Loading...
12/14/2004~,. ~ z t REGULAR MEETING. a OF THE 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 FOR THE s CITY OF LAS CRUCES 6 City Council Chambers ~ December 14, 2004 s 6:00 p.m. 9 to BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: i i Bruce Buchman, Chairman William Ludtke, Member 12 Nancy Binneweg, Vice-Chair Quentin Ford, Member 13 Elizabeth Camunez, Secretary 14 STAFF PRESENT: is Brian Harper, Planner Richard Jacquez, Legal i6 Robert Gonzales, Fire Atilana Orozco, Recording Secretary z~ Robert Kyle, Planner Lani R. McCarson, Planner is Karen Bennett, Planner James White, Planner i9 Christine Ochs, Director Dan Soriano, Public Works 20 21 z2 DISCLAIMER 23 These minutes are prepared verbatim to the best of the recording secretary's knowiedge and 24 notes taken. s E i CHAIR BRUCE BUCHMAN: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to call to z order the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting for the City of Las Cruces for 3 Tuesday, December 14t". Thank you all for attending. I hope to give you all a chance to 4 hear your views and ideas and we as the Board do welcome you. Do any of the Board s Members have any minutes from the last meeting? 6 QUENTIN FORD: No we do not. ~ SECRETARY ELIZABETH CAMUNEZ: No, we do not. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Mrs. Ochs, I'd like to postpone this to the end, but I will like 9 to discuss the situation with the minutes after the meeting is over. Okay, tonight we io have 13 items on the agenda. So, take your shoes off, get comfortable. It might be a ii long night. We have 2 Annexation Requests, 2 Initial Zoning Requests, 3 Master Plans, iz 2 Preliminary Plats, 1 Final Site Plan, 2 Zoning Changes, 1 Municipal Code Change. i3 So, that totals 13, however, we get to take 2, we don't get, 2 of them have been taken is off because they've been postponed until the January 25t" meeting. And this is going to is be... Robert, do me a favor, would you take these two off, because looking over I can't i6 see anybody over there. Okay. Anybody who has came to the meeting tonight for the i~ hearing on Case S-04-138, or S-04-139, which is the Master Plan and the Preliminary is Plat Approval of Dove Crossing, Dove Crossing is located approximately on the south i9 side of Stern Drive, about 400 feet from Cholla Road. So, anybody who came to hear 20 that case that will not be heard tonight. It will be postponed until January 25t". 21 Displayed... Is this one going to be lit Robert? 2z ROBERT KYLE: No. z3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, just, just the one. z ~ c ~ • i KYLE: It's not functioning. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Displayed on the side here, are the 8 items that are on the 3 .Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda are basically items that the City Staff has 4 discussed. They have not received any negative input on and they found to be s favorable. However, an item can be removed from the Consent Agenda and can be 6 discussed by any Commissioner asking to have it taken it off and also anybody in the ~ audience who wants to hear an item that's on Consent Agenda removed and discussed ~ completely. If you will get up and state your name, we will remove it from the Consent 9 Agenda. So I'm going to take one of these items at a time. Excuse me just a minute, io but I'm going to get a little piece on here. I hear the, the, the feedback all the time. Just i i a second... You're not using it are you? iz CAMUNEZ: Not now. z3 FORD: Not anymore. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: There we go. That should be better. Okay, the first item on the 1s Consent Agenda is Case 228, 25, 22587. This is a request for a series of Zone i6 Changes and Conversions in the Hacienda Acres Subdivision. Part of these changes i7 are just to bring the property into compliance with the 2001 Las Cruces Zoning Code ig and 1 case will allow a property owner to build a duplex on vacant land on Stagecoach i9 Lane. Is there anybody in the audience that would like this item removed from the 20 Consent Agenda? Hearing no one, Commissioners? Okay, this case will stay on the zi Consent Agenda. Second item is case, and you can read it up here, PUD-04-07. This zz is a request for a Final Site Plan Approval of Del Prado Planned Unit Development z3 Phase I and II. This is about 32 acres on Sedona Hills Parkway and Sonoma Ranch 3 3 ~ 1 Boulevard. Is there anybody in the audience that would like this case heard in full and 2 taken off the Consent Agenda? Hearing no one, Commissioners? I will remove case 3 PUD-04-07, off the Gonsent Agenda, and, let me make sure I got it right here, yes. And a it will be become Case Number 6 under New Business. The next item is Case 5-04- s 120, and there are 3 cases combined here. The first one of these is a Request for ~ Annexation of 322 approximate acres in Sonoma Ranch East Subdivision. Is there 7 anyone in the audience that would like this item removed from the Consent Agenda? s Hearing no one, Commissioners? Commissioner Binneweg? a VICE-CHAIR NANCY BINNEWEG: I feel that a project that's 322 acres should have a io little bit of discussion amongst us. tt CHAIR BUCHMAN: I agree. Okay. So we're going to remove all... Are you dead? iz BINNEWEG: I can talk loud enough. i3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Can you hear her'? Is it coming through in there? i4 ATILANA OROZCO: Yes. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. So we're going to remove Case 5-04-120, Case S-04-119 i6 and Case 22591, from the Consent Agenda. They will become New Business Cases 7, i~ 8 and 9. The next item is Case Number 6, which is S-04-122. This is your Preliminary ~s Subdivision Plat Approval for Villa Coronado Estates. Is there... There are 31 ig residential lots and it's approximately on the north side of Village Drive and Holloman 20 Road. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to hear this case? No one, 21 Commissioners? Okay. Case number... This case will stay on the Consent Agenda. 2z Case Number 7, is S-04-132. This is a request for a Preliminary Plat Approval on the z3 property known as Stone Gate Subdivision at Rancho Del Rey. It is adjacent to the 4 2 F i extension of Settler's Pass, east of Roadrunner Parkway and north of U.S. Highway 70. 2 Is there anybody in the audience that would like to hear this case? No one, 3 Commissioners? Okay. This case will stay on the Consent Agenda. Go ahead. You, a you want this one off? Okay. So Case S-04-132, will be become New Business Case s Number 10. That was Number 7, right? That I... 6 OROZCO: Yes. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Right, okay. So last, Number 8, Case ZCA-04-04. This is strictly a s proposed amendment to sections in the Las Cruces Municipal Code, which is our 9 Zoning Code and it just makes references to different sections. It really doesn't change io anything, except some wording. Anyone in the audience that wishes this one removed? z i Hearing no one, Commissioners? Okay. Let me see if I can get this right now? Under 12 Consent, we're hearing case, or, or Case 1, Case 6, and 8, are the only 3 that are i3 staying on Consent. i4 FORD: Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the agenda, as amended. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? ~6 BINNEWEG: Second. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. I'll call the roll to vote on the agenda, as amended. And, is Commissioner Ludtke? is BILL LUDTKE: Aye. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 2i FORD: Aye. