Loading...
02-25-1992 1 r 1 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 3 4 February 25, 1992 5 6 City Council Chambers 7 7 : 30 p.m. 8 9 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: 10 Eddie Perez , Chairman 11 Ed Bailey 12 Beatriz Ferreira 13 Roger Lord 14 Kay Willis 15 Sharlyn Linard 16 Connie Sharpe 17 18 19 STAFF PRESENT: 20 David Weir 21 Bryan Denmark 22 Mark Simms 23 Eric Hill 24 25 LAS CRT.T( FS PLANNTNG & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 2 1 ( The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m. ) 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I will call the meeting to 3 order This meeting will be conducted following Robert' s 4 Rules of Order . If any member of the public has a comment 5 or wishes to address the Commission, they will be recognized 6 by the Chair and they will state their name so that it may 7 be entered into the permanent record of these proceedings . 8 Each person shall be recognized once on each case issue 9 for a time period not exceeding three minutes . If someone 10 has new or additional information, then that individual will 11 be given one additional minute to speak after all citizens 12 who wish to 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 by 16 the neighborhood group as a representative . If this 17 spokesperson is selected, then all other citizens wanting to 18 speak on that case will be given one additional minute . 19 The Planning and Zoning Commission is going to have a 20 public hearing on two zoning code amendments, five 21 subdivisions , three planned unit developments, and to make 22 recommendations to the City Council to either approve or 23 deny the request for zone changes annexations or amendments 24 to the zoning code 25 The City Council will make the final decision on these LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 3 1 requests at its meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission 2 will grant final approval or denial on requests for all 3 special use permits , subdivisions and planned unit 4 developments at tonight ' s meeting. Any person adversely 5 affected by the decision of this Commission may file a 6 written appeal stating the grounds for his appeal to the 7 City Council within 15 days of this meeting. 8 The first item on our agenda, we have three items on 9 the consent agenda . They' re the minutes for December 17 , 10 1991 , and the minutes for January 28 , 1992 . Under zoning, 11 we have one case PUD 92-003 If anybody wishes to take 12 these items off of the consent agenda, they may do so now by 13 requesting 14 COMMISSIONER SHARPE• Mr Chairman, comment 15 on this . We 've got two minor changes . They don' t really 16 need to come off the consent agenda providing I can make 17 these changes at this time Mr . Chairman, on page 51 , line 18 6 , PUD. These are the minutes of January 28 , 1992 . On page 19 51 , line 6 , it' s supposed to be PUD instead of HUD. The 20 minutes on December 17 , 1991 , on page 58 , line 11 , and I 21 wish that Commissioner Bailey were here because this was his 22 comment, which I thought was sort of comical . 23 It' s lines 10 and 11 . It says "Commissioner Bailey. 24 Since there are only five of us , it would be a good idea if 25 you could have a girl call and make sure that we have got a LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 4 1 quorum And I think the word should be " role call . " 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Any additional corrections 3 or deletions to the minutes? Commissioner Linard . 4 COMMISSIONER LINARD I had just that one 5 which I 've already given you 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : On page 63 of the minutes of 7 January 28 , line 15 , a typo ; commissioner should have two 8 s ' s instead of one Any other additions or deletions? Any 9 other items that you wish to discuss regarding the consent 10 agenda? 11 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Mr . Chairman, I move 12 for approval of the consent agenda. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second? 14 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Second. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : All in favor? Opposed? 16 Motion carries ( 6 to 0 ) 17 Second item on our agenda is a case under old business , 18 CASE S-91-039 , a request for preliminary plat approval of 19 Dorbandt Subdivision. The property is located at the 20 southeast corner of Mars Avenue and Venus Street. The plat 21 contains 15 lots on plus or minus 4 . 159 acres . Zoned R-3 22 Submitted by R.L. Dorbandt 23 May I have a motion for approval? 24 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So moved. 25 COMMISSIONER SHARPE Mr Chairman, this was LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25, 1992 Minutes 5 1 in the minutes . I think we need to remove them from the 2 table because we 've already approved the item at the other 3 meeting. 4 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: We postponed it . 5 COMMISSIONER SHARPE• We postponed it , but we 6 removed it from the table to postpone it. In other words, 7 right now we' re removing it from the postponement table , so 8 to speak . 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, do I have a motion to 10 remove case S-91-039 from the table? 11 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So moved, Mr . 12 Chairman 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do we have a second? 14 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Second. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, is the applicant 16 present? 17 MR SCANLON• Yes , my name is Ted Scanlon. I 18 represent the applicant on this particular case . This is a 19 case that came before you last month, and it was postponed 20 due to staff comments regarding the master drainage plan. 21 And it was asked that we sit down with staff and agree on 22 the master drainage plan before it was heard again, which we 23 have done . We 've cleared up those questions and concerns 24 that they had And that was , I believe, the only comment 25 that was of concern last month And we 've taken care of LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 6 1 that, so we would ask that you approve this tonight . Be 2 happy to answer any questions 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • There were three issues . 4 Issue number one was the developer will be responsible for 5 50 percent of the drainage and street improvements to Venus 6 Street. The master drainage report required for preliminary 7 plat approval has not been approved, and the developer is 8 responsible for curb and sidewalk improvements along Venus 9 Avenue . 10 MR SCANLON: That' s correct We don' t have 11 any problem with that . In fact, Mr . Dorbandt signed a 12 letter two years ago, I think , with the City agreeing to 13 participate in these improvements to Venus Street. And the 14 subdivision is being developed under strict adherence to 15 design standards which require the construction of curb and 16 gutter along adjoining streets , as would any subdivision in 17 a similar situation And the developer has no problem with 18 that . 19 ( Commissioner Bailey arrived at the meeting. ) 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Staff, do you wish to make 21 your presentation now? 22 MR. WEIR. Chairman Perez , Commission 23 members , the case before you is a preliminary plat approval 24 that contains 15 lots . 13 of those lots are for single 25 family, residential development, and then two of them LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 7 1 already contain apartment units on them. The major reason 2 this was postponed last month was the requirement of meeting 3 the master drainage study requirements . 4 The consultant in this case met with staff and provided 5 them with a master drainage study today. The staff would 6 like more time to approve that master drainage study, if 7 available . That would give the Commission the option of, 8 one , approving the preliminary plat as submitted or to 9 approve the preliminary plat conditioned on final staff 10 approval of the master drainage plan or to postpone the case 11 for another month. 12 If there are additional questions , I ' ll try to answer 13 those at this time . 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any questions from the 15 Commission at this point? 16 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Yes , you said you 17 haven' t arrived at the conclusion of your negotiations on 18 the drainage? 19 MR. WEIR: The hydraulic engineering staff is 20 here this evening. They might be better to answer those 21 questions . 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Can we put Mr . Church on. 23 MR. CHURCH: My name is Dave Church with the 24 City engineering staff It doesn' t seem like we have a lot 25 of major headaches on the preliminary drainage concept LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 8 1 they' re attempting, which is allowed under the design 2 standards . 3 We do see some steep lots out there that we do have to 4 go through a little bit of careful engineering design to 5 make sure we don' t have drainage problems . We don' t feel we 6 can' t work them out as far as the initial concept. It seems 7 reasonable In that location and with the size of the 8 development, there is not much else they can do. 9 So we' re not recommending now or anything, but we don' t 10 want anybody to think we ' re approving the final drainage 11 report or anything. Basically we just have a steep 12 gradient . We have to be concerned with the drainage from 13 one side into another side and how we ' re going to achieve 14 ponding with those steep gradients and what the final 15 grading plan is going to look like But we think 16 engineering can resolve the issues before the final plat is 17 approved . 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any more comments from the 19 staff? 20 MR. CHURCH: If you have any other questions . 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Dave . At this 22 time we ' ll open it to public input. Anybody in the audience 23 wish to address or make any comments regarding this 24 application? 25 If not, we ' ll go on to commissioner input. Anybody on LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 9 1 the Commission wish to comment on this application? 2 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Yes, Mr . Chairman, I 3 would. I feel that if we postponed it last time because we 4 didn' t have the drainage study, and I think the situation 5 hasn' t really basically changed any. So I think we ought to 6 go ahead and postpone it and let staff do their job and 7 we ' ll run it through the next time without any problems . 8 MR. SCANLON: We have submitted a master 9 drainage study and-- 10 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Well , it hasn' t been 11 approved. I stand corrected. 12 MR. SCANLON: It was my understanding--we met 13 one day last week with the hydraulic engineering staff and 14 requested a line item list of what they wanted us to submit, 15 and we did submit that before the meeting. And we were told 16 today there was no problem with it . 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The input we ' re getting from 18 the staff is that they apparently need a little bit more 19 time to review the plan. For what reason at this particular 20 point, I don' t know. As Mr . Church stated up front, at this 21 particular point in time , it doesn' t appear he ' s got any 22 problems with it But apparently they want to have some 23 time to review it . 24 COMMISSIONER SHARPE : Mr . Chairman, I 'd like 25 to make a motion we postpone this item LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 10 1 MR. BAILEY: Second 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any discussion? All in 3 favor? All opposed? Application is tabled for 30 days . ( 7 4 to 0 ) 5 Our next case is S-91-043 , a request for final plat 6 approval of Foothills Subdivision. The property is located 7 generally south of Foothills Road. The plat contains 55 8 lots on plus or minus 30 . 203 acres Zoned R-2 , R-3C, and 9 R-4C. Submitted by Magnum/Camino Real ventures . 10 Is the applicant present? 11 MR. KISER Yes , I 'm Curtis Kiser , the 12 applicant 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would you like to make a 14 presentation now or wait until after staff comments? 15 MR. KISER I believe I ' ll wait till after 16 comments . 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Thank you. Staff. 18 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez , Commission 19 members , this is a final plat for the first phase of the 20 two-phase Foothills Subdivision. They' re proposing 21 approximately 55 lots on a little over 30 acres with this 22 application. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved 23 the preliminary plat in September of 1991 . At that time 24 they made a condition of preliminary plat approval that a 25 master plan be submitted with the final plat per the LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 11 1 subdivision regulation requirements . 2 This has been done and the master plan and master plan 3 report were provided in your packets . This proposal was 4 reviewed by the Development Review Committee , and there were 5 two issues that came up at that time . The first was the 6 water supply to the subdivision. The developer has the 7 right to develop the first 52 residential lots, and they can 8 be supplied with water . 9 The issue as the second phase comes in, there may be 10 problems with water pressure, and that will have to be 11 worked out before the second phase is submitted for final 12 plat aproval . 13 The second issue was access from Foothills Road. Also 14 in your packets, I believe attached to the master plan 15 report, was a letter of understanding between the City of 16 Las Cruces and the current developers . And one of the 17 points of order in that letter of understanding was an 18 agreement to allow a portion of, I believe it' s Indian 19 Hollow Road to be left at a standard below City standards 20 until such time that the final alignment of Lohman Avenue is 21 determined. 22 Then once they get past that portion, that the rest of 23 the streets would be developed to city standards. The 24 question before the Commission is whether this letter of 25 understanding is sufficient for this approval or whether a LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 12 1 second agreement needs to be reached between the City and 2 the developer That would be the only point of contention 3 on this case , and if the Commission is happy with the letter 4 of understanding, staff would recommend approval of the 5 subdivision and final plat 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir . Any 7 further comments from the staff . 8 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Dave , would you please 9 point out on the map where the road goes to Foothills and 10 where the proposed alignment is? 11 MR WEIR: The portion of this plat isn' t 12 very complete in its orientation. The section of roadway 13 we ' re discussing is a portion of roadway here . And then the 14 existing Foothills Road is roughly in this vicinity. So you 15 would be talking about this area in through here . You can' t 16 see that very well Approximately from here . This road 17 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: It doesn' t have 18 anything to do with Chimneyrock Road, because there is a- 19 comment here in the letter about construction of a sanitary 20 sewer line within lower Chimneyrock Road. 21 MR WEIR• I believe that' s in the letter of 22 understanding, and there is a little history behind this 23 subdivision. 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Why don' t we go ahead and 25 wait until we go into commissioner input to discuss this LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 13 1 more , if I may. 2 COMMISSIONER SHARPE : Okay, sure . 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any more comments from the 4 staff regarding this application? 5 Mr . Kiser, would you like to make a statement at this 6 point? 7 MR KISER: The only thing I 'd like to add at 8 this point is we are asking for approval of 52 lots instead 9 of 55 . I believe that ' s a typo . 10 MR. WEIR: Where that came up, there are 52 11 lots for residential development, and then there also is a 12 lot that' s created for drainage , and a lot that' s created 13 for future development . And then they are also platting the 14 property that they will replat at a further date as their 15 second phase . And that' s where the three additional lots 16 come from. So there are 55 lots being created. 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Thank you At this point I 18 will open it to public input. Anybody in the audience wish 19 to make any comments regarding this application? 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : If not, we' ll go ahead and 21 open it to commissioner input 22 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Well , I was trying to 23 determine what was meant by "will defer construction 24 sanitary sewer line . " That ' s on paragraph three of this 25 letter of understanding. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 14 1 MR WEIR Commissioner Perez , I can shed 2 some light on that Back in 1988 , the current applicant 3 submitted a subdivision through the PUD process and a final 4 plat . And the first three items concerned that subdivision 5 They' ve now more ox less shelved that plan and come back 6 with a new submittal , with a preliminary plat, a final plat, 7 and their construction drawings would cover the sanitary 8 sewer . So that item, I do not believe , is relevant to the 9 current subdivision 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I hope the issue with the 11 sanitary sewer is resolved We don' t want to have the same 12 situation that we had a while back with the other 13 subdivision. Wasn' t there also an application made for a 14 hospital that was going to be built adjacent or close to 15 this area? 16 MR KISER There was never an application 17 made . The Planning and Zoning Commission had some sort of 18 review--I 'm not sure what--of the ordinance , but they wanted 19 to change commercial zoning so that hospitals would not be 20 allowed in a C-2 use without a special use permit. That was 21 the issue that was discussed before , but there never was any 22 application or anything for what you mentioned, no . 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ That' s correct. I remember 24 now. 25 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: There was a zone change LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 15 1 though, wasn' t there? 2 MR KISER: All of the zoning that exists on 3 this property was all zoned at one time in 1,983 when a 4 master plan was submitted for the whole area . There has 5 been no zone changes on any of this property since this 6 initial zoning. 7 COMMISSIONER SHARPE : Would you be interested 8 in having the property zoned R-1 instead of R-2 and 3 that 9 it' s got on it now? 10 MR. KISER: You know, I really don' t see any 11 point in that. An R-1 use is allowable in all three of 12 these zones , and I don' t understand what the question would 13 be on that. 14 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Well , the issue is 15 having our master plan showing that this is single family 16 residential property And when you don' t have it, it shows 17 that it is multi-family and, in fact, that is not the case . 18 MR. KISER: You know, I really don' t see why 19 I should get involved with that right now. It' s never been 20 brought up before, and as long as it' s-- 21 MR. WEIR: Point of order, Commissioner 22 Sharpe . You would be approving the master plan with the 23 final plan. 24 COMMISSIONER SHARPE : I know that. I just 25 was asking a question. That ' s okay, Mr . Kiser, but you LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 16 1 might want to think about it . 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments? 3 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Mr . Chairman, I had a 4 question on paragraph one of the letter of understanding 5 which was entered on the 23rd day of March, 1988 6 Paragraph one refers to an agreement. It says "Upon 7 execution of an agreement between the City of Las Cruces and 8 the developer regarding an equitable consideration of the 9 City' s pending Foothills extension study. " 10 And I had asked earlier of one of the members of staff 11 if this agreement had ever been executed and basically what 12 the agreement contained. Basically I wanted to understand 13 the history of this subdivision . And the response to me was 14 at that time that he didn' t know whether the agreement had 15 been executed or not , because it appears to me that this 16 letter of understanding would not become effective until 17 such time that that agreement was executed. So I have the 18 question, was that agreement ever executed? 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Staff. 20 MR. DENMARK: Mr . Chairman, Commission, it' s 21 my understanding that the agreement has been executed. The 22 history with this particular subdivision is that Mr . Kiser 23 submitted a planned unit development about--well , it ' s been 24 about four years ago now, that reflected a high-density, 25 townhouse type development . LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 17 1 At the time , there was consideration but no action for 2 the extension of Roadrunner Parkway to be extended from 3 Foothills Road south to Dripping Springs Road. Time elapsed 4 and the final plat for this particular subdivision expired, 5 but the subdivision was still under a preliminary plat 6 approval status 7 At that particular time, the issue of the Las Alamedas 8 development was being reviewed by the Commission and City 9 Council which brought back the issue of the Roadrunner 10 extension. Basically what happened at the City Council 11 level is that Roadrunner would be extended and the issue 12 would be brought up to the Metropolitan Planning 13 Organization And at that time they took action that 14 Roadrunner would be extended on down. However, there was no 15 decision on if it would be directly tied into Dripping 16 Springs Road or to another future alignment like Las 17 Alamedas Boulevard. 18 What was clear was that Roadrunner Parkway would be 19 extended through and would impact this particular 20 subdivision and the one to the east, which is Las Alamedas . 21 At that time , city staff began working with the two 22 developers to begin the process of right-of-way acquisition 23 or an agreement on how that would be executed. 