out. You have got a storage unit or whatever it is . 14 COMMISSIONER LINARD: No, I am talking about 15 the car wash. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Well , there is a car wash on 17 the corner of Union and Main Street, but that' s serving a 18 different part of town. This one is serving a segment of 19 town further to the south. 20 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: It' s their nickel, 21 guys. If they want to gamble , let them go for it. 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any further comments? 23 If not, we will go on to the vote . 24 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 25 COMMISSION WILLIS : Aye . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 97 1 COMMISSIONER LINARD: No. 2 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Aye . 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The chair votes aye . The 4 motion passes . 5 ( The motion carried 4 to 1 . ) 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Okay, we have got one more 7 case , SUP 92-003 . A request to amend the Planned Unit 8 Development Standards for Las Colinas P.U.D. The amendment 9 is to clarify the setback requirements for lots located on 10 "T" and "Y" cul-de-sacs within Las Colinas P.U.D. The 11 property is located generally north of U. S. 70 and west of 12 Las Alamedas Boulevard. Submitted by Roger Cox, Western 13 Land Developers . 14 May I have a motion for approval? 15 COMMISSIONER LORD: So moved. 16 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Second. 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Mr . Thurston 18 MR. THURSTON: Yes . I am Ken Thurston. 19 There is a typo . It' s Roger Cox Western Developers, not 20 land developers . I wanted to point that out. 21 Mr. Chairman and commissioners, the reason for this 22 change has come about as a result of changes in the city 23 administration. Planning and zoning staff have changed. 24 New people have filled positions left open by people 25 retiring, et cetera. The people who were there when the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 98 1 retiring, et cetera. The people who were there when the 2 P .U.D. document was approved and when building permits were 3 issued and received in Phase III and also in Phase IV-A. 4 Several homes have been built in Las Colinas and sold, 5 and I have been informed by staff that no protests have been 6 received as of this hearing. 7 Regarding this petition, this request came as a result 8 of the planning director, Brian Denmark, talking to me after 9 a builder had made application to the city for a building 10 permit on the cul-de-sac on Crystal Court. In February of 11 1992 a permit was issued on some construction, and basically 12 they put a condition on that that I must appear before the 13 Planning and Zoning Commission and make a clarification to 14 the document concerning the "T" and "Y" cul-de-sacs . 15 And therefore, when approaching the staff, I was told 16 that I would have to basically make an amendment to my 17 P.U.D. documents and to pay the $300 fee . And it basically 18 comes about as a result of a conflict in the interpretation 19 of a letter that was issued February 10th of 1988 by Joe 20 Dearing, who was then the planning director. 21 So as a result of that, then, we went to planning staff 22 and to my engineer and to my surveyor and prepared what we 23 felt, then, was a better rendition and a clearer 24 interpretation of the setbacks and "T" and "Y" cul-de-sacs 25 as approved in 1987 in the Las Colinas P.U.D. document. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 99 1 staff option one and staff option two for the "T" and "Y" 2 cul-de-sacs , which you presently have in your packets . 3 We , of course , would like to see the implementation of 4 our concept. We are not opposed to discussions on option 5 two of the "T" cul-de-sacs and also option two produced by 6 staff for the "Y" cul-de-sacs . 7 And at this time , I would be willing to answer 8 questions or to hear the presentations from staff. 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr. Thurston. 10 Mr. Weir . 11 MR. WEIR: As Mr . Thurston has already 12 stated, this proposal is basically before you as a request 13 from planning staff to act as a clarification on setback 14 requirements for buildings located on "T" and "Y" 15 cul-de-sacs, so that we won' t have a question of what 16 exactly the setbacks are for issuing a permit. 17 As Ken Thurston also explained, he submitted a proposal 18 for setbacks for "T" and "Y" cul-de-sacs . This graphic is 19 basically of the cul-de-sac , which is a 20-foot setback 20 requirement here . Here, this lot is not in question. The 21 question comes on the setbacks from the right-of-way for 22 these two lots , and these two lots, and what exactly the 23 front-yard setback is . 24 This proposal , what it basically has is a 20-foot 25 setback to here . And this point would come basically level PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 100 1 with the right-of-way here , and then come up to 2 approximately five-foot side-yard setback in the back . 3 There are these two asterisks . You can state that the 4 building envelope will not be any closer than 15 feet to the 5 back of curb of any streets along those cul-de-sacs . I 6 believe that' s basically their proposal . 7 Ken, you fill in if there is anything I left out. 8 Staff came up a with a couple of options just to give , 9 the commission possible alternatives to address . Thome first 10 option is to require that the front-yard setback on these 11 two lots come all the way back , even with the 20-foot 12 front-yard setback here . And what we did on these two lots 13 was, at this point, this is the 20-foot front-yard setback. 