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 23 CAMUNEZ: Aye. 5 t i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 2 BINNEWEG: Aye. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes aye. Let me explain a little bit about the a ground rules for New Business and how we try to hear these cases in an organized s fashion and give everybody a chance to say their peace. The first thing we do is we 6 have the Applicant make their presentation and tell us what they want and what they ~ feel. Staff will then make a presentation on their facts and findings. After those two s presentations are made, we will open it to the public and anybody in the public who has 9 a comment or a question will be allowed 3 minutes to talk. If you have a group with 3 or io 4 or 5 people, we will give the representative of that group 15 minutes to do their t i presentation. We'll let as many people talk on the one subject, as long as it doesn't ~a become repetitious. We, we have found in the past, unless we make this rule that i3 everybody gets up and spends 5 minutes why they want or don't want the traffic za congestion. And, and we're looking for new ideas, something to help us make our is decision. So we will let you speak, then we close it to the audience participation and ~6 then the Commissioners will question Staff and question the Applicant and after that i~ point, we will make our decision and have our vote from that point on. Okay. First case 1s on the New Business Agenda is Case 5-04-125. And Commissioners, if it's your ~9 pleasure, can't we... Let's see, the Valley Drive, Hoagland, is that the same one as, ao yes. 2t FORD: We can hear them together. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Can we hear the two together'? Do we need a motion for that 23 Robert? Because I have a motion to hear it? 6 ~ FORD: You can suspend the rules Mr. Chairman. z CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. All in favor signify by saying aye. 3 BOARD: Aye. a CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. So this first case, S-04-125, is a Request for Approval of s the Master Plan for Lands of Davis Gilmore Living Trust. 6 BINNEWEG: David. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: David? s BLNNEWEG: Yes. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: What did I say? 1o BINNEWEG: Davis. ii CHAIR BUCHMAN: I did say Davis? 12 BINNEWEG: Yes. i3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: You caught me again. David Gilmer, and then the Case 22593, is i4 a Request for the Zone Change of the same land. Is the Applicant...? I see the is Applicant is ready and this was submitted by North Sound Counseling. Would you i6 please state your name? Go ahead sir. 17 APPLICANT: Yes sir. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is J.D. Dominic with is North Sound Consulting. And I have with me tonight several other members of the i~ Development Team, David Lawrence Gilmer is here in the audience, the property zo owner, Jim McClintic, right behind me, is the Developer and, and a couple of other folks zi from North Sound Consulting and I am the Engineer for the project. I'd like to just start z2 by showing where we are in, in orienting ourselves. This is the property we're talking z3 about. It's 21.6 acres. It is close to Mayfield High School, is along North Valley Drive x, x, i and north of Hoagland, north of two existing subdivisions, Valley Garden Subdivision z and Camelot Garden Subdivision. There is some commercial property. These two 3 properties right here are owned by asingle-family. There's one residence that sits up a around here, a church. We're bounded on the north by the Quesenberry Lateral, an s irrigation ditch, and then a little further north of that is the Las Cruces Flood Control 4 Outfall Channel, which as, as I'm sure you know, has been designated by the MPO as a ~ future collector road. And to the east is the, actually the BNSF Railroad now. So that's, s that's sort of information to get us oriented where we are and what we're looking at. 9 Also, it might be helpful, is a couple of aerial photos to show the character of the area io out there. This is the property that we're talking about again. A single residence here, a i i developed subdivision here, and generally looking south of the area is largely i2 developed. A lot of residential, of course, commercial along Valley Drive, a large 13 educational facility, Mayfield High School, the Field of Dreams, the Quesenberry is Lateral, and a church, and I believe there's a church in here. Then the same thing, but zs looking to the northwest, we have our 21 acres here that we are discussing tonight. i6 Camelot Garden Subdivision in here, Hoagland Road, Valley Drive and in this area, the, i~ it's largely undeveloped and agricultural to the north and to the northwest. So we're, we is are right on the City Limits. The City Limits runs right along the Quesenberry Lateral. i9 So we're right at the very, very edge of the City Limits, but in, but totally inside the City 20 Limits. We're requesting 2 things tonight and the first thing I'd like to talk about is the zi Zone Change and then I'll talk briefly about the Master Plan. We have 21, 21.6 acres of 2z vacant land. It's currently un-zoned due to the change in the 2001 Zoning Code. It, it z3 eliminated the existing zoning, the A-2, but it was formerly A-2. The historic use of the s x i property had been agricultural until at least last year. It was not farmed last year. We z are proposing R-1 a Zoning, medium density, single-family residential. We... When we 3 looked at this property, we looked at many, many types of land uses. It's, it's close to a a lot of things, so we initially looked at perhaps higher density residential because it's, it's s close to a high school, it's very attractive for a residential for that reason. It's, it's close 6 to transit. There's a Roadrunner Transit stop right near there. So it was, it was initially ~ attractive to us to look at sort of a higher density development. But then we also looked s at the adjacent neighborhoods and we felt that it might be more compatible with the 9 adjacent neighborhoods to look at asingle-family detached type zoning. What's, what's io great about this property is, it is, it has access for, for residential it has access to all i i kinds of existing infrastructure. There are roads near by. The utilities are stubbed right 12 to the property. We have a letter from the Utilities Departments stating that they have i3 the capacity to serve this property without line extensions. As I mentioned, there is a is transit stop on Roadrunner Transit, right at Hoagland and Embassy. Eighty percent of is this property will be within one half mile of the transit stop, which, which the i6 Transportation Research Board says it's sort of the threshold where people will walk to i~ a bus stop, you know, more than, more than half a mile, they think they, they really is won't walk to it. But we have great access to transit. Kids can walk to Mayfield, i9 Mayfield High School from there. Mayfield High School, of course, is also a large zo employer, over 200 teaching professionals at Mayfield High School. So, we hope we 21 could actually get people who work there to walk to work. And, and the Field of Dreams z2 is near by. This Zone Change is consistent with many of the goals stated in the z3 Comprehensive Plan to locate higher density residential along transportation corridors, 9 <M- 1 2 3 4 s 6 s 9 to 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 to not have