Loading...
08-30-17 DRCI DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) 2 3 Following are the verbatim minutes from the City of Las Cruces Development Review 4 Committee Meeting held Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. at City Hall, Room 5 1158, 700 North Main Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. 6 7 DRC PRESENT: Robert Kyle, Community Development 8 Mark Dubbin, Fire Department 9 Rocio Dominguez, Engineering Services -CD 10 Meei Montoya, Utilities 11 Tom Murphy, MVMPO 12 13 STAFF PRESENT: Sara Gonzales, Community Development 14 Becky Baum, Recording Secretary, RC Creations, LLC 15 16 OTHER PRESENT: Jerry Ibarra 17 18 19 I. CALL TO ORDER (9:02 a.m.) 20 21 Kyle: All right I'll go ahead and call this meeting of the DRC to order. It's August 22 30th, approximately 9:02. 23 24 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 7, 2017 25 26 Kyle: First item of business is minutes. We have minutes from the June 7th 27 DRC meeting. Does anybody have any corrections to note for the record? 28 Seeing none. I'd entertain a motion to approve the minutes from June 7, 29 2017. 30 31 Dominguez: So moved. 32 33 Murphy: Second. 34 35 Kyle: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor please signify by saying 36 "aye." 37 38 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 39 40 Kyle: Any opposed? Seeing none. The minutes are approved. 41 42 III. NEW BUSINESS 43 44 1. Case 71496: Replat known as Obispo Estates Replat No. 1 45 A request for approval of a non -administrative replat known as Obispo 46 Estates Replat No. 1 and associated variances to existing structures. 1 1 . The proposed subdivision encompasses 6.285 +/- acres, is zoned R-2 2 (Multi -Dwelling Low Density) and located on the east side of La Camelia 3 Drive and west of Sonoma Ranch Blvd. 4 • The proposed replat proposes 30 residential lots, which including 22 5 townhome lots and 1-tract that will be dedicated to the City of Las 6 Cruces and utilized for right-of-way. 7 • The Condominium Association has been disseminated therefore the lots 8 are to be subdivided out to each property owner. 9 . Variances being requested are to the garages, rear and side setbacks 10 for 15 lots. 11 • Submitted by Precision Land Surveyors on behalf of PPM Inc., property 12 owners. 13 14 Kyle: We have no old business. We have one new business item, Case 71496, 15 Obispo Estates Replat No. 1. Staff would you give us briefing. 16 17 Gonzales: This is a non -administrative replat which is going to be known as Obispo 18 Estates Replat No. 1. There are also associated variances along with this 19 replat that were approved. The subdivision is 6.285 acres and it is zoned 20 R-2. Currently it is zoned with the multi -family development standards. 21 With the subdivision it will be using single-family development standards 22 of the R-2 zoning code. The property is located on the east side of La 23 Camelia Drive on Capistrano Avenue. The applicant is proposing 30 new 24 lots from one existing lot. Out of those 30 lots 22 of them will become 25 townhouse lots since the buildings are existing. There's also one tract of 26 land which is tract A that will be dedicated to the City for right-of-way. In 27 2008 it was vacated. It will now go back to the City. 28 The Condo Association basically is being dissolved and so with that 29 each property owner is now getting their own lot for the townhome. With 30 that being said, the lots now require variances because they do not meet 31 the setbacks from the multi -family to the single-family requirements, so 32 they are asking for variances for the garage, the front, rear, and the side 33 setbacks. Fifteen of the lots need variances out of the 22 existing homes 34 for the new proposed lots. The variances range from three -inches to 35 about eight -feet. And that's about it. 36 37 Kyle: Okay. Applicant do you have anything to add or to supplement? 38 39 Ibarra: No. No sir. 40 41 Kyle: Okay. So this was originally done as a condominium development, 42 correct? 43 44 Gonzales: That's correct. 