24 It is my understanding that that agreement was 25 completed. I don' t have the date of when it was assigned by LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 18 1 the City, but it is my understanding that was approved and 2 that the City would work with this particular developer to 3 have his subdivision resubmitted for master plan approval 4 and preliminary plat approval . 5 That has been conducted, and now this particular case 6 is before you for final plat approval . 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Did that answer your 8 question? 9 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Yes . 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Commissioner Bailey, you had 11 a comment or question 12 COMMISSIONER BAILEY• So you' re leaving it to 13 the Commission whether we approve that letter? 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I think this is the desired 15 direction from the staff. They want to see whether or not 16 we of the Commission wish to accept the letter of 17 understanding in its form. 18 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I 'm really kind of 19 concerned about this, because how can we be sure that when 20 we do need that road completed according to city standards 21 that it will be done? And what' s coming to my own mind here 22 is a letter of credit from Mr Kiser to ensure that we have 23 the money in the till for that road. 24 MR. KISER• According to the agreement, the 25 road was supposed to be gravel , which was acceptable . We LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 2.5 , 1992 Minutes 19 1 have gone ahead and submitted with our plan to go ahead and 2 chip seal the road at this point above and beyond just the 3 gravel . There is a parcel of R-4 property that bounds on 4 both sides of that short extension of road to where it hooks 5 in, and I just would imagine that before the City issued a 6 building permit or let anything go on that property that 7 they would request that it be paved and curbed and guttered 8 like any other property in town. So I would assume that 9 would be the normal procedure staff would do; is that 10 correct? 11 MR. WEIR: That would be the requirement, for 12 curbing and sidewalks 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : At the permit level is when 14 the execution of the letter would take place, right? 15 MR. WEIR: I 'm not sure . 16 MR KISER• If the City decided--see , the MPO 17 has passed a conceptual alignment for Lohman. Actually that 18 will probably be Lohman instead of Foothills Road, but the 19 final engineering has not been done . So the basis of this 20 agreement before--the MPO hadn' t made a decision, but this 21 alignment process was in the works . And the basis of the 22 decision of the P&Z Council at that time was to leave a 23 little bit of flexibility there so that I didn' t pave a road 24 and put it in, then the city had to come tear it out to 25 install the new road. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 20 1 This way I had until the last time possible, when I 2 wanted to do it or sell it or whatever was required on my 3 end to take care of these improvements . And if the city in 4 the meantime finished up their engineering on the 5 realignment of Lohman, then it would be set and done one way 6 or the other . 7 We ' re not doing this to get out of putting improvements 8 in. We ' re accommodating the request of the P&Z at the last 9 approval I had. So when the City asked me to redo my 10 subdivision, they told me to follow the same guidelines 11 basically as our approval from before , which we have changed 12 the lot configuration, but we 've used the same street names 13 and criteria as our approval was three or four years ago . 1-4 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: Is there any problem 15 with the request to participate with adjacent developers on 16 cost of utilities? 17 MR KISER. As this project stands alone , I 18 don' t think there are any participations involved. I have 19 an agreement in place with the city for any future water 20 line extensions . That is a pro rata agreement based on 21 500-some acres out in the area So when that agreement is 22 enforced or whoever initiates it, then everybody out there 23 pays their share , and the City has agreed to contribute up 24 to $50 , 000 according to that agreement to finalize the 25 utility installations And then as other people hook up LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 21 1 later on, the City will be reimbursed for the money. So 2 there is an extension agreement in existence out there . 3 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: Is that the only 4 utility you' re referring to? 5 MR. WEIR• That is the only utility There 6 is a concern about water pressure . 7 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: That' s pretty well 8 resolved, right? 9 MR WEIR: Yes . 10 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Why can' t we enter into 11 a contract with the City where all these agreements are on 12 one document and one, piece of paper and everybody knows 13 what' s happening, because the way it is now, we 've got an 14 agreement here and one there . It' s confusing. I think he 15 ought to have a contract that stipulates on the terms and 16 conditions thereof and who does what to whom. And that ' s 17 what I would like to amend the motion to include that , that 18 we require a separate contract between the City and Camino 19 Real/Magnum Enterprises stipulating all of the agreements 20 that have been made in the past. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Staff , how would you view 22 that recommendation? 23 MR. SIMMS • What you' re asking for is an 24 agreement. Actually there is a provision that allows that 25 I was looking through this after you gave me notice a little LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 22 1 earlier about this question There is a section in the 2 subdivision regulations on guarantees of performance . It 3 allows a subdivider to have one or two things . 4 Either a written agreement that ' s signed, dated and 5 notarized by the subdivider to construct all required 6 improvements after the subdivision receives final approval 7 from the Planning and Zoning Commission. And it goes on 8 But it has that or a form of security to be filed with the 9 City, which could take the form of a performance bond, 10 escrow account or irrevocable standby letters of credit . 11 And a possibility of some other variation. 12 I guess the point is before you give final approval you 13 could make a requirement of one of these two things . You 14 have an option You could say, I want a letter of credit. 15 That' s a possibility. But an agreement alone without a 16 letter of credit would also be considered sufficient 17 according to my reading of this . 18 Do you see the section I 'm talking about, David? It' s 19 on page 22 under Guarantees of Performance . That' s 20 subsection 6 , one and two . 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : What section are you on. 22 MR. SIMMS : In the subdivision reqs , section 23 5 , Plats and Data for Final Approval 24 MR WEIR: The regulations have been 25 modified, and it' s now in chapter 10 , and it starts on page LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 23 1 10-11 . 2 MR. SIMMS : So you see the simple answer is 3 unless they change that section, you can do exactly what 4 Commissioner Sharpe is saying You could ask for some kind 5 of performance , some type of guarantee . But the other 6 option is simply a notarized agreement without anything 7 further . 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So what you' re basically 9 saying is that this letter of understanding we have at this 10 point in time is not sufficient? 11 MR. SIMMS : The thing about the letter of 12 understanding is that it is binding if the terms within the 13 letter are also binding. We ' re looking at the foundation of 14 the letter . The foundation would be a master plan, 15 something to that effect. And that' s one of the things, if 16 that is still current, that is not void and still applies 17 today, then you would have to honor that letter of credit. 18 If it isn' t, and you create a whole new master plan, 19 you' re not bound by that original letter of understanding. 20 That letter of understanding was signed by other 21 commissioners , and it was based on that original master 22 plan. 23 If the plans change, if there is a new one , you don' t 24 have your foundation, and that' s a problem. Doesn' t mean 25 that their rationale isn' t good. Doesn' t mean the intent LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25, 1992 Minutes 24 1 isn' t the same and the purpose isn' t the same . And if you 2 agree with that, then you can also decide that you would 3 follow through and you would honor it. But you would not be 4 bound if your foundation is not there . 5 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA• I have some concerns 6 about approving a request with respect to this letter of 7 understanding where it refers to an agreement I haven' t 8 seen. I 'm not sure whether it might affect my decision or 9 not, but I feel uncomfortable saying that I can make a 10 decision without having seen the document myself . And maybe 11 because of my own personal occupation or whatever . 12 But I do have some concerns about not seeing documents 13 that are referred to in documents that are presented to us . 14 And I would suggest in the future if there is some reference 15 to another document, that I personally would like to see the 16 document myself and review it, especially when it ' s part of 17 the decision that we ' re asked to make , and especially since 18 this particular letter of understanding is now four years 19 old and it refers to pending studies from that time , and it 20 refers to information available as of the date of that 21 particular letter of understanding. And I don' t know if 22 there is any significant changes 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments? 24 MR KISER: Yes , if I remember correctly, 25 that agreement was signed by the City Manager . It wasn' t LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 25 1 signed by the Commissioner . 2 MR. SIMMS : That ' s right 3 MR. KISER Does that make any difference in 4 your opinion of it? 5 MR SIMMS • Actually, no. All I 'm saying is 6 it' s very straightforward. If your foundation is good, then 7 the letter is good If the foundation is bad, then your 8 letter is not good anymore . 9 It was my understanding that there was a new master 10 plan. If it's new, then it' s original letter of 11 understanding was not based on that foundation. So the 12 understanding wouldn' t be there . When it was signed by Dana 13 Miller, the city manager at that time, understood and 14 accepted by Curt J. Kiser and understood and accepted by 15 William Kiser . Based on a--it looks like a 1988 agreement. 16 Yes , 23rd of March, 1988--a master plan that was created at 17 that time That' s my understanding. If there is a new 18 plan, then it wasn' t based on a new plan. 19 MR. KISER: Like I said, I was instructed by 20 the City when I redid my subdivision to follow the same 21 criteria as before And if you want curb and gutter and 22 paving put on the street, you know, I have no problem with 23 that . If you want it left so that it coincides with this 24 letter and you want to rewrite the letter to pertain to the 25 new master plan, that' s fine either way. But, you know, LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 26 1 you' re the ones before the P&Z , and very few of them were 2 here . I think the issue--I didn' t bring the minutes with 3 me , but I did read them over and if I remember correctly 4 Peggy Shinn and Connie Sharpe were the ones that requested 5 that I leave this section of the street out . 6 So I ' ll do it either way. I have no problem with that 7 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I 'd like to second 8 Commissioner Sharpe ' s motion that this be added according to 9 Mr . Simms' instructions . 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Before we go on to that, I 11 don' t think she made it in the form of a motion. 12 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I made it a motion. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Let me recognize 14 Commissioner Bailey first. 15 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: Could we approve it 16 based on staff getting the letter notarized and to their 17 liking? 18 MR. SIMMS : Yes , that' s one of the options . 19 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: I don' t think we ' re 20 asking for a bond or anything, just that we get the 21 understanding in writing and proper format. 22 MR SIPIMS : According to the reqs , it simply 23 says you have an option. It' s either one or the other . I 24 don' t see anything wrong with doing both, if that' s what you 25 want, but it would be kind of unusual if you did since it LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 27 1 does allow--it says "or . " 2 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: Connie , would that be 3 acceptable? 4 COMMISSIONER SHARPE : Yes , I don' t have any 5 problem including this subject to agreement between the City 6 and Mr . Kiser in the form of a contract . If Mr. Kiser 7 decides to sell out the subdivision and leave town, that 8 would be a contingency to me . 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So do you want to reconsider 10 your motion? 11 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I ' ll amend my motion 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : You still want to put forth 13 a motion for an amendment? 14 COMMISSIONER SHARPE : An amendment to the 15 motion to include the subdivision, Mr . Chairman. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Would you state your 17 amendment , please? 18 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I 'd like to amend the 19 motion to read that the subdivision is approved subject to 20 agreement between Mr . Kiser and the City attorney as to the 21 understandings that are contained within the many different 22 documents of understanding That too, I think that would 23 stipulate all of the agreements between the City and the 24 subdivider, and that , of course , has got to be agreed upon 25 by the City attorney LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 28 1 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Let me just make one 2 small change in that instead of saying Mr . Kiser and the 3 City, it would be Camino Real/Magnum Enterprises . 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do I have a second on that 5 amendment? 6 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I second. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . We have a second. Any 8 discussion? If not, we ' ll go on to role call . 9 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: Aye . 10 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Aye . 11 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . 13 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 14 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Aye . 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Chair, aye . Motion passes . 16 So we ' ll go on to vote on the main motion, the approval of 17 case 5-91-043 . Any further discussion? 18 Okay, we ' ll go on to the vote . 19 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: Aye. 20 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Aye . 21 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . 23 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 24 COMMISSIONER SHARPE Aye . 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Chair , aye . Application LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 29 1 approved as amended. 2 The next case under zoning, Case ZCA-92-003 , an 3 amendment to the City of Las Cruces Zoning Code, Section 4 6 . 2G, Special Districts : University Avenue Corridor Overlay 5 Zone District . Submitted by the City of Las Cruces . 6 Staff, would you like to make a presentation at this 7 point? 8 MR. HILL: Yes, Mr . chairman, members of the 9 Commission. Good evening. You have two memos before you 10 with recommended revisions to this ordinance . One that is 11 dated February 21st that you received in your packets last 12 week . A second memo which is dated February 25th which was 13 just handed to the chair before the meeting. 14 The memo dated February 21st, on the first page 15 contains all of the revisions that were made by the 16 Commission during work sessions on February 11th and 17 February 18th. The preceeding pages are additional 18 recommendations from staff . 19 Referring to the memo dated February 25th, the first 20 page contains further recommended changes from staff with 21 the remaining pages containing recommendations from City 22 landscape architect, Joanie Gutierrez , and her review of the 23 landscaping portion of the urban design section. 24 If it pleases the Commission, I would recommend that 25 any comments you wish to make on these recommended changes LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 30 1 or any other changes which you would like to see, that those 2 comments can be sent on to City Council for their review and 3 consideration. 4 Staff recommends that at this time you would approve 5 this ordinance with those amended changes and any other 6 comments you would like to send on to City Council for their 7 review. 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. At this point, 9 we ' ll open it up to public input. Anybody from the audience 10 wish to make any comments regarding this application? 11 Would you please come up to the podium? 12 MS . KEARNS : Please don' t ask me to. I think 13 I can project my voice from here . It will take me ten 14 minutes to get up there 15 I 'm Mary Lou Kearns . I live at 2415 South Solano, and 16 I 've been interested in the project for as long as it' s 17 existed, I think , which has been at least a year . 18 I think it' s a very good document, and I have very few 19 problems with it. However, I do have a few. On pages nine 20 and ten, paragraphs I and F, and I think these questions may 21 be an error, but in paragraph E it describes trees and 22 shrubs and it says "or 50 square feet of ground cover for 23 every 500 square feet of lot area, excluding building area. " 24 Is this what it says, either trees and shrubs or ground 25 cover? LAS C'RT.TrFS PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 31 1 MR. HILL: Yes , that' s correct. 2 MS . KEARNS : Well , then on paragraph F, it 3 describes gravel ground cover . Now, if they have just 4 gravel , then that means there will be no landscaping at all 5 except gravel . No trees ; just gravel . 6 I personally take exception to that. I think that 7 would be unfortunate if we didn' t have some green, some 8 trees . We need some somewhere . At least a tree or two. If 9 they' re going to have gravel , then have a tree in there with 10 it, but not just gravel , because that reflects heat and a 11 lot of other things. That' s just--there -are some other 12 apartments that do have gravel or lava rock, and believe me 13 it' s just unbelievably hot and waves of heat just rise off 14 of it. You need some green. On page 13-- 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Excuse me, if I may just 16 make a comment on the gravel portion of it When you talk 17 about gravel , that' s a kind of a general term. When you' re 18 talking about gravel , are you talking about landscape rock? 19 Because when we start talking about gravel , like going to 20 your road improvements, and you talk about gravel surfaces, 21 then you' re talking about a totally different type of 22 material . 23 MR. HILL: Mr . Chairman, the intent of 24 paragraph F at the top of page 10 , the word "gravel" does 25 refer to landscaping material of a more decorative nature . LAS CRTJrF,S PIANTITTrJC, & ZONING February 25, 1992 Minutes 32 1 I do admit that it' s not as descriptive as it could be , and 2 that that could be reworded. 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : You might consider putting 4 in something that will definitely describe it. "Landscape 5 material" rather than "gravel surface" . 6 MR HILL: Okay. 7 MS . FERREIRA: Can I make a comment? We were 8 discussing this , and it was our understanding that we have 9 to read the entire landscaping section as a whole . And if 10 we read paragraph E, it states that the landscape shall be 11 defined as trees . A tree there , 15 five-gallon shrubs and 12 five one-gallon shrubs . So you' re required to do those . 13 MR. HILL: That' s correct, Commissioner 14 Ferreira. The allowance of any kind of decorative gravel or 15 stone for ground cover does not negate the requirement for 16 the caliper trees , the five-gallon and one-gallon shrubs for 17 landscaping. 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So we would never see 19 a lot with just gravel because you have to read the entire 20 section as a whole . 21 MS . KEARNS : If that' s the case, Eric, I 22 think that "or" in there is misleading because it says trees 23 and shrubs "or"-- 24 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: No, it says--and you 25 have to read the wording before . It says "and five LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 33 1 one-gallon shrubs . " You' re already required to put the one 2 two-inch caliper tree, the 15 five-gallon shrubs and the 3 five one-gallon shrubs or 50 square feet of ground cover. 4 So you' re already required to do all of this before you 5 even get-- 6 MS . KEARNS : It says that "or . " 7 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: No, it says "and. " 8 MR. HILL: If I could make a recommended 9 wording revision, the paragraph could read "one two-inch 10 caliper tree , 15 five-gallon shrubs and a choice of either 11 five one-gallon shrubs or 50 square feet of ground cover . " 12 MS . KEARNS : That would clear it up. Yes . 13 As long as that isn' t replaced by just decorative stone, 14 that whole thing. 15 MR. HILL: The trees and the shrubs would 16 still be required, but the developer would have the option 17 between the very small shrubs or the decorative stone . But 18 the trees and the larger shrubs will still be required. 