leapfrog development, to provide a variety of housing. So, we think this is an excellent way to serve the growth of Las Cruces without contributing to (inaudible). With regard to the Master Plan, the R-1 zoning allows up to 8 DU's per acre, but again, looking at the neighborhoods, we felt that we would want to be lower than that. We're looking at the compatibility. You know, there are some things that I would say do higher density, but, but we felt to be compatib-, mare compatible with the adjacent developments, especially those to the south. We decided to cut back on that and we looked at different, different types of lot sizes and housing (inaudible), and what we're proposing is a maximum density of 5.45 DU's per acre, that is a maximum of 118 lots on, on this property. This, this will come out to be an average lot size of about 5,$00 square feet, very course based on the road lay outs and we, we have not done any kind of internal circulation patterns yet. We're just looking at the Master Plan at this point. The road access is at 2 points and I'll, I'll show you the next... It would make it easier if just show you the next slide. The, the road access... The existing roads within Valley Gardens and Camelot Gardens are stubbed in to this property and dead-ended and we've proposed those 2 roads as our access. And they come out onto Hoagland and, and that's, that is the only legal access that this property has at the moment to do that. So that's, that's our proposal. In addition to the, to the road access, again, water, sewer and gas will be provided by the City of Las Cruces. There are no line extensions necessary what so ever. The Master Plan looks like that. As, as far the Master Plan, it's pretty basic, as you see, and really the key components are to limit the density and to talk about the access. We... Earlier this month, we held a Neighborhood Meeting. We... There, there are no established Neighborhood Groups in this area that we could 10 ~ r i find, so I, through the public records, tried to find the names and addresses of people z who live largely in Valley Gardens and Camelot Gardens because we knew they would 3 be concerned about traffic. I sent out 173 invitations. We held our meeting at the 4 Benavidez Center just a couple of weeks ago and we had a relatively small turn out, but s a good turn out. We, we had a lot of good issues on the table. In addition to the ~ residents who came, Robert Kyle attended and Councillor Trowbridge attended. So we ~ had some, some very good discussion about some of the things that some of those s folks would like to see. And, of course the most important one that we heard was traffic. 9 Las Cruces is a growing city. Everyone is concerned about traffic. I, I guess the key zo thing on this is, we, we did meet several months ago with Dan Soriano, the City Traffic i i Engineer and the size of this project puts it on the threshold of, of what the ordinance iz requires for a Traffic Impact Analysis. But Mr. Soriano is very, very clear because of the i3 congestion in the area, for Preliminary Plat, we will have to provide a full TIA and satisfy is any traffic concerns that he has. So, we, we hope to be doing that soon. A couple of ~s other issues, of course, people in the neighborhood have an open field behind them. i~ They're disappointed that, that could go away, but everyone was open and, and z~ respects that. They're... It, it's not at... You know, they understand it's not a City park. is It's not, it's not dedicated to open space. There was a long discussion with a, a few i9 folks, more Staff than, than the public, about access to the north. And if I could back up 20 a bit... Some folks who live, particularly in here, who I talked to, use this property either 21 to walk on, just for recreation, for exercise and there are graded roads on here, but also 2z use it to get up to the Quesenberry Lateral to, to walk up there. And, and we had a z~ request that whatever we do in there, to continue to provide access through so people it i can get up to the Quesenberry Lateral, pedestrians. And, and, you know, certainly we z will do that, and, and, and in fact we'll be providing legal access there, which they don't 3 have now. Then the other issue that came up though, and, and we had this discussion a with Mr. Soriano, with, with Robert and, and also quite at length with Councillor s Trowbridge is, as we know, right up here, the MPO has designated a new east/west 6 road at, along the Outfall Channel. Now we do not have access to that Outfall Channel ~ because there's other properties in between that... We're... We have committed to s look at providing a stub, much like these were stubbed out, so that when this road is 9 finally built along the Outfall Channel, the City, if they want to connect into this io development to provide an access out to the north, to the collector road that will be out ii there, can be done as part of the development of the these properties to the north, or it iz can be done as part of the development of that road. So, we'll be working with, i3 assuming we move forward, we'll be working with City Staff and there are, there are is questions what would be constructed now because some City Staff members don't want is to not have a situation where you build something and it never gets used and that kind i6 of thing, but. But anyway, that's, that's just something we'll, we'll be working out. But i~ then the last issue we had, is some of the existing properties along here, the walls were za not built in quite the right place and, and they're actually on our property, just a few feet. i9 And the folks were concerned about that and, just, we're absolutely committed. People 20 don't have to talk the walls down, we'll, we'll figure out a way to do it at no expense. Not 21 to take them down, but to provide an easement and, and leave things the way they are. zz So we're committed to being good neighbors and working with them through it. We 23 had... So, that, that's my pitch. You know, we hope, we hope you'll approve both of tz i i these. We think we're, we have a good project. We think we can help accommodate 2 growth. We think that this project will enhance the City's existing investment and 3 infrastructure. You, you've got infrastructure out there that is not fully utilized and, and a this will help, help improve that. So, and, and that's it and I'm ready to stand for any s questions. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Dominic. Staff. Mr. Kyle. ~ KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, as stated, this is a request for Master s Plan Approval and a Zone Change Request for the subject property. Mr. Dominic did a, a a thorough job of going through the proposal, so I'll expedite my presentation and io essentially cover the same information. The subject property, which does consist of i i approximately 21.6 acres, is located north of Hoagland Road, off the extensions of is Windsor and Briarwood. It's currently zoned A-2, and that's one correction I, I do want i3 to make with, with what Mr. Dominic said. The A-2 zone was eliminated with the t4 adoption of the 2001 Code, but the property is still zoned A-2. That zone will remain on is the property until such time as it's changed. As it's currently zoned and with the grace i6 period provisions of the Las Cruces Zoning Code, the property could be utilized in i~ accordance with that A-2 zone, up until September of next year. At that time, it would is become a legal nonconforming piece of property and any development would require is some