Loading...
10-04-17 DRC1 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 46 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) Following are the verbatim minutes from the City of Las Cruces Development Review Committee Meeting held Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. at City Hall, Room 1158, 700 North Main Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. DRC PRESENT: Robert Kyle, Community Development Mark Dubbin, Fire Department Rocio Dominguez, Engineering Services -CD John Reid, Utilities Andrew Wray, MVMPO (arrived 9:22) STAFF PRESENT: Sara Gonzales, Community Development Geremy Barela, Engineering -CD Becky Baum, Recording Secretary, RC Creations, LLC OTHER PRESENT Eddie Binns David Binns Larry Underwood Jose Holguin Ron Del La O CALL TO ORDER (9:01 a.m.) Kyle: I'm going to call this meeting of the DRC to order. It's approximately 9:01 on October 4th. The year is going by. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 30, 2017 Kyle: First item on the agenda is approval of minutes. We have minutes from the August 30th DRC meeting. Were there any corrections to note for the record? Seeing none. I'd entertain a motion to approve the minutes. Dominguez: So moved. Dubbin: Second. Kyle: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. Kyle: Any opposed? Minutes are approved. 1 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 III. NEW BUSINESS 1. Case 70551: Diamond Springs No. 7 Preliminary Plat • A request for approval of a preliminary plate for a subdivision known as Diamond Springs No. 7. • The preliminary plat is for a proposed single-family residential townhouse subdivision with 77 residential lots and 3 tracts designated for utilities, drainage, and right-of-way. • The subject property encompasses 13.896 +/- acres, is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) and is located on the northeast corner of Sonora Springs Blvd. and N. Roadrunner Pkwy. • Submitted by Underwood Engineering Inc. on behalf of Wilfred E. & Iva Binns Irrevocable Children's Trust, property owner. Kyle: Next item is new business. First case is 70551, Diamond Springs No. 7 Preliminary Plat. Staff. Gonzales: Okay. This is a request for a preliminary plat for a subdivision known as Diamond Springs No. 7. The property is about 13.896 acres. It is part of the High Range PUD. It is located off of the northeast corner of Roadrunner. Sonora Springs runs through the property. To the south is Lookout Ridge, north of Longbow. The applicant is proposing to do 77 residential single-family townhouse lots. With that they are also proposing three tracts to be designated to the City as far as drainage, utilities, and right-of-way that will be built out to City standards. That's really about it. There was only one concern going through the process for the preliminary plat, the main thing was drainage. Per Tony Trevino in Public Works there is an agreement being made for Roadrunner so they have released Diamond Springs No. 7 as long as Mr. Binns is mitigating the post development stormwater flow in compliance with the City stormwater management ordinance. But other than that, everything else has been addressed on the property. Kyle: Okay. Applicant do you have anything you want to add or clarify? Binns: I don't think it's any clearer than just a statement that Diamond Springs area has been developed over a number of years and in looking at trying to make a better community out of it we've made modifications a number of times to the master plan. The first one was done probably about eight years ago when we shifted a bunch of the multifamily area in the commercial end that was east of Roadrunner to the west side of Roadrunner and in doing that it let us keep residential closer together and in moving residential across this area, we felt that with the apartments on Roadrunner having some commercial or office space and then some smaller homes, townhomes or such as a buffer between the larger homes X 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 46 behind it, was a little bit better neighborhood plan process and would be more acceptable to the public and less compliance etc. So that this is smaller lots and it is a buffer so to speak from apartment commercial back into the larger homes that are in back. We feel that with the Las Cruces market that is taking place at this time that there is a potential for some moderate price homes in this neighborhood, being a smaller size and a little lower economic value rather than to $250,000, $300,000 house. We think the timing is reasonable. We feel that these lots could be absorbed within a reasonable timeframe. You all are aware that we're still sitting on Diamond Springs 6B which is about an 83-lot subdivision, but it's still setting in abeyance. In my opinion that market is not ready to absorb those lots at the pace that we need them absorbed. And with that slow absorption I find that neighbors don't always understand dust, weeds, and such on vacant lots around them, so holding them off the market at this time. But I still feel that there's a need for this size of product in this location and being patient and let the time it takes place a lot of the existing neighborhoods that were developed here in the past have been absorbed and there's a market