14 And this is corner of the right-of-way. And we just drew a 15 parallel line , and this would be the building envelope for 16 those two lots . 17 The second option that staff came up with was more of a 18 compromise . All we came up with was , instead of going all 19 the way back to this 20-foot front-yard setback , we came 20 halfway back and allowed that as a front-yard setback . And 21 on these two lots, we came from the property line 10 feet in 22 and then directly to the 20-foot setback here . This is the 23 option that staff would recommend for "T" cul-de-sacs . 24 And again, we see that as a compromise . These two lots 25 would receive a larger front-yard setback, and there will be PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 101 1 a 10-foot distance from the property line here in which a 2 building would not be permitted as opposed to - - I don' t 3 know how well this will come out as opposed to the 4 applicant' s proposal . So this area would have additional 5 front yard, and you would just have a slight portion in here 6 of additional front yard on the "Y" cul-de-sacs . 7 Again the applicant is basically providing the 20-foot 8 front-yard setback on those three lots . The area in 9 question is a little section of property here . And again we 10 used the double asterisk and stated a radius can be drawn 11 and the house cannot come within 15 feet of back of curb. 12 Again staff put a couple of options together to 13 increase some of the front-yard setbacks for these areas . 14 In this one , we basically took the corner of the 15 right-of-way and tried to keep it parallel to the street and 16 just draw a straight line through. And that would increase 17 the front-yard setbacks . 18 The second option we had was to go from the 20-foot 19 setback line on these two properties and go directly to the 20 right-of-way. Again this is the option that staff would 21 recommend. Again we see it as a compromise situation in 22 which we increase this front-yard setback slightly. Yet 23 it' s not as drastic as the first option we proposed. 24 I will try to overlay the two and show you the 25 difference in setbacks for the proposal . So you are picking PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 102 1 up this much additional front-yard setback . 2 Staff would also like to state that this is an 3 amendment to the setback for these type of cul-de-sacs, only 4 you are not making any other amendments to the approved 5 P .U.D. , nor are you making any amendments to the approved 6 subdivisions that have already been platted with the "Y" and 7 "T" cul-de-sacs . 8 If you have any questions , I ' ll try to answer them. 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir. 10 Any comments from the public . 11 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: There is no public. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We will go on to 13 commissioner input Any questions or comments from the 14 commissioners? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : David, in our city 16 zoning code, doesn' t it state the purpose and intent for 17 establishing front-yard setbacks from the property line? 18 MR. WEIR: The purpose of setbacks is to 19 provide light and air to houses . And there is also an issue 20 of public safety for setbacks . And that is the intent. 21 These streets that we are talking about are 22 cul-de-sacs, they are not through streets . They are 23 basically only for the use of .the houses on the cul-de-sacs, 24 so you don' t see any high speeds in that area. 25 The P.U.D. prohibits any parking on the streets of this PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 103 1 nature , so all parking has to be provided for on the lot. 2 So you are not going to have a great traffic hazard because 3 you are not going to have through traffic, nor are they 4 going to be able to get up to high speeds through the area. 5 The real question becomes , how much light and air is 6 adequate for these developments? 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Does it say something 8 about aesthetics? I mean, in other words, something about 9 sight-lines and what happens? I know it talks about light 10 and air, but isn' t there something, also, about visually how 11 you try to establish consistency along the street with the 12 houses being in line with one another in terms of intent? 13 MR. WEIR: I believe that is also an inherent 14 intent. It' s also the policy of the comprehensive plan, 15 that your neighborhood have integrity. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : When the staff worked 17 out these options, did they find a way to stay within a 18 consistent 20-foot front setback , not from the back of the 19 curb but from the property line? That' s not indicated on 20 what you have shown today, but I know you did your homework. 21 MR. WEIR: I think what you would see, if the 22 literal interpretation of the development standards were 23 taken, you would see 20-foot setback all the way around like 24 that . It would always be 20 feet from the right-of-way. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : So like that owner at PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 104 1 that point right there , if you were to strike a radius , a 2 20-foot radius, you would have a little cutout of that 3 corner of that building site . That' s what you would find; 4 is that right? 5 MR. WEIR I don' t know. I think the 6 developer ' s concern is what impact that will have on this 7 lot here , whether he would still have a buildable pad for 8 development . Is that true , Ken? 9 MR. THURSTON: I think our concern is there, 10 you know, you are trying to employ or make a side yard a 11 front yard. This is a side yard, that' s the way you look at 12 it . That' s truly a side yard to that particular lot, not a 13 front yard. Does that make sense? 