form of a zone change. The adjacent zoning does consist of R-1. We have R-1 20 on the south side, as well as R-3, which at the time that it was zoned, was a high- 21 density multi-family zoning designation. This is aerial of the property, to give you a 2z flavor for the existing conditions, for one and two, so that we can show off that we finally 23 have 2004 aerials, instead of the 1999 aerials we have been, been dealing with this. 13 i 1 The subject property is shaded to give you a, an idea of its position. As stated, this is 2 the Las Cruces Outfall Channel that has been designated by the MPO as a potential 3 collector route. The City is looking at how can we make that a major east/west a connection within the City. Mr. Chairman, I'll run through the abstract, the Master Plan s Proposal is for asingle-family residential subdivision containing anywhere from 97 to a 6 maximum of 118 lots. That brings the density range from about 4'/z to 5'h dwellings per ~ acre on the property, should the zone change be approved. The zone change request s is to R-1 a, which is single-family, medium density, as Mr. Dominic said, it does allow for 9 up to 8 dwellings per acre, but with this Master Plan Proposal, it does limit itself to less to than that maximum allowed. And as stated, the Applicants did have a Neighborhood 11 Meeting on December 2"d. Staff was in attendance of that meeting and, and there were 12 discussions regarding traffic, traffic impacts to the area, the existing traffic problems 13 there are within that area. In comparison to the adjacent developments, the Camelot 14 Garden Subdivision immediately to the south has a gross density of almost 7 dwellings is per acre and the Valley Garden Subdivision is about 6 dwellings per acre. So this 16 proposal is slightly less than the immediate adjacent existing conditions, making it very 17 compatible with, with the existing development. This is the Master Plan, the primary is page of the Master Plan. It is a fairly simple Master Plan. It is a single phased proposal. 19 They're not proposing multiple phases. We have a single land use, single-family 20 residential development on the property. The Applicant's do have... This indicates they zl do have existing City utilities stubbed out to the property they can bring on to the site. 22 There will be no extensive, extension ofi City utilities. They are at the property 23 boundary. Mr. Chairman with that, the DRC has reviewed the Master Plan and 14 1 r i recommends approval of the Master Plan with no conditions and as far as the Zone z Change Request, Staff has reviewed it and does feel that it is in compliance with the 3 City's Comprehensive Plan. It is appropriate land use within that area and does a recommend approval of the zone change, again, with no conditions. That concludes my s presentation. Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Kyle. Naw is there anyone in the audience that has ~ any questions or any comments? Would you please come to the microphone? State s your name and we'll listen to you. 9 MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Good evening, my name is Janet Hicks and I'm one of the ~o property owners on Chateau. In fact, my property, excuse me. My property is one of the i i ones that is, my backyard is against his property. iz CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. i~ JANET HICKS: So I'm, I am concerned and the traffic is one of the main reasons I'm is concerned. As you can see from the picture, we have 2 roads going into the Valley is Garden Subdivision and that's Chateau and Windsor. Windsor is the one that's stubbed i6 out to the proposed area. And then in the Camelot Garden Subdivision, there's actually i~ 3 roads, Briarwood, which is stubbed out to this property, and then also Embassy and is Camelot Drive. So for those other 2 subdivisions, there's actually 5 access's and what ig you, what they're proposing to do is to add a subdivision with 118 possible homes, zo taking up two of those sub-, two of those access's without any additional access. So all zi of that traffic is going to run by my house. So that is why I'm concerned. Also, both of zz those, all of those roads go directly to Hoagland every morning on Hoagland. The z3 Mayfield High School kids are going to school. The people that live in that subdivision is 1 .i 1 are trying to go to work. Hoagland is already a real traffic congestion problem. We get 2 up to Alameda, which is one of the, you know, Valley and Alameda are the big access's 3 for Hoagland. At Alameda there's no lights so the line that's there every morning is 10 a to 12 cars deep right around 8, which is when most of the traffic comes both ways. And s then it can be for more. Then we try to avoid that by going through the subdivisions that 6 are on the other side and causing more traffic through those subdivisions because all 7 the traffic is trying to divert into dead ends, dead ends on every side. So, if we're going s to add 118 new homes, I'm concerned that, that's going to add to the traffic congestion ~ on Hoagland, the traffic congestion through Chateau, which I think will be the primary, to yeah, the primary, excuse me, Windsor, which will be primary for this subdivision ii because as you can see, the Briar Ridge one, the one that going to, on the left as you lz face this, is toward the smaller part of that property. So, I think the traffic is going to 13 increase significantly on Chateau and go in to the ever congested Hoagland. So until is they can get access on the north side, I would have to oppose this and I would ask that ~s the Commission at least ask that a Traffic Impact Analysis be done before any approval 16 is made. Thank you for hearing me. ~~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Ms. Hicks. Anyone else in the audience? is MEMBER OF AUDIENCE. I'm Carol Blevins. I live at 2091 Chateau Drive. I am i9 actually one of the houses that faces east, faces the railroad tracks, but I am next to the 20 corner. I have watched all of those houses along Chateau being put in, in the 9 '/~ years zl I have lived there. Traffic has increased tremendously in the time I have lived there. 22 cannot imagine what it will be like with 118 more houses. We know very few 16 } / i households that have fewer than two vehicles and I expect far too much traffic for this z residential area and the children who live in it and older adults who live in my area. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mrs. Blevins. Is there anybody else? Okay, under 4 that, now when we close this, we close it to the audience participation. So if you've got s something to say, speak your peace now. Yes sir, please come forward. State your ~ name. ~ MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: My name is Dave Gilmer and I'm the owner of this property s at present. The existing area to the south of it was actually my grandfather's farm. This g property has, has been in my family. This was my father's place adjacent to my io grandfather's farm and with respect to the questions about access and traffic, and I, I i i see Mr. Binns is here and he probably remembers because he was the Developer of the 12 area to the south of, of the property we're considering. That those 2 streets were put in i~ there and were just dead-ended into my property, rather than being cul-de-sacked or is whatever, as access to the property for future development. And at the time that my is grandfather's farm was sold to, to Mr. Binns for development, that was part of the i6 agreement that it be so designed and built so, with regard to some of the issues that i~ have been raised, I would point out that those streets have been there for all these is years, dead-ended and not cul-de-sacked. Thank you. i9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Gilmer. Is there anyone else? Okay with that I will 20 close to the discussion to the audience participation and I will turn to Commissioners. 