potential for some of this nature. In playing with the smaller lots obviously negotiated with the engineers in regard to the draining issue. It's difficult to put ponds that stay ponds in smaller sites. We've experienced that in the Pine Subdivision where we put ponds on the back yards and once I lost control and the original buyers sold to buyer number two, well those ponds got filled up and there were drainage issues and such and where this water can be taken on off -site and put behind the dam, that's the logical place for it. It required we overcome a number of discussions and such with the engineering people to arrive with this capability. Anyway. Any questions or suggestions. I don't know it all and always look for someway to improve or make it better. So if anybody's got any suggestions I'm always interested in making it a better neighborhood. Because when you get complaints I generally have a complaint 30 minutes before you get it. Kyle: And when I get it, you get it five minutes after I get it. Okay. Engineering. Dominguez: We have no issues. The concerns that we had were addressed by public works in the negotiation that was done with Mr. Binns, so we have no issues. Kyle: Okay. Las Cruces Utilities, any issues? Reid: We have no issues at this time. Kyle: Fire. Dubbin: I have no issues. I had one question. Is it going to be built as one phase or will it be divided into several phases for construction? 3 1 2 Binns: In response to your question of phasing, I looked at this and originally 3 when we looked at it I said we're going to do it in four phases. And ideally 4 that would be the direction to go from a planning standpoint. But actually 5 it will not work so that it's going to have to all be done at one time. Ideally 6 1 would like to start at the high side and to get to the high side I've got to 7 build all the utilities to the low side. And if I build at the low side where the 8 utilities are all at, I have stormwater drainage into the neighborhoods from 9 undeveloped land, and we've got a problem there. So damned if you do, 10 damned if you don't. So the compromise, and also the other is balancing 11 of soil, it's going to require some dirt moved from point A to point B to get 12 a balance in this thing and it's going to be necessary to move earthwork all 13 at one time and to feed utilities we're probably going to end up feeding 14 utilities to the entire project. From the standpoint of mitigating to the 15 minimum, our current plan is to put walls around the perimeter of the 16 project and some interior walls for drainage control. Since there's going to 17 be runoff taking place I wanted to keep the erosion issues to a minimum 18 and while houses are not on these lots, it gives me the opportunity to also 19 berm them so I can control some of that. But at this time it's going to be 20 necessary to develop all of it at once and then follow-up with some 21 seeding processes on some of the in between because obviously 70 22 houses aren't going to be built at one time, that'd be spread out over two 23 or more years, I'm sure. It's something we've given some thought and 24 ideally I would like to only invest one-fourth of the money at one time, but 25 unfortunately it's not going to work at the end of the day. 26 27 Dubbin: Thank you. 28 29 Kyle: MPO's not here. Planning, any other issues? 30 31 Gonzales: No other comments from Planning. 32 33 Kyle: Seeing none, are there any other comments from anybody else in the 34 room? If not I'd entertain a motion to recommend approval of the 35 preliminary plat. 36 37 Dominguez: So moved. 38 39 Kyle: It's been moved. 40 41 Gonzales: Second. 42 43 Kyle: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor. 44 45 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 46 0 I Kyle: Any opposed? Excluding Mr. Binns. 2 3 Binns: I want to be sure. 4 5 Underwood: Get all you can in there. 6 7 Binns: See Larry I told you it wasn't going to be difficult at all. It's amazing what 8 that box of donuts sitting there does. 9 10 Kyle: For the record it had nothing to do with the box of donuts. 11 12 Binns: Can I stay and listen to the rest of the program? 13 14 Dominguez: Please do. 15 16 Binns: Okay. 17 18 2. Case 71523W: Holguin Estates Subdivision Waiver Request 19 • A request for approval of a waiver to the required road improvements 20 associated with a proposed alternate summary subdivision known as 21 Holguin Estates Subdivision. 22 • The proposed subdivision requires the applicant to provide all required 23 road improvements to the adjacent roadway; Dunn Drive. 24 . The applicant is proposing a 100% waiver to the required road 25 improvements and is offering no alternatives to the full improvements. 26 • The subject property encompasses 2.361 +/- acres, is zoned EE-C 27 (Single -Family Equestrian Estate & Agriculture -Conditional) and is 28 located on the west side of Dunn Drive, 637 +/- feet north of its 29 intersection with Aldrich Road; a.k.a. 4841 Dunn Drive. 30 • Submitted by Gilberto Armenta, property owner. 31 32 Kyle: Next item is Case 71523W: Holguin Estates Subdivision Waiver Request. 33 Staff. 