45 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Kyle: All right. And they're vacating the condominium agreement, it's being dissolved, and they want to turn these into just fee simple lots, straight to the homes. Gonzales: Correct. Kyle: Okay. Approximately how many of the existing lots were built on, did you say 22? Gonzales: Twenty-two lots are built on. Kyle: Okay. I noticed that a number of the lots on the east side are all still 70- feet wide, etc., 50-75 feet. Are those intended to be built on as they are or do we expect additional replats in the future? Ibarra: I'm not sure. Kyle: Okay. So basically what we're doing is we're splitting out the built lots and turning those into individual lots for the homes that are on them, and then the remaining lots were the remainders for the original subdivision. Gonzales: That is correct. They're developing the lots to make them townhome lots because they're running into hard times financing condos. Kyle: Right. Gonzales: So the banks don't want to finance condos. Kyle: Okay. And as noted Capistrano Avenue was originally dedicated to the City but then it was vacated when they condo'd it and now it's being proposed for dedication. So it was built presumably to City standards when it was originally done. With that, utilities, any comments? Montoya: We have no issues. Kyle: MPO. Murphy: No issues. Kyle: Engineering. Dominguez: No issues. Kyle: Las Cruces Fire. N I Dubbin: When this was originally platted it was designed to have two points of 2 access. It was later determined that the second point of access was 3 geographically not feasible to connect to Sonoma Ranch, so we have a 4 single point of access. At that time due to the number of lots and the 5 single point of access, some of the properties were installed with fire 6 sprinkler systems on the houses in accordance with the International Fire 7 Code. We ask that there be a condition on the plat that fire sprinkler 8 systems be required on the future houses if it's determined to be under the 9 current standards. 10 11 Kyle: Okay. I don't have a problem with that particular condition. We will need 12 to check the state building code to make sure we're not preempted from 13 requiring those but otherwise I think given the fact that we do have a large 14 concentration of homes on a single access it does make sense. Any other 15 comments, questions? Looks pretty clean. Has it gone through the 16 review process? 17 18 Gonzales: Yes it has. Everyone has approved the plat and the variances. Staff is 19 recommending the approval for the variances because basically if we go 20 through the three pieces; physically it's hard to make them change the 21 development since it was actually developed under the multi -family and 22 then go to single-family, so we do see that as a physical hardship for them 23 to have to change. Economically it'll spur economic development because 24 we're now creating an additional eight lots where more homes can be 25 built, so we're bringing in more lots. Monetary, banks don't want to 26 finance condo associations, it's very hard, or condos themselves, plus it's 27 going to be very hard for the applicant to demo any of the areas in which 28 there are homes already existing that they purchased. 29 30 Kyle: Sure, we wouldn't expect to see homes demoed to comply with the 31 setbacks since they were built legally at that the time they were done. So 32 the exceptions or the requested variances is for the front yard, for the 33 garage setbacks or is it for rear yard, side yard, or is it all front yard? 34 35 Gonzales: The variances are going to be for all setbacks. The garage, the front, the 36 rear, side. And basically it's because the garage was allowed to be built at 37 20 feet in a multi -family, the garage has to be 25 feet in a single-family. 38 So the majority of them need the variances to that garage. The homes 39 were built with the site plans at 20 feet, however I'm guessing with shifting 40 with land and stuff they're off a few inches now, so those are our minor 41 ones to the front. 42 43 Kyle: All right. Well DRC doesn't actually have authority over variances as a 44 zoning issue but I did want it for the discussion and for the purposes of a 45 total recommendation I would also entertain just for the record a 0 I recommendation on the variances. If there are no other comments, 1 2 would entertain a motion regarding this replat. 3 4 Dubbin: I'd like to make a motion that we approve with the condition that a note be 5 added to the plat that fire sprinklers will be required on new construction if 6 it's in accordance with the IFC and State Building Law. 7 8 Dominguez: Second. 9 10 Kyle: Okay it's been moved and seconded. All those in favor please signify by 11 saying "aye." 12 13 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 14 15 Kyle: Any opposed? Seeing none. Motion carries and DRC is recommending 16 approval of the replat. Any other business for the DRC today? 17 18 IV. ADJOURNMENT (9:10 a.m.) 19 20 Kyle: I will entertain a motion to adjourn. 21 22 Dubbin: So moved. 23 24 Montoya: Second. 25 26 Kyle: It's moved and seconded. We are adjourned at 9:10. 27 28 29 30 31 32 Chairperson 33 5