21 Commissioners, do you have questions? 22 CAMUNEZ: I do. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez. i~ a i CAMUNEZ: This is for Staff. Do you foresee any, any future road access that could be z done besides Windsor and Briarwood? 3 KYLE. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Camunez, there... As was a discussed, the Applicants will stub out access to the north, so that at some point in the s future should the Las Cruces Outfall Channel become a thoroughfare, this property will 6 have a road stub out, one or, or two, when we get into the platting we'll figure out what ~ the requirements will be. But theoretically, there will be an access point to the north, s which could tie in to the Outfall Channel at some point in the future if that's developed. 9 There's also... We don't have a, a site plan at this particular paint in time, but the zo property immediately to the, the west, which is in ownership of another individual, is ~ ~ available for, for development at some point in the future and, and I suppose potentially iz an accept point could be brought there, but the only ones that we really have any ~3 commitment to right now would be to the north, which would tie in to the OutFall is Channel. Now as was stated, these two streets, minor local streets, were stubbed out is in to this property to provide access and with the preliminary information that we have i6 seen from the Applicant, they have not turned in a full blown Traffic Impact Analysis, but i~ with the preliminary information that we have, it would indicate that although there could i$ be a maximum ofi 118 homes, the actual impact to that area is, is relatively minor. i9 There is a peak hour impact of course, that's when everybody's trying to go, but the zo overall sustained impacts of the area is, is relatively negligent, give the existing zi conditions within the development. And certainly once they submit a Preliminary Plat z2 and we have a final lot count, like I said, there's a range being proposed of 97 to 118, z3 once they turn in that Preliminary Plat, we do have that final transportation layout. We is x r 1 have a, a full blown Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff, primarily the Traffic Engineer, will be z able to determine what those impacts are and then depending on the level of impact, it 3 could have an impact on how many ultimate dwelling units there are allowed within the 4 development without providing some kind of significant negative impact to the adjacent s neighborhood. G CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. ~ CAMUNEZ: Thank you. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, Mr. Ford. a FORD: Robert. Stay for just a minute. Just to kind of piggyback on that a little bit, the to street, the Galvan Street, is that stubbed out? Is that a potential east/west street in ~ 1 there? Do you know? lz KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ford, Galvan right here, this stub into this 13 property to the west, I believe that property is zoned C-2 commercial. It's not developed 14 at this particular time. I guess it's conceivable that an access route could come through 15 there as well, depending on what that property owner's ultimate end use of that property lb IS. 17 FORD: Okay. Now, to try to follow up on that, just immediately north of the property, I is believe there's the Quesenberry Lateral, is there EBID ownership on that or easement? 19 What, what's the status there? 50, could it be, can it be, would it be cross-able? zo KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ford, I don't know the specifics. It's likely that the zl Quesenberry Lateral is EBID owned. We have worked with EB, EBID in the past to zz secure access points over existing laterals when it's necessary for, for public safety, z3 etc., and, and this potentially could be one of those instances. I don't know what the 19 i status of that lateral is? What it serves to the east, you know, the EBID is in the process z of inventorying their laterals and then they're abandoning or covering over ones that are 3 no longer in use. As this property goes out of the agricultural use and that the 4 properties to the north are ever annexed or if they're developed within the ETZ, the s need for that particular lateral may disappear and so crossing would not be as much of 6 an issue. ~ FORD: That's all Mr. Kyle. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'd like to ask a question, not of you Robert, but of Mr. Dominic. g When you do the Final Site Plan and to Ms. Hicks and Mrs. Blevins, yes it's probably ~o going to cause a traffic congestion for a while, as we have many, many places in the ii City, but could you equally have the roads so half of the roads will flow into one of the iz stub out and the other half of the road will go in to the other street, so everything isn't i3 just going in to just one street and only a third going in to another street? Do you see ~a what I'm saying? is DOMINIC: Sure, oh absolutely so. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, we, we've been ~6 looking at various layouts and that, that is exactly what we will do during the Preliminary i~ Plat Process and while we're doing our Traffic Impact Analysis, we'll, we'll look at how is each layout affects the access roads coming out. I mean, in fact there are even traffic ~9 calming measures you could put on the existing streets so that there's more incentive to zo turn on to the other streets to distribute it more widely through Valley Gardens and, and 21 Camelot Gardens, rather than just on the two main streets. Because there really are 5 zz ways to get out on to Hoagland Road and depending on, on what we come up with on z3 the Traffic Analysis... zo i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. z DOMINIC: And working with the City Staff, we'll do everything we can to try to minimize ~ any problems. That's, you know... a CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. s DOMINIC: That's sort of, that's the engineering part of it. That's, that's sort of what 6 we'll be doing. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Dominic. Any other Staff questions? Yes, s Commissioner Ludtke. 9 LUDTKE: I wonder if along Chateau Drive, those lots there, that if, that butt up against io that, the lots that are going to butt up against those properties on the north side of i i Chateau Drive right up there, those lots will be ponding? The procedure is for ponding iz on those lots? Those... The lots that are on Chateau Drive, they also have ponding in 13 their yards? i~ KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, yes, there is on lot ponding within the existing is Valley Gardens and, and Camelot Garden Subdivision. The Applicants are, with their i6 initial drainage concept, concept within their Master Plan is to utilize on lot ponding. i~ Public Works Staff has some concerns with that and, and is working with the Applicants is and, and we'll get in to it further when we get a Master Drainage Plan with the i9 Preliminary Plat, to work with them to come up with a, hopefully a better solution than zo on lot ponding, given the size of the lots. Public Works does have some concerns with zz on lot ponding because there are some problems with, within this existing subdivision. zz That is generally a Preliminary Plat issue when they turn in their Master Drainage Study, z~ it will be looked at. But it has been identified by Public Works and it is something that zi 1 L i staff is working with the Applicant to address. It's possible they'll end up doing some z kind of regional ponding facility within the subdivision in, in combination with some form 3 of on lot ponding to address the ponding requirements. At any rate, they will have to 4 comply with the City's Design Standards and will not be able to adversely impact s adjacent properties with their drainage. 