34 35 Ochoa: Next case we have is a proposed waiver request associated with an 36 alternate summary subdivision known as Holguin Estates Subdivision. It 37 is a proposed subdivision of a roughly 2.26 acre tract of land that's never 38 been subdivided before. Located on the west side of Dunn Drive 39 approximately 637 feet north of its intersection of Aldrich Road. With that 40 subdivision following City code, the applicant is required to provide all road 41 improvements to the adjacent roadway which is Dunn Drive. Dunn Drive 42 is a designated minor arterial I believe which is a 100-foot wide right-of- 43 way. I'm sorry, principle arterial I believe is what it is, requiring the 44 applicant to provide dedicated right-of-way which is an additional 20 feet, 45 their portion of the right-of-way, and then the improvements to those 20 46 feet to meet the requirements of a principal arterial roadway for this two -lot 5 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 46 split essentially. The applicant is proposing to waive 100% of the required road improvements but is offering the dedication of the additional 20 feet of right-of-way. No other alternatives to the full improvements have been provided by the applicant at this time. The property is zoned EE-C conditional, so equestrian estate and agricultural conditional. The property meets all those conditions. The proposed lots meet all the development standards of the equestrian estate zoning designation. The waiver request did go out to all reviewing parties. Everybody did recommend denial for it stating that the roadway does need to be built out to the requirements, again correction, it is a minor arterial, my apologies. Currently there is 60-feet of right-of-way so the additional 20 feet will give it 80 feet. So my apologies, I'd like to correct that. Other than that there has been some comment of potentially providing a payment in lieu of I believe were some of the comments or potentially other avenues that the applicant could possibly take instead of the actual waiver itself. Other than that, that's essentially it. The applicant's representative is here if you have questions for them or if they like to clarify anything. And I stand for questions. Kyle: Okay. Applicant do you have anything you want to add or provide justification for the waiver or? Holguin: No, not right now. Ochoa: If I could add for him, they did submit their waiver request just quoting the waiver request essentially says "The subdivision consists of splitting an existing tract into two lots; one lot already having an existing dwelling, the other one being vacant. Dunn Drive is already improved with sidewalks, curb, gutter, I believe there's lights out there too in some portions potentially as well and it states that we feel that the existing improvements are more than sufficient to accommodate the area for the foreseeable future and for this extra additional lot." Which is what the waiver request, their justification was with the letter. Kyle: Okay. Engineering, any comments? Dominguez: We have no issues with the plat itself. We are okay with it. For the waiver we would recommend for the money in lieu of. As Adam stated the road is improved but it is improved to local standards, not to minor arterial and it is stated it might not be needed for today, but it might be needed for the future development of that area. So we are okay with the plat itself but with the waiver we would like to recommend to get the money in lieu of. We don't want to have construction of the street, that small portion to make it minor arterial in that small portion. Kyle: Okay. Utilities. 2 1 2 Reid: We don't have any problem with this at all. We will support the 3 recommendations of the other City Departments. 4 5 Kyle: All right. Fire. 6 7 Dubbin: We don't have any issues with the access as it stands and support the 8 subdivision. As to the waiver, we would support the wishes of the DRC. 9 10 Kyle: Okay. I wish MPO was here, there's certainly an issue related to this 11 roadway and its location and its classification. Do we have any 12 information on what the East Mesa Blueprint, how that would impact this 13 particular proposal in that area? Because I know a basic tenant of the 14 Blueprint was that his area kind of remain, this section of town remain 15 more of rural character etc and how that might impact the future 16 development of Dunn Drive. 17 18 Ochoa: Sure. I can touch base on that. Even though this is a minor arterial 19 roadway I believe the push of that East Mesa Blueprint was to keep the 20 area more of a equestrian friendly, rural type of roadways out there where 21 potentially roadways were narrowed and then allowing for equestrian 22 tracks along the side or ATV tracks or trails if you will adjacent to these 23 right-of-ways instead of an actual fully built out 100-foot wide paved 24 roadway if you will. And that Blueprint was approved by City Council not 25 too long ago, well I guess it has been a while now. But that's essentially 26 what they're looking for for this area. 27 28 Kyle: Okay. 29 30 Dominguez: So then we can recommend that those improvements, whatever was 31 recommended by the Blueprint will be paid for. I mean if it's not the full 32 width of the 100 foot that is recommended on the design standards, then 33 at least some similarity to what the Blue Print is recommending. I wouldn't 34 have a problem with that. 35 36 Kyle: Some of my thoughts