19 MS . KEARNS : Thank you. Now, on page 13 , and 20 this is a very small point. The directory signs, I do not 21 believe are necessary. Paragraph C-1 and 2, district 22 directory signs with the names and addresses of all 23 businesses . If you' re driving down a street as busy as 24 University, you really don' t read a directory. You don't 25 have time . So I don' t think they' re necessary. And if they LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25, 1992 Minutes 34 1 are deemed to be necessary, then having the establishment 2 and maintenance of the signs shall be the responsibility of 3 the district Citizen' s Design Review Committee . That will 4 be a little bit difficult for the Citizen' s Review Committee 5 to maintain those signs, I believe . 6 MR. HILL: Mr . Chairman, if I could comment. 7 The district directory signs will not be designed to be used 8 by people who are driving by in automobiles . They' ll be 9 designed for people who are either on foot or bicycle . Now, 10 the provisions to design and build and maintain these signs, 11 these will be the responsibility of the Citizen' s Design 12 Review Committee, but those details haven' t been worked out 13 yet . They will be placed under separate ordinance . 14 But we' re talking about fairly small ground signs as 15 directories , and they would not be a hardship in terms of 16 responsibility or finances to maintain. 17 MS . KEARNS : Okay. On pages 16 to 18 . 18 Mr . Perez , I apologize if I 'm taking too long. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : No problem. I 'm going to 20 mention for the sake of trying to get the meeting moving 21 along, we ' ll be imposing the three minute rule , so we'll go 22 ahead and give you a little bit more time to get your point 23 across . 24 MS . KEARNS : Thank you, I ' ll be through in 25 just a minute . I 'm being as brief as possible . Under LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 35 1 Citizen' s Design Review Committee , paragraph H, it says "The 2 Citizen' s Design Review Committee shall be comprised of a 3 district City Councillor or representative , established 4 student representative of NMSU, and three citizens who own 5 property in the district " 6 May I respectfully request that at least one of these 7 citizens be a resident of the area, not just a lot owner 8 Because property owners can sometimes be long distance 9 property owners and they really aren' t that interested in 10 the aesthetics of the region I think it' s very important 11 that at least one of them be a resident, possibly more To 12 me that' s very important 13 And submittal and review process , on the bottom of the 14 same page under preapplication conference , paragraph A, 15 "Within seven days from the date of the preapplication 16 process , the staff shall furnish the prospective applicant 17 with written comments and recommendations " 18 I think in view of the fact that from there on the 19 Citizens Design Review Committee and staff and planners all 20 have to produce this , it continues on to the next page , all 21 have to get together and render written judgments on these 22 things . I think the Citizens Design Review Committee 23 possibly needs some alternates appointed to it in case some 24 of them are out of town or ill Also, I don' t believe , the 25 times allowed in here are quite enough if you' re going to LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 36 1 get input from that many people . That involves at 2 least--well , portions of the City department and three or 3 more citizens . Well , three citizens and a university 4 person. And that' s a lot of people to get to come to a 5 consensus in that length of time , because in ten days , that 6 includes two weekend days . 7 So if possible some of these time limits could be 8 extended a bit. I think it might be more efficient. 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Any other input? 10 MS . KEARNS : Yes , I just want to ask a 11 question. Could we find out briefly what was in the memos 12 of the 24th and 25th so that we know what further 13 recommendations have been made? 14 MR. HILL: Mr . Chairman, if you'd like , I can 15 go through these comments on both memos fairly quickly. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Please . 17 MR. HILL : Okay, Commission members, if 18 you' ll look at the memo dated February 21st, the first page , 19 as I mentioned, summarizes revisions that were made during 20 the February 11th and February 18th-- 21 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Do we have any extra 22 copies of these memos? 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We passed them out. 24 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I 'm talking about for 25 the public. Do we have any extra copies of these memos at LAS CRUCES PLANNTNG & ZONTNG February 25, 1992 Minutes 37 1 all? 2 MR. HILL: No, we don' t. To summarize, 3 revisions were made to the description of architectural 4 design standard to include descriptions of trim materials 5 and roofing to ensure that those details were not overlooked 6 in the design of the building itself. 7 Those revisions pretty much captured the changes that 8 were made during the February 11th work session. During the 9 February 18th work session, wording changes were introduced 10 into the purpose statement to clarify it from a grammatical 11 standpoint . 12 Under permitted uses and development standards, which 13 for each area lists land uses and conditions under which 14 those would be developed, wording changes introduced no 15 development or alterations of the land where it says and/or 16 to make the intent of that more clear . 17 A copy store use was added to the list of uses for area 18 one . Studio lessons were redefined to read as lessons--art, 19 dance and other similar studio-based activities. 20 A revision was made to the definition of an accessory 21 building so that it reads "accessory building 22 architecturally compatible to primary use . " 23 Under urban design a typo was corrected. And policy E 24 under landscaping, "every 500 feet of lot area excluding 25 building area" instead of "parking area" to better define LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25, 1992 Minutes 38 1 where the landscaping was going to go on the lot 2 Language concerning the easement was changed so that 3 the easement would be obtained by the City where it was 4 needed The high power tension lines that exist between 5 Espina and E1 Paseo cannot be grounded as we originally 6 conceived, so there is a question as to whether or not the 7 city easement would be needed. A revision was recommended 8 that that easement simply be allowed where it is needed'. 9 Input was offered from the staff of NMSU concerning 10 signage , attached signage , for commercial , non—residential 11 development . The current standards in the ordinance 12 stipulated that there was the potential for an excessively 13 large attached signage , and there was a recommendation to 14 set a maximum size . 15 That recommendation was agreed with and incorporated as 16 a recommendation into the memo . Where it also concerns 17 attached signage , awnings were mentioned to clarify that 18 awnings were a reasonable use for signage within the 19 district. 20 Freestanding signage . It was also recommended that the 21 size of ground signs be reduced from five feet maximum 22 height to three feet maximum height so that they would not 23 obstruct the pedestrian environment that is being proposed 24 And that pretty much concludes the memo dated February 21st. 25 The memo dated February 25th on the first page simply LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 39 1 stipulates that there was no maximum building height 2 indicated for area one , only that development standards of 3 the original Pan Am Plaza planned unit development be 4 followed. 5 It was recommended the PUD list a maximum building 6 height of 45 feet or three stories . It was recommended that 7 that building height be installed with the description of 8 land uses for area one . Under the administration of overlay 9 zone , the description of the Citizens Design Review 10 Committee , the language left some ambivalence as to who 11 would represent New Mexico State University on that board. 12 They recommended that the campus architect be specifically 13 identified as the representative for the college . That 14 recommendation has been made . 15 The remaining policy recommendations in the memo dated 16 February 25th concern landscaping policies , minor word 17 changes to make the intent more clear . 18 These are various but are really quite minor in terms 19 of their wording. If there are any other recommended 20 changes that you would like me to describe in more detail , 21 I 'd be happy to do that . 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you Mr . Gill . Any 23 more comments or input from the audience? 24 If not we ' ll go on to commissioner input. 25 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Mr . Chairman, Mr . LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 40 1 Hofmeister is here from the New Mexico State University. 2 He ' s the architect , and he ' s been sitting through these 3 meetings quite frequently And I wonder if he would like to 4 make any comments at this point Especially, I would like 5 to know if he feels that freestanding signage is an 6 advantage to the area , because I have great reservations 7 about that. 8 MR. HOFMEISTER: Mr . Chairman, Commissioners . 9 The university has a very restrictive signage policy and we 10 would like to see that the north side of the University 11 Avenue reflects it in some manner The policy we have is 12 that we don' t allow any freestanding signs on the campus . 13 It might possibly be an exception, one exception in the next 14 few years providing signs that would advertise sporting 15 events , but otherwise we have no intention of allowing signs 16 of that kind 17 We are in the process of defining even more clearly 18 this policy. We will have signs on buildings , and we will 19 permit ground signs, quite small , showing the names of the 20 buildings . But otherwise we have no other provisions for 21 any other signs . Also, since I 'm already here , I would like 22 to make a statement regarding the height of buildings . I 23 think it was a concern, also. 24 We do permit high buildings on the campus because of 25 the tremendous pressure for academic space The limit is LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 41 1 three floors , but we will be building probably two story 2 structures I would like to bring to your attention that 3 the north side of University Avenue is facing the city, 4 while the south side is not 5 So I think it would be desirable to keep the height 6 possibly lower to keep the city visible to the traffic on 7 University Avenue , which will be a high volume area . 8 Are there any other questions I may answer? 9 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Well , unless you would 10 like to address the density in the area. We ' re talking 11 about two stories , and in other words we ' re increasing the 12 density of that area tremendously. And I don' t know if 13 you've had occasion to see the map, but this is the way--the 14 orange there shows the amount of two to three stories that 15 could be in the area according to the code that was 16 presented to us 17 I haven' t changed anything here at all . But I feel 18 perhaps from what you said that there is just too much two 19 story, too much density for the size of the streets, that 20 there is not going to be sufficient air and light, and that 21 it could be a tiny metropolis that would not enhance the 22 university and would therefore not be in conformance with 23 the purpose and intent of our code . 24 MR. HOFMEISTER• The university is now 25 projecting to double in size in about 20 years . This will LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 42 1 generate tremendous amounts of students on University Avenue 2 and elsewhere , and I would like to--and I believe it was the 3 intent of the City to recommend these changes to preserve 4 the pedestrian character of University Avenue in spite of 5 the traffic . 6 I would like to see it going that way because we will 7 have many students that will need to have places to go off 8 campus . The height of the building is detrimental . The 9 higher you go, the less pedestrian environment it becomes . 10 I would like to see it developed on the ground level because 11 it would be a good place to be . But the higher we go, the 12 more impassive it will be to pedestrians . 13 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Thank you. 1.4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Hofmeister . 15 For the benefit of the Commission, the support information 16 that the staff has presented to us for discussion options 17 gives us three options • Approve the University Avenue 18 corridor related zone ordinance draft 2-21-92 ; approve the 19 ordinance with amendments and comments to be sent forward to 20 City Council ; do not approve the ordinance . 21 That' s for Commission' s information as we discuss this 22 overlay zone . Any other comments from the Commission? 23 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: I would like to see Mr . 24 Hofineister ' s suggestions--they seem to be reasonable , 25 constructive--get passed on to the Council along with the LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 43 1 approved document. I don' t think we need to amend them. 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . They' ll be attached as an 3 exhibit, I assume . Any other comments? 4 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I really don' t think we 5 should pass this on to the Council . This isn' t the quality 6 of work that we put forth before . It' s a mishmash. I think 7 we should present to them a complete document where there is 8 no alternatives other than whatever individual commissioner 9 or an individual member of the public wishes to send forth 10 to the Council . But I 'd be ashamed to send this forth with 11 all these various comments on it. You can' t make heads or 12 tails of it if you haven' t been working with this . So I 'd 13 feel much more comfortable if we would postpone this and get 14 our ducks in a row and get the document so that it' s in 15 finished form. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any other comments? We 17 have three options . Would the commission want to vote on 18 which option to approve? 19 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Mr. Chairman, could I 20 make a motion that we postpone this again and see if it goes 21 anywhere? 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : It' s within your 23 prerogative . A motion has been made to postpone. Do I have 24 a second? 25 COMMISSIONER LINARD: I second. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25, 1992 Minutes 44 1 Mr . Chairman, may I make a statement? I worked a lot 2 of years with guided missile reports, and I can' t believe 3 we 'd ever have gotten to the moon if we would have said fix 4 up this gauge on this propellant to squirt out some liquid 5 propellant 200 miles out through space so he ' ll get to the 6 moon. This is a hodge-podge , and it' s inconceivable in the 7 days of computers when you can sit down there and put all 8 this in and give us a complete document with everything 9 that' s been suggested in it, that we do not get it. And I 10 refuse to vote to pass something that' s in ten different 11 shapes . 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Ms . Linard. Any 13 more discussion? If not, we ' ll go ahead and call the 14 question. 15 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: The form of the 16 question is Commissioner Sharpe ' s motion to postpone? 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • To postpone . This is to 18 postpone . That was your motion, to postpone? 19 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Yes, Mr . Chairman. It 20 is my motion. It' s my firm belief that we should. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, if we vote aye , it' s 22 to postpone . No , to continue . 23 COMMISSIONER BAILEY• No . 24 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA• No 25 COMMISSIONER LORD. No . LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 45 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : No 2 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 3 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Aye . 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Chair, no. Motion fails . 5 ( 5 to 2 . ) We ' ll continue on with the discussion. 6 We have three options . Do we wish to adopt one , two or 7 three? 8 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Mr . Chairman, could we 9 have some more discussion before we continue? I prepared a 10 letter to the Council expressing my concerns , and I 'd like 11 to share this letter with you, Commissioners . 12 ( Commissioner Sharpe read her letter into the record Not 13 transcribed, but attached at the back of the minutes . ) 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Commissioner 15 Sharpe . Any further discussion? If not, I move that we 16 approve option number two, approve the ordinance with 17 amendments and comments to be sent forward to City Council . 18 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second that motion. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any discussion? We ' ll go on 20 to the vote . 21 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: Aye . 22 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Aye . 23 COMMISSIONER LORD• Aye . 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIS • Aye . 25 COMMISSIONER LINARD No . LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 46 1 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: No. 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Chair votes aye . Motion 3 passes . ( 5 to 2 . ) 4 Mr . Hill , would you see that the comments from the 5 public and the commissioners are attached to the document as 6 we forward it to the Council , please . 7 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr. Chairman, I feel 8 that we were given an opportunity to design something for 9 the future that would enhance the City of Las Cruces , and 10 the university and we dropped the ball by not demanding that 11 it be in black and white before we passed it. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Commissioner 13 Linard, for your comment. 14 Our next case is Case ZCA-92-004 , an amendment to 15 Article 8 , Section C. 10 ( Sign Code ) , University Avenue 16 Corridor Overlay Zone District (various zones ) , submitted by 17 the City of Las Cruces . 18 MR. HILL: Mr . Chairman, the case ZCA-92-004 , 19 the amendments to the sign code, as listed in this case, are 20 contained within the ordinance which you have just read. 21 The cases were separated because amendments will be made to 22 different articles, but you would be approving a portion of 23 the document which you have already made an action on. So 24 there will be no need to make a separate action on 25 ZCA-92-004 . LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 47 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Thank you We ' ll move on to 2 new business Subdivisions 3 Case S-91-041 , a request for final plat approval of 4 Loretto Towne Centre Subdivision No . 5 The property is 5 located east of Main Street and south of Lohman Avenue . The 6 plat contains 7 lots on plus or minus 17 . 64 acres . Zoned 7 C-2 . Submitted by Loretto Towne Partners . 8 Is the applicant present? 9 MR. SCANLON. Yes . 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Mr Scanlon, would you care 11 to make a comment on your application? 12 MR SCANLON• I would. This Loretto Towne 13 Centre Subdivision is a result of some partitioning of the 14 property to make advances between the entities known as 15 Amador Bank Shares , owners of the holding company that own 16 Citizens Bank, and Loretto Towne Partners , which is a 17 partnership that owns the remainder of the Loretto Centre 18 with the exception of the property that' s owned by the 19 schools , which was previously subdivided and sold to the 20 school system. 21 The partitioning has been done in such a way as to 22 provide the correct amount of parking for each of the 23 building areas that are included within the parcels 24 designated, strictly for partitioning of the parcels for 25 conveyance back and forth between the entities The entire LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 48 1 tract is subject to an access and parking cross easement 2 agreement which allows access to all areas within the site 3 and parking within the areas and other considerations, such 4 as drainage and utilities and is very much similar to the 5 way we did the Wal-mart Plaza Shopping Center 6 This is being done to allow the partners to convey 7 properties now and in the future in such a manner that will 8 be legal and will conform with the current subdivision 9 regulations . Other than that, I ' ll be happy to answer any 10 questions . 11 MR WEIR• Chairman Perez , Commission 12 members , this is basically, as Mr . Scanlon has described, a 13 repartitioning or replatting of Loretto Towne Centre . What 14 they are doing is taking four lots that currently exist and 15 breaking them out into seven individual parcels . The plat 16 itself meets the requirements of the subdivision code and 17 the zoning code , and staff would recommend approval of this 18 subdivision 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir . We ' ll 20 open it to public comment. Would anyone in the audience 21 wish to make any comments regarding this application? 22 If not, we ' ll go ahead and open it to commissioner 23 input. Anybody on the Commission wish to make any comments 24 regarding this application? 25 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA Yes , I had a LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 49 1 question Flow do you describe this storm drain? It says 2 "existing drainage . " And where is this located? 3 MR WEIR I would imagine that' s in the 4 street. Probably a drop inlet 5 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA• Is it like on Main 6 Street? It has existing drainage , and you've checked "storm 7 drain. " 8 MR. CHURCH: Again, Dave Church, engineering 9 department. If you' re talking about the Loretto and school 10 site , I guess it ' s basically around that site . What they' re 11 doing doesn' t affect the drainage of that site in any way. 12 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I 'm wondering for my 13 own personal information at this point where the storm drain 14 is . 15 MR. CHURCH: There is no underground storm 16 drain in that area at all 17 MS . FERREIRA• What does this mean when we 18 check existing storm drainage and we 've checked "storm 19 drain"? 20 MR. WEIR: Is there anything on the street? 