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : I see what you are 15 saying about being a side yard, that that comes out from the 16 side yard instead of the front yard. 17 MR. THURSTON: I guess all we are really 18 trying to do is to put - - and I don' t know if you've 19 received the letter dated February 10th of 188 - - 20 MR. WEIR: No, they have not received that 21 letter, because what we tried to do in that drawing there is 22 basically put in drawing form what was decided by the 23 Director of Planning at that time , and also the 24 commissioners , and the chairman of the Planning and Zoning 25 Commission. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 105 1 And what we 've found out now is that since staff has 2 changed, what we were running into was the problem of 3 interpretation. So we tried to simply put in a drawing form 4 what we felt this was saying, and then make it an official 5 record of the P .U.D. document, so that that' s then on file. 6 And then the next time we change a plan checker, which is 7 exactly what happened this time--we had a switchover--we can 8 avoid the situation where one person is saying my 9 interpretation is this , and my interpretation is that it 10 should be this . 11 MR. THURSTON: And that' s why I am here . I 12 am not so hard—line that I can' t compromise . But at the 13 same time I just wanted you to know the background, the 14 problems that we face , and that we have been put in. Sun 15 Valley has built a house and cannot close now until this is 16 resolved. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Is the house built yet? 18 MR. THURSTON: The house is built. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Well, why can't we just 20 draw a radius here and lay out the lots so everything will 21 be 20 feet from the lot line . It seems to me that that 22 would be more aesthetic and would avoid some of these other 23 complications that we are dealing with. 24 (Mr . Thurston approached Commissioner Willis 25 and a lengthy discussion was held at the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 106 1 commissioners ' bench, between Mr . Thurston 2 and the commissioners . The discussion was 3 such that it could not be heard by the 4 reporter and was not incorporated into the 5 record. ) 6 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I am awfully tired, and 7 I really don' t think I am understanding this. It' s almost 8 eleven o' clock Is there any way we can do this at another 9 time? Do you need to know about this tonight, or can you 10 come back? 11 MR. THURSTON: My understanding of this is if 12 I come back I am back in another month - - 13 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I mean, lots one and 14 six, do you have any problem coming back after you go back 15 and measure and see if you can adjust? 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : How many lots like one and 17 six do you have in the whole subdivision? 18 MR. THURSTON: In the whole of Las Colinas 19 right now, in the first four, there are four, of which four 20 are technically built, and three have received CO' s, 21 certificates of occupancy, and one is pending right now. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : When you built those, 23 are they up in that contested area that we are talking 24 about, or do you remember? 25 MR THURSTON: We looked at the plot plan and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 107 1 based on plan two of the staff, we were okay based on that, 2 but we were right on there . 3 MR. WEIR: Yeah, it was close 4 MR. THURSTON: In the total master plan, 5 there are probably 20 to 25 of them. 6 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Well , since this has 7 turned out not to be an emergency, why don't you go back to 8 the drawing board and try to resolve it. 9 MR. THURSTON: Okay, if I have a commitment 10 from you tonight that Sun Valley can receive a CO. And 11 then, as I understand it, you want me to meet with staff 12 again to see if we can live with a 20-foot setback all the 13 way around for the future , for future cul-de-sacs, and then 14 you want me to reappear at the next Planning and Zoning 15 Commission meeting? 16 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Well , whenever you can. 17 MR. THURSTON: Because we will be coming in 18 probably within the next three to four months with our next 19 phase . 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : If we can reach a consensus 21 on that. 22 What we need to do now is vote on a postponement. 23 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Right. We can' t 24 instruct staff to give you a certificate of occupancy. They 25 have got to do it. Jim, can' t you give it to him? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992 108 1 MR ERICKSON: Yes . 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a motion to 3 postpone with instructions? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : So moved. 5 COMMISSIONER LORD: Second. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : All in favor? 7 Okay, the motion passes . 8 ( The motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0 . ) 9 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Move to adjourn. 10 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Second. 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : All in favor . 12 The motion carried. 13 ( The motion carried unanimously 5 to 0 . ) 14 15 16 17 Eddie Perez Connie Sharpe 18 19 20 R -Willis Sharlyn' inard 21 22 ' /L r F eira o er Lord 23 Be 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24 , 1992