and I'm going to share those not necessarily as the 37 Chairman of the DRC. One, we are the far reaches of the City. We do 38 have a policy plan that seems to lend some support to the fact that this 39 area of town wants to remain a little less developed than certainly the 40 inner parts of town. A couple of issues come to mind; the DRC has the 41 authority to waive right-of-way in instances where expansion of a 42 roadway's either not planned or is not feasible according to the design 43 standards. I really wish MPO was here so we can address the issues of 44 this road and whether or not there are potentially any plans to reclassify it, 45 something other than an arterial roadway given some of those other 7 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 46 factors. And whether or not there is consideration that that road will not be expanded in the future. Two, another thought that comes to mind and similar situation where we have a partially improved road, we have the owners do a proportionate cost analysis, as opposed to paying for their improvements in lieu, they paid for their proportionate share of those costs. We are talking about arterial roadway, two one -acre lots essentially, residential lots at that, so we know that the traffic generation's going to be minimal and therefore the impact to that roadway is minimal. That particular instance was approved by City Council. And then thirdly we've had instances where partially improved road negotiated for a lesser standard surfacing and again they provided payment in lieu of or did they do the improvements for that, payment in lieu of for that lesser standard to meet the existing standard of the road. That's one's not (inaudible) so much you actually have a road that's built to City spec. But I certainly don't know that looking at an optional proportionate share analysis going forward might not be out of order in this particular instance. For the record Andrew Wray from MPO. Andrew has there been any discussion at the MPO level about reclassification of Dunn Drive from an arterial based on the East Mesa Blueprint etc.? Wray: There has not. This is something that we would be looking to address in the next MTP it's going to be starting next year, but as of right now there has not been any discussions about reclassifying Dunn. At this moment in time I would hesitate, in fact I would not give any opinion about what the outcome of such a conversation might be so as of right now the classification is what it is. Kyle: Okay. With those thoughts in mind that I've shared, again those are just my personal observations of this particular issue. As Chairman I'm not going to make a motion but in regards to the proposal on the waiver I would entertain a motion. Ochoa: Point of order Mr. Chair, is it okay if we ask the applicant potentially if there's anything like that he potentially would want to elect for? So the options that he's outlining here which is one of the options that has been done in the past that was approved by City Council is where you would essentially have somebody create what's called a ... Kyle: Proportionate share analysis. Ochoa: Proportionate share analysis where it's basically, an engineer would basically calculate by you doing this subdivision, creating this one extra lot will basically I guess put this much strain if you will or this much impact on that road and that impact would basically cost this much money in order to 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 46 maintain or to improve the road. Your proportionate share of the impact on the road if you will. Kyle: We know that an arterial costs X-dollars a linear foot to build. What is the share of your cost of that roadway on the impact of the subdivision is based on what it comes down to. It's not walking away with nothing, it's not building however many linear feet of a minor arterial, so it's a significant difference in cost from complying with the actual standards. I don't know if something like that would be inappropriate in this area. Again I think even if the road is ever expanded it's going to be very very piecemeal, it's going to require a significant right-of-way take to get what would be necessary to expand the road to standard. I certainly support the set aside of the right-of-way or the dedication of the right-of-way, but I just don't know that, obviously doing the improvements at this point in time makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, so payment in lieu of the improvements or approaching it from this proportionate share I think makes sense on going forward. I certainly cannot speak for City Council or the Planning and Zoning Commission, but they were supportive of that effort one other time that we did it, so I would again just offer those are a couple of options you might want to look at. Otherwise I get a sense that the recommendation of this body would be denial of the actual waiver but I think that they would (inaudible). De La O: So he would have to get an engineer to do this? This is something he would have to do on his own on the side? Get an engineer to see what strain ... Kyle: Just put together a proportionate share analysis. De La O: His house is going to put on this road and what those costs, what share of costs are going to be his, just trying to get what you're saying. Holguin: Being like the last street on like the City limits, like I guess the other side of Dunn would be, would that be considered County? Kyle: Yeah. Holguin: How does that affect like traffic that County houses use like a City road? Dominguez: That's what their talking about. It will be a portion of usage of that road. You're not going to pay for the full usage of that road, just what that extra house will bring to the usage of that road. Because you're right, you know everyone else uses it so why do you have to pay for the full buildout of it. Kyle: It's best to determine what the impact of this subdivision and the additional traffic that's being generated by this subdivision ... 