21 MR. CHURCH One in front on Amador or 22 Lohman There is a large float that comes out towards the 23 back of the property, goes to the south where Campo and I 24 think it' s Arizona , right there And it comes down the 25 alleyway behind the school building It' s a large river LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 50 1 that' s been there many times and the arroyo has been there 2 probably since Loretto has been there 3 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: There is no storm drain 4 on the property? 5 MR CHURCH• Not that I know of 6 COMMISSIONER BAILEY. Is it appropriate to 7 check? 8 MR. CHURCH: It ' s grandfathered as far as 9 drainage . 10 MS FERREIRA• I was interested to find out 11 the location 12 MR. CHURCH• There is one up on E1 Paseo that 13 goes south, and one on Lohman that would end up in the 14 Mesilla drain. It goes out toward Burn Lake . And that 15 provides some drainage release from the property. But there 16 is still another major flow that comes around the back side 17 MS FERREIRA Nothing on Main Street, then? 18 MR. CHURCH: No, not on that street. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any further comments? 20 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: Call for the question. 21 COMMISSIONER SHARPE Mr . Chairman, I haven' t 22 had a chance to make any comments . Is it all right if I do, 23 Mr Bailey? 24 COMMISSIONER BAILEY Sure . 25 COMMISSIONER SHARPE I just want to express LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 1 51 1 my concerns in the minutes that this is not your usual 2 subdivision I can forsee a lot of liabilities in the 3 future with this with so many owners in essentially one 4 parking lot. I wonder if we are going to see more of them. 5 I wonder if Montgomery Ward might come in with some kind of 6 proposal to sell off lots in their parking lot, thus 7 creating more of these types of subdivisions . 8 Are we doing the public a favor by having this type of 9 a situation where there are so many different property 10 owners and there is no guarantee that they will take care of 11 their respective properties to the benefit of the public? 12 We don' t have any public road easement to the lots on the 13 south side . I 've driven that little alley back there lots 14 of times, and it' s full of chuck holes and pot holes . 15 The Pioneer building does not have its own access, 16 ingress-egress easement . I can see possible problems in the 17 future , and I talked to Mr Simms about it and he feels that 18 as long as these comments are made into the minutes that 19 perhaps we ' re probably not liable for public suit . But I do 20 want to express them in the minutes . 21 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: I don' t know if that' s 22 an appropriate concern How many owners there are? 23 COMMISSIONER SHARPE• It' s an appropriate 24 concern, Mr Bailey, because you don' t have defining 25 property lines here . There is no definition of property LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 52 1 line 2 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Well , Commissioner Sharpe , 3 but isn' t this the same situation that occurs at the 4 downtown mall? 5 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: No. 6 MR WEIR: I 'm not familiar with the downtown 7 mall being a subdivision. State statutes require that 8 monuments be set on the property to differentiate between 9 the different property owners so property lines could be 10 established throughout this subdivision. 11 Mr . Scanlon, would that be occurring? 12 MR. SCANLON• Absolutely. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Does that answer your 14 question, Commissioner Sharpe? 15 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Yes . 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : My understanding today 17 in talking with a city staff member is that all of the lots 18 within this parcel do have easements to public right of 19 ways . Was I mistaken about that? They all have public 20 easements to public roadways? 21 MR. WEIR• What happened, this was one parcel 22 of land, and several parcels have been created off of it 23 over time . And what parcels that Commissioner Sharpe and 24 Commissioner Willis are discussing are this lot here and 25 this lot here At the time this lot was created and this LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 53 1 lot was created there was a joint access and egress-ingress 2 easement established for the entire subdivision. And that 3 is on file at the county clerk ' s office . 4 The school property has frontage off of Campo Street 5 Pioneer has frontage off of Lohman. But Commissioner Sharpe 6 is correct in that they don' t have a curb cut They use 7 this portion of the parking lot here to access their lot. 8 And lots three and four have access to Main Street And lot 9 five , also . 10 COMMISSIONER SHARPE : Doesn' t our subdivision 11 code require that public right of way be a part of the 12 subdivision? Public right of way is required to subdivide 13 the lot . 14 MR. WEIR: The subdivision code describes the 15 process for creating lots , and then the zoning code 16 specifies what the access requirements are for the lots . 17 MR. SCANLON. The code says any lot created 18 within a subdivision must have legal access to a dedicated 19 thoroughfare , and the cross easement agreement on this 20 property establishes legal access to dedicated thoroughfares 21 all around the property. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIS • Would you repeat that? 23 MR SCANLON. The ordinance requires that any 24 lot created within a subdivision must have legal access to a 25 dedicated thoroughfare . The easement agreement that exists LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 54 1 on this property provides legal access between every lot and 2 a dedicated thoroughfare . Main Street, E1 Paseo, Lohman and 3 Campo Street are all dedicated thoroughfares, and there is 4 a blanket cross easement agreement across the whole property 5 that allows anyone to drive anywhere , park anywhere , allows 6 the drainage to flow, allows the utilities to cross property 7 lines and all different types of things . And it 8 allows--it' s a binding agreement between all of the owners . 9 It' s on file in the courthouse and it does provide legal 10 access to every property, every piece of that subdivision. 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any further comments? 12 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Don' t our subdivision 13 regulations require sidewalks , that sort of thing? 14 MR. WEIR: Commissioner Sharpe , that matter 15 is addressed in the design standards of the City of Las 16 Cruces . And sidewalks are required with the building permit 17 per the City-approved design standards for developments 18 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Okay, well I 'm going to 19 vote for it, but I 'm not crazy about it at all . Really not 20 at all . 21 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA• Call for the 22 question. 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Do I have a second? 24 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: Second. 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Commissioner Bailey? LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 55 1 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: Aye . 2 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Aye . 3 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIS • Aye 5 COMMISSIONER LINARD• Aye . 6 COMMISSIONER SHARPE • Aye . 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Chair votes aye . 8 Application passes 7 to 0 . Thank you, Commissioners . 9 Next case is Case 5-92-001 , a request for master plan 10 and preliminary plat approval of Mall Hill Estates 11 Subdivision. The property is located generally south of 12 Foothills Road. The proposal contains 83 lots on plus or 13 minus 20 . 8 acres . Zoned R-2 . Submitted by J. R. and 14 Barbara Crouch. 15 Is the applicant present? 16 MR. BOOTH• Yes , sir . 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Would you care to make a 18 statement, an opening statement? Please state your name . 19 MR. BOOTH: Mr Chairman, Committee members, 20 I am Kevin Booth. Jim Crouch and Barbara Crouch are my 21 in-laws , and I 'm here to represent them and I ' ll be happy to 22 answer any questions that you have . 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Staff? 24 MR WEIR Chairman Perez and Commission 25 members, what you have before you is a request for master LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25, 1992 Minutes 56 1 plan and preliminary plat approval of Mall Hill Estates 2 Subdivision. The proposal contains three phases which will 3 contain 83 lots on 20 . 8 acres . The property is zoned R-2 . 4 The intent and purpose of the development is for single 5 family detached residential lots , and they will be built in 6 conformance with the R-1 zoning standards . 7 The proposal has been reviewed by the Development 8 Review Committee and their concerns on drainage have been 9 addressed. There is a minor amendment that needs to be made 10 to the master plan on the street alignment. It needs to 11 reflect the plans of the MPO as far as the Lohman Avenue 12 extension study. 13 There is also an issue concerning water utilities . The 14 concern is this property is located adjacent to the 15 Foothills Subdivision, and there is the same concern about 16 water pressure . In the master plan report that was provided 17 in your packet, this item is addressed and the developer has 18 agreed to participate in extending utilities to the site if 19 the water pressure is insufficient for development. 20 The applicant has also requested a variance . I 'd like 21 to pass to you a copy of the master plan and preliminary 22 plat. What the variances contain are a request for a 23 cul-de-sac with a length over 500 feet. This is a copy of 24 the master plan. 25 That is the only variance . The basic reason is to LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25, 1992 Minutes 57 1 allow the development to conform to the MPO plans , and staff 2 would support this variance . Taking these issues into 3 consideration, staff would recommend approval of this master 4 plan and preliminary plat 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Thank you, Mr . Weir . Any 6 comments or question from the audience regarding this 7 application? Mr Weir 8 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez, staff would also 9 recommend that the master plan be modified to reflect the 10 MPO Lohman Avenue extension plan, and that the master plan 11 reflect that Foothills Road will be deadended and not go 12 into the proposed realignment of Lohman Avenue . 13 The developer ' s engineer is aware of this request and 14 they said they would be willing to make that amendment to 15 the master plan 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . Thank you, Mr . Weir . 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is there a view graph 18 showing location? 19 MR WEIR: I don' t have an overhead for that . 20 MR. BOOTH: It' s right next to the Kiser 21 Subdivision that was discussed earlier . 22 It ' s behind the Hilton and right before you get to 23 Kiser , which is right before Las Alamedas 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ What we can do is once the 25 commissioners have reviewed it, we can put it up on the LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 58 1 board over there . 2 Okay, Mr . Weir or Mr . Booth, can you go ahead and more 3 or less tell us where the location is . 4 MR. BOOTH: Okay, right here is Foothills 5 Road that goes down to the Hilton. There is a parcel of 6 vacant land right here . This is the proposed subdivision. 7 This is Kiser' s Subdivision right here . And if you keep 8 going out towards the Las Alamedas and the-- 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : It' s just above the dip 10 that' s in that Foothills Road, is it not? 11 MR. BOOTH: Correct. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, any comments from the 13 audience? Any comments or questions? If not, we ' ll close 14 it and open it to commissioner input. 15 Commissioners , any questions or comments regarding this 16 application? 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Mr . Chairman, I have a 18 question for the City staff on the water utility situation 19 and how that' s going to be handled. 20 MR. WEIR: Planning department has had 21 discussions with the utility department today, and what they 22 explained to us was that if water pressure was insufficient, 23 what they would do is create another loop. They would take 24 a line from the High Range development and bring it south 25 toward this development, and also take a line from this LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25, 1992 Minutes 59 1 general area and take it west and tie it into the Telshor 2 area and provide another loop. And that would stabilize the 3 pressure of this area and provide sufficient pressure . 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIS This is in the Jornada 5 Zone? 6 COMMISSIONER SHARPE • Zone one 7 MR WEIR: No, zone one is further east 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : That would be zone two . 9 MR WEIR• They've designated it as the 10 Jornada zone . 11 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: What' s the arrangement 12 to pay for that? 13 MR WEIR• That is still being negotiated 14 between the utility department and developers along 15 Foothills Road What has been proposed is a pro rata share 16 for everyone who would tap into that system. They would all 17 contribute to paying for those improvements 18 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: Is that appropriate , to 19 pass this before? 20 MR. WEIR• We asked the utility department if 21 they were comfortable with this arrangement, and they said 22 the` verbiagb in the master plan report was sufficient for 23 them 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIS Is it possible that 25 this would be approved and there not be sufficient water LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 60 1 pressure and this could be developed and there still isn' t 2 sufficient water? 3 MR WEIR• A worst case scenario would be 4 that they would come in for final plat approval , and they 5 wouldn' t get their construction plans approved, and they 6 would not have water service But their final plat would 7 not be filed until they made some type of arrangements to 8 supply water to this development . 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : In our packets, we 've got 10 this little map here What do those little circles 11 indicate? Is that the proposed paving district? 12 MR. WEIR: That is the proposed alignment of 13 Lohman Avenue 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • No, I 'm talking about the 15 one over here on the right . The little circles , not the 16 squares Down between--on section 10 and 15 . Section line 17 10/15 . 18 MR. DENMARK : Mr Chairman, that represents 19 easements that have been established for roadways in the 20 past with BLM. Either the City or private ownership had 21 contacted the Bureau of Land Management to set aside a 22 certain amount of easement along section lines for future 23 road expansion or planning of roadways 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : But isn' t there a planned 25 proposed paving district along that section line that' s LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 61 1 going to align up to Lohman? 2 MR DENMARK Not that particular one on the 3 south side of Las Alamedas If that' s what you' re referring 4 to . 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ No , it' s going to be right 6 down the section line on section line 10/15 . 7 MR DENMARK • The one you' re showing right 8 here? 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Right. 10 MR DENMARK: No, I am not aware of any plans 11 for a road or a roadway district right in that particular 12 area. What was approved by the MPO and further accepted by 13 the City was the extension of Roadrunner Parkway, which 14 would then come down and tie into either Las Alamedas or the 15 extension of Missouri But the plans do not reflect any 16 road that would be along that section line . 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Okay, I 'm just playing 18 devil ' s advocate here , because on one of the county' s maps 19 it does show that there is a proposed paving district there . 20 And I was wondering what kind of impact it' s going to have , 21 if anything, on that subdivision. 22 MR DENMARK• I don' t know, Mr . Chairman. I 23 do know that the major thoroughfare plan does reflect an 24 arterial on the section line farther to the east because of 25 the direction that Missouri is in and the way that LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 62 1 Roadrunner would come around. That thoroughfare would 2 traverse in a northeast direction and eventually run into 3 that section line . But in the particular part of that 4 section, it' s not reflected. 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Any other 6 comments or questions from the Commission? 7 If not, we have , before we vote on the main motion, we 8 have a variance request to consider . And the applicant is 9 requesting a variance to allow cul-de-sacs over 500 feet in 10 length. The purpose of the variance is to allow the master 11 plan preliminary plat to conform to the infill policy and 12 plans . Staff has no problem with the variance request . 13 Mr . Weir , would you care to show us in the picture and 14 on the map what is happening there? 15 MR. WEIR: The way the subdivision was 16 originally brought in, they had this road that' s going 17 north-south and tying into the development to the west . 18 Foothills Subdivision was further south in the development. 19 The three cul-de-sacs met the requirements of the 20 subdivision regs . 21 What the Lohman Avenue extension plan shows , future 22 realignment of Lohman, and it also showed Foothills coming 23 through an area like this . The discussion we had with the 24 applicant was to allow Foothills to remain where it is and 25 then provide either an eyebrow or cul-de-sac so the road LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25, 1992 Minutes 63 1 would run up the middle of the three cul-de-sacs And we 2 also requested they show this as a cul-de-sac, not tying 3 into existing Foothills Road. 4 Then what they suggested was that they move the road 5 further north so that they' ll have a straight shot into 6 Foothills Subdivision When they moved that road north, 7 they extended these cul-de-sacs past the 500 feet that' s 8 required in the design standards . 9 That was the reason for the request . What it did was 10 it allowed the MPO' s Lohman Avenue extension plans to be met 11 and also met the intent of their development as property. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir Any 13 comment from commissioners? 14 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Yes . I don' t have any 15 problem with those cul-de-sacs being longer than 500 feet 16 That subdivision is pretty contained, so I can' t see that it 17 would be any harm to the public welfare 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Okay Call the question 19 Aye would be in favor of the variance . 20 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: Aye . 21 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA• Aye 22 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIS Aye 24 COMMISSIONER LINARD Aye . 25 COMMISSIONER SHARPE Aye . LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 64 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Chair votes aye . Motion 2 passes 7 to 0 . 3 Now, we ' ll go on to the main motion 4 COMMISSIONER BAILEY• Aye 5 MR WEIR Point of order Do you have a 6 motion for approval of the subdivision? 7 COMMISSIONER SHARPE • Did you ever move to 8 approve the subdivision? 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Yes , I did. But if not 10 we ' ll go ahead and correct that right now 11 COMMISSIONER SHARPE• Mr . Chairman, I move 12 that we unanimously approve Mall Hill Estates , 5-92-001 . 13 COMMISSIONER BAILEY. Second. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Discussion? All in favor? 15 Opposed? Motion carries ( 7 to 0 . ) Thank you. 16 We go on to Case 5-92-002 , a request for final plat 17 approval of Country Club Heights Unit 1 . The property is 18 located west of Triviz Drive and south of the Las Cruces Dam 19 Outfall Channel . The plat contains 14 lots on a plus or 20 minus 3 . 29 acres Zoned PUD. Submitted by Country Club 21 Heights limited 22 May I have a motion to approve Case 5-92-002? 23 COMMISSIONER SHARPE. Mr Chairman, I move 24 that we approve Case S-92-002 25 COMMISSTONER BAILEY Second LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 65 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is the applicant present? 2 MR. WEIR• Point of order again. They' re 3. asking for an amendment on their PUD of this site , so it 4 would be more appropriate to hear the zone request first. 5 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I withdraw the motion. 6 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: Withdraw my second. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : So we' ll go on to Zoning 8 Case PUD-92-001 , a request to approve the site plan and 9 amended development plan for Country Club Heights (Pickard 10 North) PUD. The property is located generally west of I-25 11 ad Triviz Drive and generally south of Las Cruces Dam 12 Outfall Channel . The proposal contains 34 . 21 acres and 13 was submitted by Country Club Heights Ltd. 14 May I have a motion to approve Case PUD-92-001? 15 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So moved, Mr . 16 Chairman. 17 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: Second. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Mr . Scanlon. 19 MR. SCANLON: Yes, my name is Ted Scanlon. I 20 represent the developer in this case . This is a request for 21 an amendment to an existing PUD. The existing PUD was 22 approved back in 1981 , I believe, and at that time that 23 approval contained a mix of housing types within this area. 24 It included some townhouses and some apartments , as well as 25 some single family detached. A mix comprising 280 dwelling LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25, 1992 66 1 units . 2 This request is to reduce the total number of dwelling 3 units from 280 to 138 and to limit the housing type to only 4 single family detached The proposal is for subdivision 5 or a series of subdivisions phased over a period of time , 6 basically in compliance with current R-1 zoning ordinances 7 and in compliance with the development standards and so 8 forth for R-1 , with the exception of the side yard setback 9 of five feet instead of seven. 