6 LUDTKE: I mean, it's the normal, normal... Normally we see the subdivisions having ~ ponding areas that holds the run off, right? A lot or an area where we... s KYLE: Normally you see subdivisions utilizing... 9 LUDTKE: It doesn't... io KYLE: One hundred percent on lot ponding because they don't want to lose land to i i ponding areas. Now depending the size and topography of a, of a development, it may iz be necessary that they come up with some kind of regional facility to address that. So i3 it's not uncommon at all that we would see a proposal where they're proposing 100 is percent use of, of on lot ponding with no other facilities. Public Works Staff has more is and more concern with that as we see the long term effects of on lot ponding and i6 property owners who fill in those ponds and etc. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. is LUDTKE: Thank you. i9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford. zo FORD: I, I'm just going to move approval. zi CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. zz FORD: I will move approval... zz ~ ~ i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Oh, hold on just a minute. Are there any other Commissioners 2 that have questions? Okay. Commissioner Ford, I will entertain... 3 FORD: Do we have to take these individually? a CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, we have to take them individually now. s FORD: I will move approval then of Case S-04-125. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Do I hear a second? ~ CAMUNEZ: Second it. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. I will call the roll. Commissioner Ludtke? 9 LUDTKE: Aye on findings and discussion. to CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? ii FORD: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. iz CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 13 CAMUNEZ: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? is BINNEWEG: Aye, based on site visit, findings and discussion. i6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes aye based on findings, site visit and i~ discussion. Okay, Case 22593, I'll accept a motion on that. 1s FORD: I will move approval of Case 22593, no conditions. i9 BINNEWEG: Second. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, I'll call the roll again. Commissioner Ludtke? zi LUDTKE: It's aye on findings, discussion. zz CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 23 FORD: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 23 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 2 CAMUNEZ: Aye, discussion, findings and site visit. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 4 BINNEWEG: Aye, site visit, findings, discussion. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes aye based on site visit, finding and 6 discussion. Thank you very much for your input. Those two cases were approved. We ~ now have before us three cases, Case S-04-109, is your request for annexation of 52 s acres located adjacent tv Mesa Grande Drive, north of I-70. Case S-04-108, is a 9 Master Plan for that location. Case 22590, is the Initial Zoning for that location. We're io going to take one of the... Oh no, we'll combine the hearing. We'll waive the, the rules i i and hear everything at once. Is that okay with you Mr. Harped? iz HARPER: Mr. Chairman, yeah, we need a motion for that, but yeah, that'd be fine with i3 us. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 15 FORD: So move. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. i~ BINNEWEG: Second. ~s CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll take a voice vote, all approve say aye. 19 ALL COMMISSIONERS: Aye. zo CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. So this is submitted by BR Engineering for Ken Thurston, 2i Rincon Valley LLC. Is the Applicant ready to make the presentation? 22 APPLICANT: Yes Mr. Chairman. As stated, I am Ken Thurston representing Rincon 23 Valley LLC. And, before you we have a 52.6 acre piece of land being request to annex 24 L Y i in to the City. We have met with the City Staff and also the Utility Division and have 2 talked with them about the various situations regarding this particular piece of land. If I 3 can understand how to run this machine, I'll be really good. So if I'm intimidated by it, 4 please live, or help me out. The property, that's pretty weak an that slide there, is s basically at Mesa Grande and Central, on the west side. The sewer currently is down 6 in... Okay, thank you. The sewer currently is right here and we've been asked to look ~ at extending that to the, to north on Jornada, up Ortega, to not only serve this particular s property, but also to help the City serve that part, that part of the area that's inside the 9 City currently. On the drainage, in meeting with BRG, there are a couple of, of things, zo or drainage issues coming through. We're proposing to use a combination of on lot i i ponding, plus retention ponds for that purpose. On the roads, adequately covered with iz roads on Jornada and also Mesa Grande, StafF has asked us to extend Central to the i3 west, to the part of our property, as part of the MPO, and we're accommodating that is connection. Also, we see a connecting route through Ortega to connect the two roads, is or two streets, Jornada and also Mesa Grande. On the storm drain, basically taken in i6 consideration on lot ponding and retention ponds. The zoning, part of the project we i~ are asking for R-1 b and another portion R, R-4, to accommodate some higher density. rs Approximately 46.722 acres of R-1b and roughly 6 acres of R-4. Here's a preliminary i9 layout kind of putting lot on there. This will change or, or come back to you as part of the zo Preliminary Plat. But basically, we've adequately taken, or have access to this 21 subdivision through Mesa Grande and also right here by this pond, that's Ortega going z2 to the west and as you see on the Master, then we have another collector, which is z~ Peachtree, just north of the project. Basically in the subdivision, there will be some 40 zs ~ 4 i foot lots, 41 foot lots, 45 foot lots, all part of the R-1 b zone, that we're requesting and 2 then also the multi-family. To kind of give you an idea what we see going in to the 3 project and we've done 4 of those projects now in the City, some in Las Colinas, some a on Winters, over on Bowman and also on Oregon. And, I'll just quickly go through the s slides to kind of give you an idea of the floor plan and elevations of those. Just 6 basically, you know, they start out at a 3 bedroom, 2 bath and some double garages, ~ some single garages, to give you a basic concept of the type of homes that would go in g to the area. A little patriotic there with the flag. Did you like that? That was pretty good 9 wasn't it? io CHAIR BUCHMAN: That was good. i