011 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 46 Holguin: This extra lot. Kyle: On the road. Yeah. And here's what the improvements would cost. Here's the impact of that to this and you equate that to a dollar value. And we can provide, I think ... Ochoa: I believe we still have ... Kyle: A copy of the one that was done before if you want to see it. Ochoa: But it's still up to you if you'd still like to move forward with just 100% waiver request to do no type of road improvements. We could definitely still vote on that and continue through the process to City Council, other public meetings and so forth like that. I believe the proportionate share would still have to go for approval would it, or would DRC be able to approve that, finalize that here? Kyle: To Council. I think we would have to have them payment in lieu. Ochoa: So again you could do that proportionate share, that would still have to go to City Council for their final consideration or you could still do the 100% waiver request which means go to City Council for their final consideration or the full payment in lieu of the road improvements. Kyle: Something to keep in mind, you don't necessarily have to make that decision now. If you want to proceed with just the full waiver request, the committee will vote on that. That's a recommendation. It's not a decision, it's a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council that will ultimately decide on this waiver. If by the time it gets to City Council and City Council's deliberating it and it looks like they're going to go a different direction, you could offer what we looked at doing a proportionate share you know as a means to provide some compensation to comply with the rules but certainly not be on the hook for an entire arterial and Council could say "sure," they could leave that in the hands of staff. They could say "Put that together, come back to us" etc, so. You have some options going forward. You certainly could proceed as you have requested right now if you want to. Holguin: Okay. We'll do that. Ochoa: Just continue with the 100% waiver request? Holguin: And we still have those options right if. 10 I Ochoa: On a later date, definitely. 2 3 De La O: Get the box of donuts we brought first before you vote. 4 5 Kyle: Again, donuts don't matter. At all. With that in mind I'd entertain a motion 6 on the waiver request. 7 8 Dominguez: I entertain a motion to deny the waiver request. 9 10 Kyle: It's been so moved. Is there a second? 11 12 Dubbin: Second. 13 14 Kyle: It's been moved and seconded to recommend denial of the waiver request 15 which will require full improvements and dedication of the right-of-way. 16 17 Dominguez: Can I withdraw it because it will be very difficult to vote for me on that. 18 Because I'm confused now. I apologize for that Chair. I would like to 19 remove my request to deny the motion. 20 21 Wray: I move to approve the waiver. 22 23 Kyle: It's been moved to approve the waiver request. 24 25 Dubbin: Second. 26 27 Kyle: It's been seconded. All those in favor please signify by saying "aye." 28 Chair votes aye. All those opposed. 29 30 Wray: Nay. 31 32 Dominguez: Nay. 33 34 Dubbin: Nay. 35 36 Ochoa: Nay. 37 38 Kyle: The rest of the DRC voted no. Motion fails. DRC will be recommending 39 denial of the waiver moving forward to the Planning and Zoning 40 Commission. That's it for cases on the agenda. Any other comments? 41 Mr. Binns. 42 43 Binns: Thank you. Before you adjourn your meeting I would like you to put in 44 your record that as you know I'm vocal sometimes, pro and con. And 45 when things aren't right I advise people. When things are positive I also 46 will take a positive note. I would like to put in your minutes that I 11 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 appreciate the helpfulness and the positive attitude of your planners that did an excellent job of communicating with me and Sara and Adam both have been very helpful in this process through the timeframe and when people have a positive helpful attitude I like to pat them on the back and get an acknowledgement and I don't know who sees your minutes but I see them and it's important to me that we make that kind of acknowledgements when they are due. Thank you. Kyle: Thank you Mr. Binns, I appreciate that on behalf of staff. Any other business? IV. ADJOURNMENT (9:31 a.m.) Kyle: I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Dominguez: So moved. Kyle So moved. Dubbin: Second. Kyle: And seconded. We are adjourned at 9:31. -tz��Z- Chairperson 12