10 The five foot setback is identical to the side yard 11 setback that was approved for the PUD known as High Range 12 and has worked very well up there . The building separation 13 and so forth would still meet all the requirements of the 14 Uniform Building Code . 15 The lots within this subdivision as planned and as 16 delineated on the master plan are in excess and the density 17 is lower than that which would be allowed under R-1 , which 18 is the city' s most restrictive residential zoning. 19 It' s a very important infill project, I feel , for Las 20 Cruces . It' s a piece of ground that is adjacent to an 21 existing residential development, and it is therefore 22 compatible with the existing areas It also is a window 23 into Las Cruces People entering Las Cruces from I-25 north 24 and from U S . 70 East , this is the first real property they 25 see when they come to town It' s somewhat of an eyesore LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25, 1992 Minutes 67 1 now. It' s scarred up by dirt bike trails, and it' s been 2 used as a dumping area. 3 This project will go a long way towards alleviating 4 that visual blight and providing an area that the city can 5 be proud of as people enter the city and they see it. I 6 understand that there is obviously some concern on the part 7 of the area residents, and I would like to defer the rest of 8 my presentation, I guess , until I hear those comments and am 9 able to respond to them and answer them. 10 I think this is a good project for the city, and if I 11 can respond further after we hear the public comment, I 12 would appreciate that opportunity. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Scanlon. 14 Staff. 15 MR. WEIR: Chairman Perez and Commission 16 members , the case is a request to amend the PUD development 17 plan and site plan for Country Club Heights planned unit 18 development, which was formerly known as Pickard North PUD. 19 It is noted in your staff report the major change in 20 this proposal is the land use . The original development 21 standards for the PUD comprised of a portion of the 22 development would contain single family homes and another 23 portion would contain patio homes . A third portion, a 24 townhouse development, and a fourth portion for apartments . 25 As noted, the major amendment to this is to the LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25, 1992 68 1 development plan for this property which will be developed 2 entirely of single family detached dwelling units , and 3 basically it is in conformance to R-1 standards . The only 4 exception to this is a five-foot setback, which Mr . Scanlon 5 has already explained The R-1 standard requires a 6 seven-foot sideyard setback 7 The development will also decrease the density from the 8 original approved site plan and PUD from a number of 280 9 dwelling units to 138 The site plan and development plan 10 which have been submitted as an amendment to this area meet 11 the requirements of the zoning code . 12 The PUD also meets the intent of the comprehensive plan 13 and, as already noted, decreases the density from the 14 original development. The proposal also meets the infill 15 criteria and subdivision regulations and an unwritten city 16 policy to encourage infill within the City of Las Cruces . 17 Staff has received a large amount of public comment on 18 this proposal , and their concerns include the density of the 19 development, the compatibility with existing development to 20 the south, existing residential development, increased 21 traffic and the effects it will have on adjacent properties 22 and recreation opportunities in this area 23 You also received letters in your packet concerning 24 these concerns and you also received a petition before your 25 meeting this evening with signatures on it There has also LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 69 1 been one comment , a portion of the property is still under 2 contract to be purchased by Country Club Heights . And this 3 property, the owner would like that to be brought to your 4 attention and that that will have to be cleared up before 5 the proposal could go forward . 6 During review, planning staff has requested additional 7 right-of-way be provided for Pima Drive , which you' d have to 8 look on your site plan in your packets . And the reason for 9 that request is if Triviz Drive is ever made a one way 10 street south, as has been suggested in the interstate access 11 study by the MPO, there would be some need to allow traffic 12 to get out of the development and access North Main Street . 13 I 've talked with the applicant and applicant' s 14 representative and they stated they would provide an 15 easement, and then as the development goes along it could be 16 determined whether the easement would actually be required 17 or not . That would require a minor amendment to the site 18 plan. 19 Also during review of the PUD and the first phase of 20 the development, which you' ll be hearing next, the 21 engineering department brought to our attention that a 22 master drainage study would be useful for the approval of 23 this PUD, and they would request that master drainage study 24 be made for the site 25 The applicant ' s representative stated they would rather LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 70 1 proceed with the original drainage study that was provided 2 with the original approval rather than submitting a new 3 master drainage study 4 Options that are available for the Commission are to 5 approve this PUD and site plan as submitted. A second 6 option would be to approve it subject to a master drainage 7 report which meets the engineering department ' s requirements 8 for approval , or to postpone this case for one month. If 9 you have any additional questions , I ' ll be happy to answer 10 them 11 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Why would it be 12 postponement for a month? 13 MR. WEIR. That would allow the applicant 14 time to submit their master drainage study. 15 COMMISSIONER LINARD Mr . Chairman, did I 16 understand him to say that we were given petitions before 17 our meeting? 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Yes , I was going to present 19 that to the Commission at the Commission input portion of 20 the meeting. 21 COMMISSIONER LINARD• Okay, thank you . 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay Any further comments 23 Mr . Scanlon? 24 MR SCANLON. If you'd like , I can address 25 the concerns of staff all at once right now. Then after the LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 71 1 public has had time to share their input, I could go ahead 2 and comment or rebut those 3 One concern was density Of course , this subdivision 4 is less dense than the maximum density allowed by R-1 zone , 5 which is our most restrictive zoning So these are the 6 regulations we have to operate under And so therefore , I 7 don' t see any reason why it should not be approved on the 8 basis of density since we are less dense than the density 9 that' s allowed by our most restrictive zoning. 10 The compatibility with the existing neighborhood is the 11 same , basically the same answer as density. It' s single 12 family detached, just like the neighboring properties , and 13 of a density less than the maximum allowed by our most 14 restrictive zoning. 15 We have addressed the traffic issues . As we know 16 Triviz Drive is in the process of being extended north 17 across the outfall channel and then parallel to the outfall 18 channel in a westerly direction to connect with North Main 19 Street 20 This configuration at Triviz Drive--and we have 21 provided two access points on this as well as an access 22 point on the west side of the subdivision to Pima, allowing 23 full traffic circulation within the subdivision. The 24 extension of Triviz Drive will in fact alleviate a great 25 deal of the traffic that currently exists on the interior LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 72 1 roads within the Country Club Park Subdivision and take some 2 of that traffic away. The traffic planning staff has 3 reviewed it and have indicated that the streets are of 4 sufficient capacity and the development of the subdivision 5 would not alter or change the level of service of the 6 existing roadways or proposed roadways within the area . 7 On recreational opportunities , obviously some people 8 have been using this property as a recreational area as 9 evidenced by the fact there are dirt bike trails around and 10 some things like that. And it ' s been enjoyed by some of 11 these residents as on open space for a long period of time . 12 It is a fact that with the extension of Triviz Drive , it is 13 now time to develop the property. 14 The owners have invested a great deal of money and time 15 and effort into preparing to do just that. They have a 16 right, under our regs , under our laws , to do with their 17 property as they see fit as long as it' s legal and complies 18 with all of the ordinances that have been adopted within the 19 City. It is well known that it' s the policy of the city not 20 to encourage a lot of small , spotty neighborhood-type parks, 21 but that the City would rather accept fees from developments 22 of this type to be used towards upgrading the larger 23 recreational facilities that exist around the City. 24 It' s the intent of these developers to comply with that 25 desire and that policy of the City. The matter of the LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 73 1 Ingram property, Mr . Parish has an agreement with Mr . 2 Ingram, I believe , to purchase a portion of his property 3 There is absolutely no way, legally or otherwise, that this 4 development would encumber that property in the event that 5 for some reason that sale did not go through. We don' t have 6 any reason to believe that it would not. 7 The agreement is , as far as I know, agreed upon between 8 both parties In the event that something did happen, then 9 we would simply have to leave that portion of the property 10 out of this development . But in no way would this 11 development be allowed to impact the Ingram property in any 12 way that would be detrimental to that property. That' s a 13 matter of law. 14 The easement for Pima north. I was just made aware of 15 that requirement today. And I discussed it with the 16 developer, and we have no problem with showing a proposed 17 future easement for extension of Pima north with the 18 understanding that if that does not become a feasible or a 19 viable option for the city at the time the subdivision is 20 developed, then that easement would become moot or would 21 cease to exist . 22 On the master drainage study, I met with staff several 23 weeks ago, months ago maybe , on this project and we 24 discussed all of the things that needed to be submitted in 25 order to complete this PUD amendment . And the master LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 74 1 drainage study was not one of them I wasn' t made aware of 2 the request for master drainage study until this afternoon. 3 I would gladly provide a master drainage study for this 4 property and would have provided it had I known before today 5 that it was going to be requested by the staff 6 I will provide it , but it' s going to take me a couple 7 days to get it put together We assumed, as Mr . Weir 8 stated, that the master drainage study that was prepared at 9 the time of the original amendment would suffice since we 10 were only reducing the total density and thereby reducing 11 runoff potential . I have no problem with producing a master 12 drainage study for the area , but it will take me a couple 13 days to do that . So I would suggest that a postponement 14 would not be in order , but instead a contingency on that 15 matter . Give me a couple days to do that, and I ' ll have 16 that in 17 I was made aware last week of some additional items 18 beyond our original discussions that were requested by 19 staff, and I turned these in posthaste . They were turned in 20 the next day, I believe , after they were requested. So time 21 is of the essence in making this project go forward. This 22 is a project of some magnitude , and we feel we've planned it 23 very well and would like to go forward with it. 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr Scanlon. 25 Looking at the two applications , 5-92-002 and PUD 92-001 , LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 75 1 the issues of concern would obviously interact with each 2 other I wondered if it wouldn' t be appropriate to consider 3 both at the same time 4 MR. DENMARK: That' s no problem, Mr . 5 Chairman. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Can we go ahead and consider 7 them together? 8 MR DENMARK: Yes, you could. As long as 9 your motions do include both case numbers, there shouldn' t 10 be any problem. 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Can I have a motion to that 12 effect? 13 COMMISSIONER BAILEY• So moved. 14 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Second. 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Okay, so we ' re now 16 considering both cases so we can address the issues of 17 concern on both applications . 18 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Mr. Chairman, I don' t 19 have any objection to discussing. I don' t see any 20 difference in discussion. It' s all one issue . But when it 21 comes time to vote, I would want to vote on them separately 22 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Fine . We ' ll consider that. 23 Any input from the audience at this time on these 24 applications? 25 And if you have a spokesman for the group, we ' ll impose LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 76 1 the 15-minute rule If you have individual comments, we ' ll 2 have the three-minute rule . 3 MR. TOBEY• Now, how many do you have to have 4 in a group? We have a group of about 10 people . Is that 5 enough? 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : If you've got a designated 7 speaker for the group, we will entertain the individual 8 speaker plus the speaker for the group. 9 Sir , are you going to be addressing for yourself or for 10 the group? 11 MR. TOBEY: This is for the group. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We' ll allow you 15 minutes . 13 MR. TOBEY: I am Nelson W. Tobey, and I have 14 lived with my wife , Beryl , at 2085 San Acacio for just over 15 20 years . Our property abuts the proposed development near 16 it' s southeast corner . I am the author of a letter to Mr . 17 Weir , senior planner of the planning office , and also the 18 author of a petition, with help from my neighbors, with over 19 125 signatures, I believe . And that has been or will be 20 presented to each member of the staff of the Planning and 21 Zoning Commission. 22 There are two numbers that should be corrected on the 23 letter as follows . in the first line of comment one , housing 24 density, substitute 138 for 120 138 is a correct number of 25 housing units to be put in there . And on the second line LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONNING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 77 1 substitute the number 4 . 0 for 3 . 5 . It' s 4 house lots per 2 acre , also the corrected number . 3 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Would you be good 4 enough to tell me where you' re reading from. 5 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: His letter is in your 6 packet. 7 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : What letter are you reading 8 from, sir? 9 MR. TOBEY: I think you have a copy. I 10 submitted it to the board. 11 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Letter dated February 12 19 . 13 MR. TOBEY: The petition protests the high 14 density housing, the inadequate road network, lack of 15 playgrounds for children rather than recreation areas, the 16 probable devaluation of existing property values, and 17 expresses environmental concerns . We believe that the final 18 plat approval of Country Club Heights unit one should be 19 delayed--and you have agreed to consider it as one 20 unit--pending resolution of this petition and case PUD 21 92-001 . 22 We also believe that implementation of the intent of 23 the petition to be in the best long term interest of the 24 City of Las Cruces . The break point between high density 25 housing and low density housing, I think , is not well LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25, 1992 78 1 defined. I compute the proposed unit development under 2 discussion to have a unit density of 4 . 03 dwellings units 3 per acre . 4 03 dwelling units per acre , and that' s 138 4 units divided by 34 211 acres . And that includes road and 5 cul-de-sacs . I computed the roads and cul-de-sacs to occupy 6 7 . 29 acres resulting in a housing density of 5 . 13 units per 7 acre . That' s 138 units divided by 34 . 211 minus 7 . 29 . 8 The figure quoted by the developer in the paper that I 9 received is 3 . 83 units per acre where , in fact, it' s closer 10 to four or five . which number is correct? I really don' t 11 know whether all or none qualify as low density housing. I 12 don' t know But I should think the planner should, and we 13 need to know whether it includes the roads or excludes the 14 roads and cul-de-sacs . 15 I would like to add a personal observation. As I went 16 from door to door seeking thoughts on the petition and later 17 securing signatures on the petition, I find no one in favor 18 of this development and everyone against it, and some were 19 vehemently opposed. The cold wording of the petition before 20 you does not reflect the intensity of opposition to the 21 development . Their speaking in this forum may provide you 22 with a feeling for their intensity 23 Now, I would like to turn over the rest of my 15 24 minutes to people in the audience who signed the petition or 25 have views on this development . LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 79 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Excuse me , before we 2 continue I 'd like to take a five-minute break so we can give 3 our court reporter a rest 4 (A recess was taken. ) 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Let' s go ahead and call the 6 meeting back to order We ' re still under public input and 7 we ' ll continue . 8 MS SUMMERS : Can I go up there now? 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Certainly. Now, are you an 10 individual? 11 MS . SUMMERS :- No, I 'm taking the other part 12 of the group And I know why you took a break , because you 13 had to clear out the smoke that this gentleman was blowing 14 in your direction. I 'm Cynthia Summers , and I 'm a taxpaying 15 property owner for 33 years on Country Club Circle . And I 'm 16 talking to you as a property owner on Country Club Circle , 17 representing my neighborhood, and I 'm not talking about 18 beauty in the new addition. I 'm talking to you about to 19 consider this new addition that is affecting us . 20 Number one, those of you who don' t live up there have 21 no idea of the density of traffic already on Camino del Rex. 22 You said you are going to fix up Triviz . One way. You 23 think that the people , the 138 families that are going to 24 live there , are really going to use Triviz one way going to 25 town? No . They' re going to come in on Pima and go down LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 80 1 Country Club Circle And you better make that a four-lane 2 highway, because that' s what you will need if you add 130 3 families to something that is already existing. 4 Now, I 'd like to ask you, what are you going to do over 5 there in the utility department that has it all worked out 6 already, when we already have no water pressure in the 7 summer time? Are you going to put on another water tank so 8 we have water? What do you do if you have a fire? You have 9 no water pressure Are we going to sue the City then 10 because there is no water? We are not the suing kind of 11 people . We just want what ' s right for us . 12 So consider that before you gloriously jump into this 13 the gloriously proposed project that is going to just 14 advertise Las Cruces . We don' t need that . When people come 15 here , they see K-mart and they see that mobile home park . 16 That ' s what they see And then they have to look across 17 that ditch to see that new addition. And obviously, on 18 those little Mickey Mouse lots they' re going to be little 19 Mickey Mouse houses . Cracker boxes that bring down--nobody 20 has mentioned yet how much they are worth. That is going to 21 bring down the price of our property. We are not concerned 22 that you build back there . We are concerned as to what you 23 build and how you build it , and how you handle the situation 24 of traffic, water , sewer and drainage . 25 The last time , 12 years ago, I was at that City Council LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 81 1 meeting with the same people wanting to build the same 2 cockamamie addition And you had the good sense of not 3 approving it And at that time the City proposed and 4 promised us that you would put bicycle paths and a 5 wilderness area out there Now, it' s going to be a 6 wilderness area of houses and people . What are you going to 7 do with all the children? We have not enough schools in our 8 area now Where you going to send them to school? There is 9 no school in the neighborhood. 10 You see , the builders come to you people with the 11 zoning commission and they say this is all glory hallelujah 12 because to them it spells only money To us it spells a way 13 of living. And I hope that you, as the people that 14 represent us , do represent us . Not the people that come in 15 to town from another city to build houses and ruin our 16 environment 17 So there are many things that you should consider . You 18 are proposing, among other things , a ponding area. Why a 19 ponding area? If the drainage is already so, gloriously 20 proposed, the gentleman said he hasn' t even studied it yet. 21 So the last time--and people that live up there know that 22 drainage is really a problem in our area. Mrs . MacWhorter 23 will have a ponding area in her front yard, I know that for 24 sure . Just like Camino del Rex has become a river every 25 time we have a heavy rain. But people , you that don' t live LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 82 1 there don' t know this We who live there know that we can' t 2 use Camino del Rex when we have a heavy rain because that is 3 the other drainage ditch. 4 So you sit behind the counter representing us . I hope 5 you do . I hope you represent us and not the builders . I 6 hope you think about the signatures that you have of the 7 people that violently object to this addition. But from 8 where I sit and what I hear, you obviously already have made 9 up your minds because you will want to vote on it. So don' t 10 vote on it until you have really considered it. That' s all 11 I have to say. Thank you very much. 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Any more input? Yes, sir . 13 Individual or representing a group? 14 MR. LAWRENCE: Individual . 15 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Three minute limit, please . 16 MR LAWRENCE • My name is Harold Lawrence . I 17 live at 1835 San Acacio . Mr . Chairman, ladies and gentlemen 18 of the Commission, I certainly welcome the opportunity to 19 talk to you tonight. Let me just expand the few words that 20 the lady said about the school system. If one accepts 21 demographic data that the average family has 2 . 3 children, 22 we' re talking about over 300 children And I have two 23 grandchildren at Loma Heights , and I can assure you from 24 what I 've seen there is no room for them there . So do we 25 put them someplace , or how do we build new buildings , new LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 83 1 school buildings? 2 And as far as this gentleman' s statement about 1981 3 hearing, how lucky we are to have this reduced to 138 . Let 4 me just point out to you that that hearing had to do with 5 low cost housing that they were planning on putting down 6 there . 7 Now, I would like to address the issue of drainage . I 8 think there is a major drainage problem there--and do we 9 have a graph of the development itself? 10 MR. WEIR: No. I don' t have an overhead to 11 put up there . 12 MR. DENMARK: We are going to go ahead and 13 put a plan on the board over there . Will people be able to 14 see that all right? 15 MR. LAWRENCE: Okay, my property is this 16 piece of property right here . Before this gentleman put his 17 house in there , there is an arroyo that comes down through 18 here and the water came out at San Acacio. There was no 19 problem. 20 Then he put in an embankment, and I got the City 21 hydraulic engineer to come out and talk about whether there 22 was going to be a problem because this embankment was 10 to 23 15 feet high. And he said no problem. Since that time, 24 I 've had two gullywashers through that street, and this is 25 our only means of egress . So drainage in this area is very LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 84 1 This arroyo will somehow have to be taken care of . 2 There is an arroyo right through here , and there is a 3 culvert up here that ' s about 10 feet below the road. And I 4 haven' t heard anybody address that 5 The other problem is that this culvert under I-25 6 consists of three tunnels . The middle tunnel goes into the 7 channel , whereas the southern tunnel goes out onto the 8 desert. And after a good rain storm, you will see water 9 standing all along in the area. This is a very flat piece 10 of property, and I would really like to know what they' re 11 going to do about the drainage there . A pond down here will 12 not help this property 13 As far as the utilities are concerned, the lady forgot 14 to mention electricity. I don' t know about you but we have 15 a lot of outages on our electricity. I think we ' re on the 16 same circuit, and I would imagine quite a few of the houses 17 here will be on that circuit, also . 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : You've got about 30 seconds . 19 MR LAWRENCE: I really think I 've finished 20 at this stage of the game . 21 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: I have one question. 22 The property that you were indicating that you own is 23 vacant; is that right? 24 MR. LAWRENCE • No, no I have a house on it 25 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Oh, you have a house LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 85 1 on it? It doesn' t show a house . It does not show a house . 2 And how much property does that involve? 3 MR. LAWRENCE: That' s two acres . 4 Incidentally, you might be interested in knowing that the 5 existing community, the average size is about a half acre as 6 opposed to the . 25 percent acreage that they' re talking 7 about here 8 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: And do you plan to do 9 anything else with your property other than have a house on 10 two acres? 11 MR. LAWRENCE: Do you really want to know 12 what I have in mind? I plan on leaving it as desert because 13 we've got roadrunners, we 've got rabbits , we 've got quail . 14 And that' s going to be the only place for them in the 15 future . Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Any other . State your name , 17 please . 18 MS WRIGHT• I 'm Doris Wright. I live at 19 1655 Country Club, and we bought our home last year . The 20 first thing that happened, we had to call the city and Mr . 21 Church came out, and we had to put a French drain in with 22 about, I think , nine ton of rock just to take care of our 23 drainage on one lot Think of the drainage on all of these 24 lots . The drainage is so poor in that area The City 25 wouldn' t let us drain out into the street, which I can see . LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 86 1 I can see their concern But each person has to take care 2 of their water . Well , if we had to put a French drain in 3 for just one lot , think of what is going to happen back 4 there . If you seen that property and how that property has 5 arroyos in it--and that' s all I have to say. Thank you 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Anybody else? 7 MS . MacWHORTER: My name is Dorothy 8 MacWhorter . I live at 1700 Camino del Rex, and I am very 9 concerned about the traffic that' s going to come in. The 10 last time we had a meeting on this they said the Corps of 11 Engineers would have to come in and put a bridge across the 12 arroyo to take care of all these houses . I haven' t even 13 heard that mentioned here tonight . 14 Also, I am concerned about the drainage because my 15 house faces Lomita. When we have a rain, all that comes 16 down and comes to our house . So I am concerned about the 17 traffic and the drainage And I 'd appreciate it if you 18 would vote no . 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Anybody else? Yes , sir . 20 MR. CASHION: My name is Ed Cashion, and my 21 family and I live at 1535 Country Club Circle , down about 22 where the point is on that map over there . Right where they 23 want to put the mosquito breeding ground. But I don' t want 24 to talk to you about that, and I don' t want to talk to you 25 about the drainage or the schools or anything else I think LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes ( 87 1 that' s all been covered pretty good 2 I have a proposal for Mr Scanlon and those that he 3 represents . If you' re truly interested in making something 4 that Las Cruces can be proud of, why don' t you talk to your 5 people that you represent--and I assume yourself, since one 6 of these streets was named Scanlon Drive on the copy that I 7 got--why don' t you talk them into making a good deal for the 8 city. And I propose that the City buy that property and 9 make a park . Not a little spot park like Mr . Scanlon was 10 talking about, but one that could be enjoyed by a lot of 11 people . 12 Of course , they' re going to make Triviz go through 13 there, and we ' re going to have to live with these problems 14 sooner or later anyway, but this housing project, as I think 15 you can see from the turnout here and comments that have 16 been made , it' s not a good idea for us , the people that have 17 got to live with that . I 've been living there for a 18 relatively short time compared to some of my neighbors . My 19 kids are growing up, and they've got to live with that, too. 20 And I 'd also appreciate your vote against this PUD. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Anybody else? 22 MR. HERRIMAN: I 'm Walter Herriman I live 23 at 2022 San Acacio. I have a question here . When Triviz 24 possibly becomes a southbound, as Mr . Weir and I talked for 25 a few minutes--it is in consideration. If every family in LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 88 1 that area has two cars per house, it will be 276 cars that 2 will be coming down San Acacio to Camino del Rex That will 3 be about the only access they have out to 70 . 4 If there are four cars per house , 552 cars . And the 5 first street they come to is going to be San Acacio down 6 Camino del Rex and on out to 70 . So I would like to ask the 7 Commission to consider delaying any approval until some time 8 that we know what is going to be done with Triviz . Is it 9 going to be southbound? 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Thank you. 11 MR. SHORT: I am Dean Short. I live at 2010 12 San Acacio. I really just want to add to Mr . Herriman' s 13 comment. This whole project has one road out to 70 . Pima 14 should go--and Mr Scanlon touched on it, but I didn' t hear 15 any promises . It should, of course , run into 70 as well . 16 Then there would be two exits from the property 17 Otherwise , you' re going to have this whole jam up of 18 cars at San Acacio and Camino del Rex. If you go across the 19 outfall canal to 70--in other words , extend Pima--it will be 20 an awful lot more reasonable . 21 There is one thing , too . As the proponents of the 22 thing tell us , they make it sound like this PUD was approved 23 once before . No, it didn' t go through. And it had an 24 expiration date . This is really a fresh start . There was 25 an expiration date on the other one And on the other one LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 89 1 there was an agreement by the company that was behind it 2 that they would build a bridge across the outfall , not just 3 Triviz , but the other one as well . And I ' d certainly like 4 to encourage that 5 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Thank you. Anybody else? 6 MS TUCKER• I 'm Mary Tucker , and I just 7 really can' t keep my mouth shut, as everybody who knows me 8 knows . I 've lived on Camino del Rex much longer that I 9 would like for anyone to know. But there were only seven 10 houses there when we built our house , and it is presently 11 the major access for most of the division between 70 and 12 Madrid. That ' s a very highly concentrated area already. 13 More would really make it just almost impossible . Camino 14 del Rex was not designed to be an arterial , and it is . And 15 it would be really, really nice if you wouldn' t do this . 16 Thank you 17 MR WELCH My name is John Welch, and I live 18 at 2065 San Acacio In addition to the various comments and 19 points that were presented by my neighbors , I would like to 20 bring up another point that has not been mentioned and that 21 is the parcel of land that we ' re talking about is the last 22 undeveloped piece of land in this entire neighborhood. That 23 land is bound by the interstate and the outflow channel . 24 Why can we not make this land compatible with all of the 25 other existing land in the entire neighborhood so that we LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 90 1 don' t take the last piece of land and change the character 2 of the entire neighborhood I certainly urge you to vote 3 against this 4 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Anybody else? 5 MR .KELLY: My name is William Kelly. My 6 wife and I live at 7080 Camino del Rex, right where it goes 7 onto 70 . So I see all of this traffic that all you are 8 talking about on a daily basis . Plus, when it rains , all of 9 the rain that comes down San Acacio, I get it on my 10 property. Then it goes out on the golf course . So I 11 understand 12 Since 1984 , when we moved in, when they first built 13 those places , it was a problem. And just adding more 14 traffic onto Camino del Rex is going to be really bad, for 15 certainly you know where we live . 16 Another thing is with the extension of Triviz , that 17 would be fine if the people who live there are going to go 18 on to I-25 or out to 70 , out to White Sands or wherever . 19 But they' re still going to come down San Acac.io to Camino 20 del Rex to get into town. They' re not going to go all the 21 way down to Madrid and so forth, down that way. They' re 22 going to come right by where we live . 23 That' s all I have to say. 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ Anybody else? 25 MS . McGUIRE: I 'm June McGuire , and I live at LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 91 1 1535 Altura . I can assure you there isn' t enough water for 2 even 10 houses up there The water is very bad. Where are 3 we going to get the water , David? Where is the water coming 4 from for all these 138 houses? 5 MR. WEIR: The responsibility is the 6 developer ' s to tap into the city system. 7 MS McGUIRE: Well , how can we get more 8 water? I mean we really don' t have enough. I 'm not just 9 saying that . All of them will testify to that. We don' t 10 have enough water . 11 The electricity goes off all the time , and that will 12 mean more electricity But I 'm not proposing they don' t 13 build up there . The traffic will be horrendous , and we 14 really can' t take much. But at least we could make them 15 compatible with the neighborhood and have half acres or 16 something. Because I mean, the man owns the land . We know 17 he ' s not going to just let it--the city is not interested in 18 any more parks . So I think if we were going to keep it 19 happy, and I think your little project is a beautiful little 20 beehive there . I don' t think that coming into the city 21 that' s going to be attractive at all . If they really were 22 estate kind of houses , that' s a very lovely neighborhood. 23 It really is . And they would sell for more . They really 24 would. I mean it' s very popular still , and it looks good. 25 So consider bigger sizes . LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 92 1 But the drainage is terrible , and you get all those 2 houses and I mean I don' t know where the water is going to 3 go . My house probably 4 MR WILSON I am Eddie Wilson. Good 5 evening. I own the property at 1927 San Acacio, and I 6 prepared something on short notice because I only found out 7 about this two days ago And if you don' t mind, I ' ll read 8 it to you. 9 I recognize the right of an individual or group to have 10 profit from an investment. So even though we will no longer 11 be able to enjoy the small wildlife in the area, I cannot 12 object to the development of their property. 13 However, I do object to the negative impact their 14 planned subdivision will have on the property values in our 15 area . I believe that the proposed housing project will 16 contribute greatly to the already large and publicly visible 17 gang problem in Las Cruces I understand that the city is 18 considering restricting the use of wood burning stoves and 19 fireplaces as is already happening in such places as El Paso 20 and Albuquerque . 21 Most of the new homes in the area are being built with 22 fireplaces . The saturation of this area with some 138 new 23 homes can only add to the existing pollution problems facing 24 this city. Also the plat, as I have seen it, allows the 25 property owners to the south, myself included, no northern LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 93 1 access to their property. A portion of these properties 2 will become valueless because of this lack of access and 3 will probably become dumping areas This will create a 4 problem for both the City and the landowner in attempting to 5 keep clean an area that will be accessible only with a 6 four-wheel drive vehicle . ' 7 So that the impact on the city and the current 8 landowners be minimized, I propose the following: No 9 construction initiated until the completion of the Triviz 10 extension to the intersection of Elks Drive and North Main. 11 Also, consider--having found out that it is going to be 12 possibly a southbound--some other option Lot sizes be held 13 to a minimum of half acre . Homes be restricted to a minimum 14 of 2000 square feet , bringing their value in line with 15 existing property. And finally, access to the northern 16 boundary of properties such as mine already developed on San 17 Acacio be provided by means of a regularly maintained 18 street. Thank you 19 MS . KELLY: My name is Kit Kelly. I 'm living 20 at 780 Camino del Rex. My husband was here . He talked 21 about two things , but I ' d like to talk about my experience . 22 Since I live at the corner , I witness and observe the 23 traffic . One day I was working at the outside . I saw one 24 of the trucks try to make a turn, and there was not enough 25 curve to turn in . He struck down the traffic lights . LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 94 1 And a second thing, I witnessed accidents . So many 2 times I saw an accident Oh, gosh, hopefully that doesn' t 3 happen in front of my house . But every time they have an 4 accident they knock on our door to use our phone . I don' t 5 mind to let them use it , but I don' t like to see accidents 6 in front of my house . 7 And third thing, I had water pressure problems , and the 8 City of Las Cruces came over They turned it up. Our pipe 9 was broke down by water pressure . It happened twice , one 10 time by my washer and a second time in my lawn. 11 And the fourth thing is when they had construction, 12 repairing the road from the highway and from in front of my 13 house , Camino del Rex, I called the City of Las Cruces and 14 the Highway Department twice about two years ago . And about 15 a month ago, a couple months ago, and a crack in the corner 16 of our building one day So hopefully consider that those 17 kinds of problems , which are small problems , I 've been 18 experiencing. But hopefully think about benefits for the 19 future residents in that area. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Anybody else? 21 MS . LAWRENCE: My name is Patricia Lawrence. 22 I live at 1935 San Acacio We 've been there for a number of 23 years . We bought there because of the naturalness of the 24 land and the natural habitat and, of course , this will all 25 be gone . My concerns have been mentioned by the people who LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 95 1 have been here , although I would like to again point out 2 that there is one main road in that subdivision. It empties 3 out into Triviz , which might be a one way going the other 4 way. And it goes down to Pima and empties into Camino del 5 Rex . 6 If indeed these people are working at White Sands or 7 NASA, if they are going to go and pick up on 70 , if Triviz 8 goes the other way, all of that traffic is going down to- 9 Camino del Rex and out onto 70 . As you all know, 70 is a 10 death trap already. With the K-mart and the traffic that' s 11 on there now, I can look from my house and see emergency 12 signals , emergency vehicles going by all day long almost on 13 a regular basis . 14 I think you will all remember the last big accident 15 there . That was caused by a tractor/trailer vehicle that 16 plowed into, I believe , it was two vehicles at the stop 17 light . Are they going to put in traffic signals at Scanlon 18 and Country Club? That will indeed be a danger . 19 I also would like to correct a few statements that I 20 believe Mr . Scanlon made . He said that the houses would be 21 comparable to the existing property. I would like to state 22 that I don' t believe that that ' s quite true . All of the 23 lots are quite large . Ours is very large . I think that 24 probably the square footage of the houses would probably 25 average 2 , 000 to 3 , 000 square feet I do believe that this LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 96 1 is going to bring the value of our property down. The 2 pollution is going to be unbearable . I think it was brought 3 up of the fire danger and the pollution. E1 Paso and 4 Albuquerque already have limited burning nights . I 5 understand that next year Las Cruces will also be in that 6 position 7 I think also that it was mentioned that because it' s 8 similar to High Range , which I cannot see that this 9 development with 138 houses is at all similar to High Range, 10 that they are requesting a difference from seven feet 11 setback to a five foot setback . I think that a lot of facts 12 have been glossed over , and that we have not been given the 13 truth on this . 14 I think , as a lot of the people have said, we 've got a 15 little subdivision down there when you look at it. When I 16 went down the first time to look at this map, it looked like 17 a bunch of ants climbing everywhere . As I say, Las Cruces 18 can stand the natural habitat land, the naturalness of that 19 land down there . I know people own it, and I know we cannot 20 restrict them from building, but it would be nice if they 21 would do something like Las Alturas where it' s very natural 22 out there . I would like to ask you all to vote against 23 this . Thank you. 24 MR. FRY Good evening. My name is Gene Fry 25 I live at 2035 San Acacio, and my property abuts the LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 97 1 proposed development . I have a few comments that I 'd like 2 the touch on. Most of them in some manner bear on things 3 that have already been brought up here . 4 First, I 'd like to say, at least this is a move in the 5 right direction. 11 years ago we were talking about 6 multi-family dwellings and apartment houses and so on. At 7 least we've got them moving to the point of having single 8 family dwellings , and I believe you've heard enough comments 9 here to know most of the people are concerned about the size 10 and quality of housing that would be put in there . 11 While I would be sorry to see the desert area across my 12 back fence be transformed into a housing development, I 13 recognize that I cannot keep a property owner from 14 developing his property. I would request though, that these 15 plot plans be redone so as to keep the housing in line with 16 existing property that' s surrounding the area. He mentioned 17 that the density was less than it was before , but it' s still 18 much larger than the surrounding property. 19 Comments about it being comparable to High Range were 20 mentioned. If I remember my geography, High Range was a 21 piece of desert and they came in there and started building, 22 and there wasn' t any surrounding property there to speak of 23 to compare it to. So they could pretty much put up what 24 they wanted without anybody next door complaining about the 25 fact that the new property did not match the existing LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 98 1 property 2 we 've also heard about drainage . I have an arroyo 3 behind my back fence It' s already been mentioned about how 4 that ground where that arroyo is washes out into the street. 5 Across the second hill there is another arroyo that I think 6 runs out into the main arroyo , and certainly one of the 7 technical problems that would have to be addressed is what 8 you' re going to do about filling up those two arroyos and 9 taking care of the drainage 10 A new subject was brought up here this evening that has 11 to do with the subject of making Triviz one way. I 12 certainly see lots of traffic going up and down San Acacio 13 in front of my house because everybody that lives between 14 Highway 70 and Lohman Avenue and lives to the west of 15 Triviz--they' ll probably have to have them use Triviz Drive 16 to exit to Highway 70 and come down San Acacio If there is 17 an extension of Triviz Drive made to connect them to Highway 18 70 , it might take some pressure off San Acacio But what 19 about the people that live in that area going the other way? 20 You' re going to have to add to the traffic on Solano. So I 21 think there is another technical problem that needs to be 22 considered in any case if you extend Triviz , and certainly 23 if you make it one way. 24 I believe those are all the comments I need to make at 25 this time . LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 99 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Anybody it? 2 MS WILSON My name is Linda Wilson. I live 3 at 1927 San Acacio, and as my husband put it , we were not 4 informed of this development. We never got a letter . The 5 first point that I ' d like to make to go with everyone else' s 6 is they' re not compatible . The existing lot sizes , the lots 7 that are there , the smallest one is at least a half acre . 8 And if you' re going to put a small house on it, you' re going 9 to end up with a neighborhood that will turn into rentals 10 shortly. 11 I 'm an insurance agent, and I note that 45 percent of 12 these houses , minimum, right now are residential . The 13 people did keep them. The other thing is the value of the 14 proposed housing is much less than that of the existing 15 housing Pat was right . The smallest house up there is 16 2 , 000 square feet or larger We ' re talking big houses . And 17 putting little houses next to them. 18 My children brought up a point . These children in that 19 neighborhood do not have any play areas . We own part of the 20 acreage, you know, where those are going to go. They' re 21 going to go in my back yard and Pat ' s back yard, and that 22 will create a nuisance . And we will probably end up with 23 dumping because the developer has made no provision for us 24 to get to the lower part of our properties . And we can' t 25 get to the top unless by off-road vehicle LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 100 1 The other objection I have from an insurance viewpoint 2 is fire and police protection for that area. There are few 3 access roads . If you turn Triviz into one way, if somebody 4 has an accident, how are you going to get an ambulance down 5 there where you've got a bottleneck neighborhood and no one 6 can get in? Are we going to burn down a block because we 7 can' t get the fire department in there because you can only 8 get in one way? Thank you. 9 MR MEGATH: Good evening. I 'm Sam Megath. I 10 live at 1600 San Acacio, and I agree with my neighbors . I 11 think what we ' re really seeing is the entire neighborhood, 12 not just those that live up against this proposed 13 development, but all those in the general area overload all 14 existing traffic, school facilities , utilities and so on. 15 It' s not unusual to be driving down Triviz and to be passed 16 by a semi doing about 60 miles an hour . Somewhere tie ' s seen 17 a map, evidently, that Triviz has been completed over to 18 Highway 70 . And they come up to the end of Triviz , they 19 slam on their brakes , and they have to turn around in the 20 residential area. 21 Or if it' s not a semi , it' s some of you with Texas 22 plates . And it ' s not unusual at all . But the entire area 23 has grown over the last few years and really has overloaded 24 the existing facilities that we do have for traffic and 25 school Thank you. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 101 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Anybody else? 2 MR MEGATH fly name is Leroy Megath. I live 3 at 1600 San Acacio . I think traffic and access to the area 4 is the biggest thing The area is already a bottleneck . 5 And I think if you decide to approve this project, which I 6 hope you don' t, but if you do , would you make it only on 7 condition that there is more access in that area, such as 8 Pima or something like that . Right now it' s a bad 9 bottleneck . Traffic--we can' t get in and out of that area . 10 And if Triviz goes one way, it' s going to make it worse . If 11 you do approve it, which I hope you don' t, you make it only 12 if they have additional access . At least one more or two 13 more access ways into that property. Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Anybody else? 15 MS . SAUNDERS My name is Wylene Saunders , 16 and I live at 1650 Camino del Rex. No one mentioned, I 17 don' t think , a little street called Lomita . And that is 18 right across from my driveway. To get to Pima off Camino 19 del Rex, if you don' t go down to San Acacio, you go up to 20 Lomita . I 'm not oriented with this map very well , but where 21 is Camino del Rex? It' s not really shown here , is it? 22 Camino del Rex isn' t shown on the map, but it' s right 23 down here . If it were me and I lived in the area and I 24 wanted to go around Solano , I 'm not going to go up here . 25 However , I could get to Main Street or Highway 70 . I 'm LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 102 1 going to come down here on Pima and to Lomita, right across 2 from my driveway that I don' t think I will ever get out of 3 again, and go down to Camino del Rex and probably down 4 Desert . 5 Now people on Desert, I don' t think they' re represented 6 here or they don' t realize the problem, but you' re not going 7 to go--some people will go on down to Camino del Rex . 8 Which, if you've been on there where it curves down around 9 by the condominiums , it' s a very tiny road. I mean, you 10 can' t have two lanes of traffic easily going around that in 11 opposite directions . If they go down there , it' s bad 12 enough. But if they' re going to turn on Desert then there 13 is a stop sign, and it' s just very congested. 14 And another personal thing is you get more people in an 15 area and you' re going to have--I hate to say crime , but you 16 know. I just got two weeks ago a notice from my insurance 17 company. My house insurance has been cancelled. I 've had 18 too many thefts 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Anybody else? 20 If not, we' ll close it to public input and open it to 21 commissioner input . 22 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: Brian, this Commission 23 has a policy that you' re not supposed to put something on 24 the agenda unless we have a complete package . How come this 25 program is on here now? LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 103 1 MR DENMARK• This particular subdivision is 2 considered or classified as an infill subdivision, and 3 according to the subdivision regulations , they go through 4 concept approval , through staff, and then it ' s submitted 5 right away as final plat approval to the Planning and Zoning 6 Commission 7 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: They don' t need a 8 master drainage plan? 9 MR. DENMARK: They can be required by the 10 Planning and Zoning Commission to have a master drainage 11 plan That has been expressed by the engineering department 12 and that is why staff is recommending that this be postponed 13 until they have submitted that . Basically their belief is 14 that due to the change in the characteristics of the 15 development in this plan versus the original drainage plan 16 submitted with the original PUD, it warrants the need for 17 that new drainage study 18 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: You know we have got a 19 Doris, Dorothy, Walter , Dean, Dr . Welch, William, Eddie , 20 Gene Fry, Linda, Leroy--all these people come to submit 21 their concerns about this , and then we postpone it . And 22 when you keep putting things on the agenda that we have to 23 postpone , and you know we ' re going to do it, I don' t think 24 it' s fair to these people that come out here , to submit them 25 to this kind of thing. They' re going to have to come out LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 104 1 again, and then they' ll probably have to go before the City 2 Council if we deny it. 3 MR DENMARK• I understand, Commissioner 4 Bailey, but the problem is there are several policies that 5 are in play with this particular development, and we are 6 required by the subdivision code , recently approved, to 7 submit it within 25 days regardless of the comments or not . 8 If it is outside the infill area, we do have that 9 flexibility because it' s going before the Commission as a 10 master plan or preliminary plat, depending on the type of 11 development. But infill subdivision, according to City 12 Council , is a high policy issue and it is recommended that 13 those be streamlined as far as the process . So in this 14 particular situation, we ' re battling several policies at 15 once , and it' s up to the Commission to decide what is more 16 relevant or important in this particular situation. 17 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: But you've been told 18 we ' re not going to consider it unless it' s complete , the 19 package complete before it' s brought to us . Why couldn' t 20 you have just brought it next month? 21 MR DENMARK: Due to the request by City 22 Council to streamline the process , we have to notify or 23 publish this agenda prior to even receiving any comments . 24 We were not even aware from engineering staff there was 25 concern over a master drainage study So we were already in LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 105 1 the process of putting a packet together and had already 2 published and provided an agenda for this particular 3 project . So we were not even aware at that time that there 4 was a concern by engineering or by utilities , etc . And so 5 unless we lengthen the process again to a 45 to 50 day 6 review process , we cannot always anticipate what problems 7 there might be . 8 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Mr . Chairman, Mr . 9 Bailey, I think we could probably discuss that with staff at 10 a work session, and we could streamline the process and iron 11 it out . In the meantime , I 'd like to know what the 12 definition of infill is , because we don' t have any in the 13 subdivision code . 14 But, Commissioner Bailey, I would not vote for this 15 thing if it had a drainage plan. It' s got so many 16 negatives , and I don' t see how you would come up with a 17 positive . I 've been counting here all the problems , and so 18 far I 've counted 10 . 19 You've got traffic problems You've got drainage 20 problems . You've got no bike paths . You got that problem. 21 And it says here , staff even alludes to the bike paths that 22 they' re urgently needed . We don' t know who' s going to pay 23 for the extension of Pima road to Main Street. That' s a 24 great big fat number right there I don' t see why the city 25 should be stuck with that if the subdividers are the ones to LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 106 1 benefit . 2 We have a lack of water pressure in the neighborhood 3 We 've got property values that are in jeopardy here . There 4 is only one main road from the subdivision That means that 5 all of the traffic is going to be funneled into one street 6 This could be a tremendous safety hazard. All you have to 7 do is see that all of these people are funneling right into 8 this one main street in the subdivision. Right now there is 9 only one access out of the subdivision, and we always like 10 to see two accesses . 11 There are no play areas for children. Nothing . 12 Nothing there that ' s going to improve the quality of life 13 for people living down there . The topography of that 14 property is extremely difficult to work with. 15 What are you going to do with that great big hill 16 that' s right there? What can you do with that big hill? 17 You have to just demolish it, I assume 18 What I see here is we have a PUD that expired, and we 19 do not have to honor that PUD. I wish that the developer 20 had gotten the mood of the neighborhood before this was 21 presented to us and seen if there wasn' t some way to work 22 things out so that they would be happy. But apparently he 23 didn' t do that, and here is the plan he submitted to us . 24 So , Mr Chairman, I really want to apologize to people 25 out there because if this commission does table this and LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 2S , 1992 Minutes 107 1 they came out here , it may all be for naught. 2 COMMISSIONER BAILEY One thing, it says here 3 in our packet that the staff will make a presentation and 4 recommendation at the public hearing. I didn' t really catch 5 what your recommendation was 6 MR. DENMARK: Mr Chairman, Commissioner 7 Bailey, I believe when Mr Weir was making his presentation 8 he listed several options . And what the staff 9 recommendation is , based on the engineering department' s 10 comments , is that this be postponed until they have 11 submitted a master drainage study and satisfied any other 12 comments or concerns that the Commission and/or public have 13 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: So that would include 14 utilities--the power , the fire , the sewage , the drainage, 15 the traffic challenges, the bicycle paths, whatever else? 16 MR. DENMARK: Yes, sir . 17 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I should have introduced 18 these petitions They were given to me at the beginning of 19 the meeting. And for the purposes of reading them into the 20 minutes, "We the undersigned residents and property owners 21 in the Country Club area strongly protest the high density 22 housing project described as PUD 92-001 adjacent to our R-1 23 rated neighborhood It is highly probably that approval of 24 the site plan will result in the devaluation of our homes 25 resulting in financial hardship for several . LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 108 1 "Specifically, we the undersigned object to the 2 following provisions of case PUD 92-001 : The housing 3 density is too high. The road is inadequate for traffic and 4 emergency vehicle access and there are no children' s 5 playgrounds or play areas in the plan to satisfy the 6 objection of the overall housing density must be reduced. 7 For example , Block six must be zoned R-1 . To improve the 8 road net, Pima should be extended to Triviz extension 9 including a second bridge over the outflow channel , and 10 provisions for play areas for children. 11 "We the undersigned object strenuously to the final 12 plat approval of Country Club Heights unit. As we are 13 interested in case S-91-002 , pending resolution of the 14 petition, and case PUD 92-001 above, there is great interest 15 among the undersigned in the environmental impact resulting 16 from such a development . We like the quail , rabbits , 17 burrowing owls , roadrunners , song birds and other creatures 18 that contribute to the quality of our life . They all visit 19 our yards from their desert habitat, which will be destroyed 20 by the proposed high density housing development. 21 "We the undersigned believe the implementation of the 22 intent of this petition to be in the best long term interest 23 of the City of Las Cruces . " 24 And several people signed this . I don' t know whether 25 the staff has had a chance to verify the validity of the LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1.992 Minutes 109 1 signatures , but I introduce them for the benefit of the 2 record to the Commission. 3 Any other comments from any of the commissioners, or 4 input? 5 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Call for the question 6 MR SCANLON: Am I going to get a chance to 7 respond? 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Yes . May we allow him to 9 respond? 10 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Yes, absolutely. 11 MR. SCANLON: Thank you. Obviously, there 12 are a number of concerns , and we are sympathetic to a number 13 of them. I only have one comment that was made that I take 14 serious exception to, but it was alluded to that I do not 15 tell the truth. I 've been coming before this commission for 16 15 years , almost every month, and I 've never lied once to a 17 member of the Commission or a member of the public . And I 18 never will . 19 Let me explain the Triviz Drive extension project . 20 Triviz Drive extension project was created as a city project 21 for the specific purpose of alleviating some of the traffic 22 congestion that occurs on Camino del Rex . The project calls 23 for the extension of the existing road across the outfall 24 channel with a bridge structure right here , parallel to the 25 outfall with intersection of the street here . LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 113 1 changing the entire pattern of the arterial and collector 2 roadways within this area 3 If Triviz Drive was made one way at any time , it would 4 necessarily require that another roadway be built somewhere 5 that would pick up the slack for the northbound traffic 6 That would have to be part of that project. There is no 7 plans to do that It' s only a concept that has been created 8 by the traffic engineering staff. Something as a scenario 9 that could happen some day if they ever build an interchange 10 where the Spruce Avenue underpass is . Where people used to 11 drive under the roadway. 12 If that project was ever undertaken, it would have to 13 include a complete revision of the arterial network roadway 14 in the area to take up the difference in the northbound 15 traffic that was taken away by making this the other way. 16 So something would be done to correct that problem in the 17 overall project if it was ever done I don' t believe it 18 will ever be done , but we ' re willing to provide for the 19 contingency right now with the understanding that if the 20 contingency never happens that that provision would revert 21 back . I think that ' s only fair . 22 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: You didn' t say that you 23 would pay for the expense of Pima You only said that you 24 would grant the city right-of-way for extension of Pima ; is 25 that correct? Or will you pay for the extension of Pima? LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25, 1992 Minutes 114 1 MR. SCANLON Let me explain a little bit 2 about how the development is going to take place . It' s 3 starting in this area, and it' s going to be more in this 4 area first, and then this area . This area in here will be 5 the last area to develop Country Club Heights Limited has 6 already begun talking to the ownership around this area 7 about what can be done to improve Pima Drive . And they' re 8 interested in seeing that everything is done correctly and 9 how that connection is going to be made . Whether it be by 10 easement or by this developer or by the City or however it' s. 11 done , it will be done But that' s way down the road. And 12 as we all know, policies change and methods of doing things 13 like that change over a period of time . 14 I can' t tell you today how Pima Drive is going to be 15 improved, by what method it' s going to be improved. But I 16 can tell you that it will be . I don' t want to go through 17 each individual , because there where many things that were 18 reiterated by the several of the people . 19 Property values . Most of these houses that were built 20 in the area were built approximately 15 to 20 years ago. 21 And it was a different world then, as far as development and 22 building and so forth I would submit that every house in 23 this subdivision will cost to the buyer as much as 95 24 percent of these houses in the area did when they were new 25 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Do you have any cost LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 115 1 figures? 2 MR SCANLON• We ' re looking in a range of 3 selling price for housing units in the area from about 4 $85, 000 to $90 , 000 up to about a $150 , 000 . That' s the 5 minimum. 1500 square feet would be the minimum size of a 6 house , up from there . 7 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You' re advertising 8 $70 , 000 to $90 , 000 9 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : What' s the minimum size , Mr 10 Scanlon. 11 MR. SCANLON: 1500 . 12 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : 1500 square feet. 13 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: You would go two 14 stories right? 15 MR SCANLON• Yes . 1500 square feet would be 16 about a $90 , 000 home under today' s prices I 'd also submit 17 that these homes would appraise for about the same amount as 18 many as these existing homes in there . There is not going 19 to be degrading of property values in here . 20 As far as schools go, this property has been programmed 21 for development for a long time . The school system pays 22 attention to these land use maps , and they plan their 23 schools accordingly. As far as this development is 24 concerned, we can' t cause a school to be built . We can only 25 hope that the school board and people in charge of these LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 116 1 matters for the school will do their jobs diligently and 2 make sure this is taken care of, that proper schools are 3 provided for impending development 4 Question of air pollution and fireplaces came up. I 5 can tell you if these homes don' t get built here , an equal 6 number of homes will get built to take their place somewhere 7 within the City because we can' t stop the growth. And I for 8 one believe that the subject of air pollution and fireplaces 9 and that is something that needs to be addressed by the 10 City. But the approval of this development shouldn' t hinge 11 on that 12 It would be nice , perhaps , if this was developed like 13 Las Alturas in one-acre lots and so forth, but that' s not 14 the same world. It' s not the same universe as Las Alturas 15 Estates . And this is today' s market . This is today' s 16 product . This is what the public can afford, and this is 17 what the public will buy 18 What it boils down to--and I 'm going to say one more 19 thing and then nothing else . We have studied all of the 20 issues that are of concern to these people . We ' re 21 interested in a quality development that is not going to 22 impact anybody adversely, that' s going to improve the living 23 condition of the City of Las Cruces , that' s going to provide 24 housing that people can buy and people can afford and that 25 people want to live in We ' re going to take care of the LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 117 1 infrastructure . We ' re going to take care of the utilities . 2 we 've studied that . We 've studied the drainage . We know 3 what the drainage is going to do in this area . 4 We have a set of regulations , zoning ordinances , and a 5 set of subdivision regulations , and a set of design 6 standards that govern what we do as engineers and what 7 developers do as land developers . Those are what we use to 8 guide us through a product like this . We ' re not asking for 9 any variations to that We have a right to rely on these 10 regulations . We have a right to rely on these regulations 11 that were approved. 12 We should be able to come up with a development that 13 meets all the requirements of the regulations that you 14 people placed on us and that the City Council approved, and 15 be able to develop a piece of property under those 16 regulations . We have that right . I 've said this at 17 meetings before , and I 've regretted it And I 've said it 18 again. And it was brought up that the City could perhaps 19 buy the property and make a nature conservancy or a park or 20 habitat for little critters, things like that. And that' s a 21 possibility. Anybody could buy it and do that with it. Any 22 of the neighbors could buy that and do that with it . I 23 don' t think they could afford to. It' s for sale . It would 24 take about $500 , 000 to buy it But that could be done . And 25 that ' s a viable option. We just want the ability to rely on LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 118 1. our rights as established by the City. 2 And I don' t have anything further than that Thank 3 you Except for a point of order . We would ask sincerely 4 that you go ahead and act on this proposal tonight and not 5 postpone it Either approve it or deny it, please . 6 MS HERRIMAN• Eleanor Herriman. Since you 7 gave him a chance to talk , may I speak? 8 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Yes, ma'am. 9 MS . HERRIMAN: This man said they were going 10 to sell these houses for $85 , 000 to $135 , 000 . In the Sunday 11 paper supplement, Sun News , Las Cruces Home Builders 12 Association, the third line over says "Fall Preview of Homes 13 and Housing Fair , September 11 , 12 , and 13 . Country Club 14 Heights . Single site show of homes in the $70 , 000 to 15 $90 , 000 price range along with information fair for home 16 buyers . " I don ' t think it said $85 , 000 to $135 , 000 . 17 MR. SCANLON My client didn' t run that ad. 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Thank you, Mr . Scanlon. One 19 more comment from the public and we ' ll--first off, sir, I 'd 20 like to know who you talked to in the Corps of Engineers 21 about another crossing for the outflow channel . 22 MR SCANLON I ' ve talked to them several 23 time over the years 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ • Who? 25 MR. SCANLON• Mr Cunico for one . LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 119 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Is he located here? 2 MR SCANLON: No, in Albuquerque . 3 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Have you talked to anybody 4 here? 5 MR SCANLON: Albuquerque It ' s under the 6 Albuquerque office jurisdiction. We submit everything to 7 that office 8 MR LAWRENCE: Let me tell you what I really 9 think happened back in 181 . I think this is sort of 10 academic , but you may be interested in it. The proposal 11 came in that Burbank would be used as the only entrance to 12 this subdivision And living here , I was concerned about 13 this , not so much because of the traffic it would generate 14 in front of my house , but because the site distance there is 15 a ridge that goes right through here . And cars traveling 16 over that hill would not be able to see the others coming in 17 the other direction very easily 18 So at that meeting--I forget how it was generated--we 19 proposed that the developer come up with this access road to 20 70 as a way of going back and forth. Triviz , at that stage 21 of the game , was dirt all the way down to I guess the water 22 tank . We also, I believe , suggested that Pima be put all 23 the way through as a second way of getting in and out of the 24 area 25 Now, with respect to the utilities , if you' ll notice on LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 120 1 your map, he ' s extended the utilities , as far as I can see , 2 to this road Now, I don' t know why he ' s done that because 3 the source of water and gas is over here and it flows in 4 this direction. Take that for what it' s worth. 5 MR. TOBEY• I would like to make one general 6 observation The City of Las Cruces has made a bunch of 7 regulations and building codes that opens up the building 8 code . I agree he has a right to build if he meets the 9 regulations , but the regulations are wrong. That' s what 10 these people are saying. The regulations for this kind of a 11 development next to our homes and houses that we've lived in 12 for 20-odd years isn' t right for us . 13 So somebody needs to coordinate the rules and 14 regulations with the people that live in the areas in which 15 you' re infilling And I don' t think Las Cruces needs to 16 infill . If that ' s a city policy, it ought to be abolished. 17 That' s it 18 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Any more 19 comments or input from the Commission? 20 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Yes . Ted, you stated 21 several times that because you met the subdivision 22 regulations that you had a right to rely on them and that 23 your project should not be turned down because it meets the 24 regulations But I would like to remind you about Section 25 1 , Point B, Purpose in the code . And this is where the LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 121 1 Commission has the latitude to decide that perhaps the 2 subdivision is not what they want to see in that location. 3 For instance , number one says "Ensuring orderly 4 integrated development within the City of Las Cruces . " 5 Number two, "Promote proper street location, width, and 6 design, etc " Three , provide for the protection and 7 preservation of natural resources and the promotion of the 8 natural beauty within the City of Las Cruces . Four provides 9 for adequate provisions for light, air, public or state 10 utilities , traffic , etc . Five , "Ensure the proper land 11 surveys and records of land site are prepared and recorded. " 12 Six, "Ensure that the proposed development is suitable and 13 appropriate for a given parcel of ground based on its 14 locational and environmental characteristics . " 15 So really, the Commission does have the obligation to 16 expect those things , too . 17 MR SCANLON: But I believe , and I sincerely 18 believe , we have met all these requirements in today' s 19 world. 20 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I didn' t mean to make 21 it sound like I was bawling you out. I wanted to let you 22 know we had a choice . 23 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : The staff recommends 24 postponement . The owner ' s representative wishes us to act 25 in approving or disapproving the application. What is the LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 122 1 Commission' s wishes? 2 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: If we disapprove , that 3 means it can go before the Council next meeting and it can 4 be passed then? 5 MR SCANLON: That' s correct. 6 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: I want--of course Ted 7 knows it , but you people have to know that you have to go to 8 the Council meeting and go through the same process . 9 I recommend we vote for approval-- 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Approval or disapproval . 11 COMMISSIONER SHARPE : I move to call the 12 question. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Call for the question. 14 COMMISSIONER BAILEY• No 15 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: No. 16 COMMISSIONER LORD: No . 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : No . 18 COMMISSIONER LINARD: No. 19 COMMISSIOINER SHARPE: No. 20 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : No. 21 Motion fails , 0 to 7 , and this affects case S-92-002 . 22 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: That automatically 23 rescinds the other one . 24 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : That automatically rescinds 25 that case . And this may be appealed to the City Council. LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 123 1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER. I have a question 2 Will the property owners be notified of the meeting? 3 COMMISSIONER BAILEY• No. Read the paper . 4 MR WEIR• If there is an appeal , there will 5 be notification 6 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: If there is somebody 7 that wants to be notified , if they will check with staff, 8 they will be notified. Not the whole neighborhood, of 9 course . Not all 300 of you 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : On to case PUD-92-002 , A 11 request to approve the amended site plan and development 12 plan for Casa de valley Drive PUD. The PUD is located west 13 of valley Drive and along Casa Drive and Medina Drive . 14 Submitted by the Housing Authority of the City of Las 15 Cruces . 16 May I have a motion to approve case PUD-92-002 . 17 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA• So moved 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Second. 19 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. Staff. 20 MR WEIR: Chairman Perez , Commission 21 members . The request that you have before you is again an 22 amendment to a PUD to their site plan and their development 23 standards The reason that it' s before you is their site 24 plan is being amended to allow a community youth center to 25 be located on the lot and to also designate a basketball LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 124 1 court that has been built onto site . 2 The PUD is an existing housing project which is 3 administered by the Las Cruces Housing Authority. Staff has 4 reviewed the amended development plan and site plan and they 5 meet the minimum requirements of the zoning code and they 6 also meet the goals and the objectives of the comprehensive 7 plan, and staff is recommending approval . 8 We have one request from staff that their site plan 9 that has been submitted be of a better quality, and we just 10 request that it be upgraded from the copy that you have in 11 your packet . That would be the only contingency that we 12 have . 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you, Mr . Weir . Do we 14 have any input from the public? 15 I 'm sorry, comments from the applicant? I was under 16 the impression that the City was the applicant. 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I 'm not the applicant. 18 I 'm a property owner . I represent the property owner, the 19 Irene Alford trust, which owns the property and the business 20 on the north side of this particular project. And I would 21 like to advise the zoning commission here that this , over a 22 long period of time , has become an eyesore . This place 23 looks like a property or a movie set for a Mad Max movie . 24 It' s really nice . The fence is tore down. It' s destroyed. 25 You see it coming up the highway, and people come over to LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 125 1 our business and ask us , "Hey what the hell is that?" 2 We have to tell them it' s city housing. They turn 3 around and they walk off , every other person that comes over 4 to apply to rent a space The place is filthy. The storm 5 drains , when it rains , the French drains , they fill up with 6 water , oil comes to the top It stinks . 7 All them people over there have been changing oil and 8 throwing it in the pit The playground has got maybe one or 9 two swings . They' re tore all to heck . The kids don' t play 10 in the playground There ' s nothing to play with 11 Crime over there is absolutely ridiculous . People are 12 afraid to go out of their houses and leave . They have to 13 get somebody to watch their house because the kids from the 14 projects come over and steal from them, destroy things . 15 Three , four times a day on the weekends we have to call 16 the police from kids throwing rocks across the fence , 17 breaking car windows and damaging automobiles . There has 18 even been shootouts there . 19 I 'm not against putting this youth center in at all . 20 The community needs it . But what else this place needs is , 21 it needs to look like human beings live there , because it' s 22 affecting my business . I should say my mother' s business . 23 It affects everybody that drives by there . 24 There are street lights . They can' t get the street 25 lights lit It ' s just an awful looking place If you've LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 126 1 got money to put in a youth center , where are you going to 2 get the money to maintain it? You' re not maintaining the 3 housing project . I want to know that. Where are you 4 going--if you've got the money to put that in, that' s fine . 5 I 'm all for it, but have you got the money to maintain it? 6 And have you got the money to fix that housing project up so 7 it looks like human beings live there? That' s what I want 8 to know. And I don' t think one should be done without the 9 other . Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: What kind of business 12 does your mother operate? 13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: A mobile home park . 14 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: And it' s north of the 15 area there? 16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER• Yes , it' s north of 17 there . It borders it . It' s 21 . 8 acres . 18 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Sir, may I make a 19 suggestion to you? This commission doesn' t get involved in 20 money. They don' t pay us in the first place . They don' t 21 even pay us to come here . What I want to suggest to you is , 22 if you think they' re not taking care of it-- 23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I called and talked to 24 the people that run the projects over there . The thing they 25 say is , "There is no money " The Housing Authorities don' t LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 129 1 And what we ' re proposing here is to help develop their life 2 skills a little bit better Educational activity is what 3 we ' re proposing to build there . It' s only going to be a 4 small , 1 , 000-square-foot building that we ' re proposing to 5 construct . 6 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Mr . Chairman, I 'd like 7 to ask a question 8 Is this building locked, or will the supervisor of it 9 stay in there all the time to keep them from tearing it up? 10 MR HOLGUIN we ' ll be having a staff person 11 there . We have a youth activities counselor present. He 12 works out of his automobile , trying to create different 13 activities for them and to refer them to different agencies 14 when needed. 15 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Will he be there 24 16 hours a day, or will it be locked part of the time? 17 MR. HOLGUIN• No, it will be locked. We' re 18 making it bulletproof if possible . 19 COMMISSIONER LINARD: That sounds great . I 20 mean, is it going to be open from noon to 10 o' clock , or 21 what? 22 MR. HOLGUIN: As needed. We ' re trying to 23 promote self-sufficiency for these people . Even a day care 24 center is a possibility 25 COMMISSIONER LINARD: But not staffed by LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , .1992 Minutes 130 1 volunteers , Staffed by one who is trained in working with 2 that type of child? 3 MR HOLGUIN: Correct. 4 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: How many square feet 5 will you have in the building? 6 MR HOLGUIN 1000 square feet . It' s not 7 very big It' s just for the public housing tenants there . 8 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: Your objectives - - one 9 says you' re going to maintain and improve existing 10 residential areas . How you going to do that? 11 MR HOLGUIN: We've got a small amount of 12 money, and we can only go back to HUD and ask for money. We 13 can only ask , but we don' t get approved all the time . 14 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: So the money, if 15 approved, is for making the building It wouldn' t be for, 16 like , landscaping? 17 MR. HOLGUIN: No, this in not through our 18 regular HUD funding. 19 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: So do you have a 20 specific block grant already designated for the recreation 21 center? 22 MR. HOLGUIN: Correct 23 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: And that would be 24 just for the building itself? 25 MR. HOLGUIN: Correct LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25, 1992 Minutes 131 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ I think this is a program 2 that is being encouraged throughout some of these housing 3 units , is it not? This is , I think , the first one , a pilot 4 program. 5 MR HOLGUIN: Yes, sir . We 've got a real 6 good response there The public schools are willing to 7 bring in computers and tutors and the Dona Ana Community 8 Branch is wanting to bring in people to assist them in 9 getting their GEDs . We 've gotten a real good response from 10 the City. 11 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I think throughout some of 12 these public housing they' re deactivating some of the units 13 and they' re going to redo many of them, if you will , to act 14 as community centers for these public housings units and try 15 and address the gang problem and things of this nature . 16 MR. HOLGUIN• That' s correct . That' s at the 17 other family sites This is one of our three family sites 18 that we ' re working on. 19 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: I appreciate your 20 concerns about the neighborhood, but I do feel that you need 21 to address them directly with the City. This kind of 22 activity is certainly going to help keep the kids-- 23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have tried directly 24 several times in the past People at the the housing 25 authority. And those are the people I have to talk to when LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25, 1992 Minutes 132 1 I have a question. I can' t come out and talk to the City 2 Council about it . Seems like they don' t want to hear it, I 3 guess . 4 But the housing people sometimes are listening, 5 sometimes not But most all of them I 've talked to have 6 said that they don' t have the money to do it 7 I 'm not against this youth center . I think it' s a good 8 idea. But I think they ought to fix up the neighborhood a 9 little bit, too, because it is getting really bad. That 10 place is about 10 years old, and it' s tore all to hell . 11 It' s an eyesore The houses aren' t too bad. It' s the 12 fences . 13 The kids are always painting on the fence different 14 obscenities and dragons and Westside and stuff like that 15 And it' s tore down in pieces here and there . And when 16 somebody runs into it, they come and get a couple pieces off 17 the fence on the north side . And the kids knock down that 18 section of fence It' s got huge holes in it. 19 But I think the biggest problem we've got there is that 20 the fence is the biggest eyesore . And I think if it was 21 restored and painted a nice buff color, it would look like 22 other housing additions out in that area, and it wouldn' t be 23 such an eyesore . 24 You know, it' s not a whole lot of asking to fix the 25 fence and paint it LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 minutes 133 1 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : I think this is the 2 direction that the City is going in trying to address the 3 problems that we are experiencing with some of our 4 neighborhoods . And certainly, this is not something that' s 5 peculiar or particular to any one neighborhood anymore . 6 It' s something that' s occurring throughout the community. 7 And I think the City is trying to address it right now. And 8 I think this program here is such a program that will 9 hopefully eliminate the problem. 10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This thing sits on 11 Valley Drive , and there are 1 , 000 automobiles a day that go 12 by there and see it. 13 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : We ' re very well aware of the 14 area. 15 Any more comments? 16 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Yes. Brian, is there 17 anything you can do for this gentleman. 18 MR. DENMARK: Yes, I think this gentleman 19 needs to talk to Jim Erickson, as suggested. And it' s his 20 authority to do something about it. 21 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . May we suggest someone from 22 Mr . Erickson' s office contact him? 23 MR. DENMARK: Sure , if I can get your name 24 and phone number 25 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Why don' t you get together LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25 , 1992 Minutes 134 1 with the staff after the meeting and they' ll put you in 2 contact with the proper person. We ' ll see if they can 3 address your problems . 4 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Call for the 5 question. 6 CHAIRMAN PEREZ . The question has been 7 called. 8 COMMISSIONER BAILEY: Aye . 9 COMMISSIONER FERREIRA: Aye. 10 COMMISSIONER LORD: Aye . 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIS : Aye . 12 COMMISSIONER LINARD: Aye . 13 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: Aye . 14 CHAIRMAN PEREZ : Aye . Motion passes, 15 7 to 0 . 16 COMMISSIONER SHARPE: I move for adjourment. 17 ( The meeting was adjourned at 11 : 45 p.m. ) 18 19 Eddie Perez , irman Ed Bail y 20 - 21 Za/ri rxeira ljoir Lord 22 23 illis Sharlyn Linard 24 25 Connie Sharpe LAS CRUCES PLANNING & ZONING February 25, 1992