i KEN THURSTON: See. i2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: You get one point for that. i3 THURSTON: On those that you saw there, they are basically one story. There are the is two story product also being proposed in the area. And the square footage goes from i~ about 1,000 square feet all the way up to about 1,800 square feet. And basically what t6 we're trying to accomplish in, in the annexation and also the Zoning and Master Plan, is i7 to attempt to bring housing that is critically needed in the Las Cruces area for what we is call affordable housing. And I tried to make a slide to kind of show you the multi-family i9 look and then the question that, that I'd like to present to you is where will our children 20 live and then how much can our children afford to pay for housing? And basically I just 2i did a little scenario, where if I take two wage earners at $6 an hour for 2,080 hours, zz that's basically a, a 40 hour work week, their income would be around $14,560 and if we 2~ take that times the two, that puts them in to where they can in fact afford a, if we use 33 2G e ~ ~ percent of their income on the current formula, that equates to about 600 a month. z Based on the current interest rate that we have, which is favorable right now, then that 3 household could qualify for about $100,000 mortgage. And so my closing statement 4 and my presentation, is this is Ken Thurston's answer to meeting our housing needs in s Las Cruces and would ask for your support in annexing this project, Master Plan and ~ Initial Zoning and I'll gladly answer questions. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Thurston. Staff, Mr. Harper. g HARPER: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Excuse me, let me pull up the Staff presentation a real quick. As Mr. Thurston pointed out, this is a request for annexation. This includes io the Annexation Plat, Master Plan and Initial Zoning Request for approximately 52.6 11 acres in to the corporate limits of the City of Las Cruces. It is zoned as Rincon Mesa i2 Annexation. This property is located along Mesa Grande Drive, excuse me, just north 13 of Onate High School and Bataan Memorial West, or what is known as U.S. 70. The i4 proposed Zoning Districts by the Applicant are R-1 b, which is asingle-family high is density and R-4, amulti-dwelling high density and limited retail and ofFice. There are i6 limitations on the R-4. The Applicant is limiting himself to 15.3 dwelling units per acre i~ and a maximum height of 35 feet on those R-4 units proposed. On the vicinity on the is overhead you can see, here is Onate High School down off U.S. Highway 70 and north. i9 This is the subject property in yellow. This blue line is the City Limit line. It lies on the 20 eastern boundary of this property. The aerial photograph, as Mr. Kyle pointed out, zz showing off our new aerial photographs. You can see the surrounding land uses. This 22 is the City Limit line in blue again. This is Central Road, just on the southern edge of z3 the property, Mesa Grande Drive, this is Jornada over here. And I believe this is the 27 F i extension of Ortega Road that Mr. Thurston mentioned and there's a... That plays in z with the extension of the sewer line. This property is proposing to service both single- 3 family and multi-dwelling residential. On the overhead, again, you can see this is the 4 Annexation Plat and the Master Plan, specifically, outlining the location of the R4, the s proposed multi-dwelling units here on the southern portion of the property. This is north 6 going to your right on the screen and the larger parcel being the single-family high ~ density. The Master Plan is calling for a total allowance of 400 single-family units, ~ possible in the R-1 b and 90 multi-family units on the R-4. Those numbers actually 9 translate out to about 8.56 dwelling units per acre on the R-1 b and like I said before, io 15.3 dwelling units per acre on the R-4. The Applicant is proposing to use all City i i Utilities for water, sewer and gas connections. The Applicant is extending all lines at iz their own expense, one of those lines will be coming in along Ortega Road to intersect i3 with the property on its western boundary. The Developer is not requesting any waivers 14 at this time. Also shown on the overhead, just existing zoning and proposed, for your is information. This is REM, which is an estate type zoning in the Zoning Code, which i6 allows for mobile homes. This is the R-4 proposed by the Applicant and the R-1 b. This 17 is currently, the lands to the west and some to the south, currently are within the Extra- is Territorial Zone and are zoned ER-4M, which is a half acre, half acre minimum lot size, i9 mobile homes allowed. DRC has reviewed both the Annexation Plat and the Master 20 Plan and is recommending approval with no conditions. Staff has reviewed the Initial 21 Zoning Request as well, based on the requests, and it's, how it goes with the 2z Comprehensive Plan, we are recommending approval as well, with no conditions. That z3 concludes my presentation, if you have any questions...? zg ! r 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes Mr. Harper before you leave and, with the pleasure of the 2 Commission, could you please go back to the, an Annexation Vicinity Map, where it 3 outlines the City property, the City boundaries? 4 HARPER: Absolutely Mr. Chairman. The aerial or the map itself? s CHAIR BUCHMAN: No. Go back further. 6 HARPER: Okay. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: That one. s HARPER: Yes sir. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I think that is incorrect. On September 4t", we annexed acreage io right above that, did we not? i i HARPER: It's correct Mr. Chairman. What you're saying is... The boundary line has i2 not been updated on our shape file, but there, this is Los Enamorados, which it has not i3 actually been annexed in to the City yet. The City Council is still, still required to take is action on that. It has gone to First Reading, I believe, but it has not had action taken on is it yet. But, that was recommended for approval by this body and that is this location i~ here. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. is HARPER: But that line has not been updated because the City Council has not taken 19 action. zo CHAIR BUCHMAN: I, I understand. I understand, but it's something that has come zi before us? 22 HARPER: Correct. It has. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Thank you very much Mr. Harper. 29 ~ 1 1 FORD: Mr. Harper'? z CHAIR BUCHMAN: It's not your... Yeah. 3 FORD: Can you go to the next slide over on the new overhead? What are the green a areas? s HARPER: Those are... I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ford, those are just 6 labels of the road. They're kind of hard to read. The lettering is a little light and with the ~ room not quite dark, it's kind of hard to read, but those are actually just labels of the s road right there, just to stand out on the aerial. It helps it to stand out better. a FORD: Thank you. to CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. At this time I'd like to open it to the public. Anyone have i i any questions of the Applicant or the staff? Please raise your hand. Yes ma'am? 12 Would you come forward and state your name? i3 MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Your honor, I'm Maria Ortega. I'm the one that they named is that road after 19 years ago and we were the first in that area. As we can tell that we is didn't have any electricity at that time, but thank God we gat that and that's how i6 everything got developed there, after we got the electricity there. Okay, when you... I i~ was just wondering, you said that Ortega Road is going to go across through Mesa is Grande? is this what they said? is CHAIR BUCHMAN: It is proposed in the future. zo MARIA ORTEGA: In the future. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: There is no exact plans now for this. And our job as the Planning 22 and Zoning, we don't get involved that much in where the streets are going to go. That's 23 a different department, but as staff has said... ~o .-- ~ ~ i ORTEGA: Because of the Developer who is... z CHAIR BUCHMAN: The Developer also, yes. 3 ORTEGA: Is he going to go using all that road on Ortega Road to be passing through 4 there because that road is very, very congested traffic because of the freeway, the way s they made it and the frontage. They're using a lot of that Mesa Grande and they go 6 across that area, that empty lot right there and they use that road. A lot of real trail ~ roads are right there. They use them a lot and it's being used. So, if they're going to s open Ortega, it would be nice if we can have it graded at least. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. All right. io ORTEGA: And I was also wondering, you said in the future, it's not too soon, it's going i i to be exit to Mesa Grande? iz CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, that's hard to say. Okay, Mr. Harper go ahead. He'd like to i3 answer your question. Stay there. Okay. a4 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, I believe, if, if I'm correct in the question, Ortega Road, is generally speaking, is in this location here, where you see this graded surface here. i6 There will be a stub out. The street will stub there at the property and it will have an ~~ access point on to Ortega. They are using Ortega to bring the sewer line in to this area is and in to this development. However, primary access and for the most part access will ig be out an to Mesa Grande from this subdivision and on to Central here. Probably, more zo importantly, due to the fact that there's an interchange at Mesa Grande on Highway 70, 21 which would probably push a lot of the traffic on to Mesa Grande to begin with, but I do z2 believe there is a stub out here planned for Ortega. ~i a ~~ i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you Ms. Ortega. Anybody else 2 from the audience? Okay, at this time, I will close it to audience participation (inaudible) 3 Commissioners. Commissioner Binneweg? a BINNEWEG: Mr. Thurston, you showed us a picture of a preliminary layout of your Tots s and does that, I forget, did that show Ortega coming in to your property and being an 6 important part ofi it? ~ HARPER: I'll pull that back up. s THURSTON: Let me... 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: What... Which way is north? 1o THURSTON: Which way is north? ii CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, I've got you now. Okay. 12 THURSTON: This way. Is the name Maria? Maria is absolutely right. When I went out i3 and tried to do a little initial looking at the land before I purchased it, I went out there at 14 about 4:30, and it was kind of interesting for about 45 minutes, to see how many, I call is them trails, leads to Ortega, off of Mesa Grande, currently. So, and, and if you went out t6 and visited this site, you would see probably, somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 i~ different trails that take off through the, the brush and end up down at Ortega. And, so is in talking to same of the people that I know out in the area on Ortega, I asked him why t9 did that road become the used road and they said since Highway 70 was put in, if you zo think about it... Now if you're on, if you live down on Jornada and you want to go to the zi east, how do you get there? You can't because if you go down to Highway 70 and hit zz Bataan Memorial, you can go one way and that's west. You cannot go east. So... and, 23 and currently there is no place to go east until Ortega and this piece of land. Now 32 ! • i currently under Dos Suenos, which is being developed, then Engler will naw be able to 2 connect Jornada to Mesa Grande, and so... And then I don't know about the one that 3 was referred to by the Chairman, the property just north of Dos Suenos, but I'm ~ assuming that will have an east/west connection and we feel that it's in proper planning 5 to have an east-west connection through our property and Ortega would be that... But 6 most, like Staff had mentioned, we're trying to bring most of the traffic to Mesa Grande ~ because then when you go to Highway 70, then you can go under, you can east, you s can go west and it's a much better interchange. Where at Jornada, it's a one side and 9 that's to the west. io BINNEWEG: So if I'm reading this right, Ortega is off to the left there? ii THURSTON: It's right there where that... iz BINNEWEG: Yeah and it, it... t3 THURSTON: It heads off down this way. is BINNEWEG: But then it stops. It T's on what is your east side of your property there. is So it doesn't go straight all the way across your property. So you're not going to have a ~6 straight away with all that traffic? ~~ THURSTON: That's also correct. We're trying to curb that. We don't want that to is become a major... The Staff and City's MPO shows Central as the road that they would t~ like to go east/west and that's what we would like to see. zo BINNEWEG: Okay. zi CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioners? Mr. Ford? 22 FORD: I can ask Ken. Is, is Mesa Grande designated as a major or minor arterial? 23 BINNEWEG: Probably a major. 33 i ~ z FORD: A major. What's... Do you know what status it's in or what its projected 2 development is? 3 THURSTON: The right-of-way that they have requested is 120 foot, which we're 4 committed to contribute our share of that and also then there, the improvement is s basically half of that improvement, being completed by our development. So, that 60 6 foot portion would, would be developed on the west side. 7 FORD: But, but you know that it... s THURSTON: But it is 120 foot. 9 FORD: Yup, and you know that it is going to be a major arterial? io THURSTON: Right-of way. Yes. i ~ FORD: Okay. tz THURSTON: And Central is also a, is that a minor? It's a collector. 13 FORD: It's a collector. 14 THURSTON: And, and we've allowed far the right-of-way on that particular road also at is 80, 85 feet? 85 foot. Now I didn't do that just willingly, but that's, you know, part of the i6 rules, so you try to accommodate. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other Commissioners? ~s CHAIR BUCHMAN: I have a couple of questions and if I may, Mr. Thurston? Brought i~ up at one of the other meetings by one of the Commissioners is something that we're zo seeing a lot of and I think you're a perfect example of it, is peace meal annexation in to zi the City. In that general area, we've had three different times, September, I'm sorry 22 December of 2003, September of last year, and now you coming before us for another 34 r i annexation. How about the rest of the land up there? Do you own any other land up z there? 3 THURSTON: Currently no. a CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. s THURSTON: Currently. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Wouldn't it be a lot wiser, for everybody concerned, to annex ~ everything at one time? Why do we have to go through and have these discussions 8 time and time again? Now I'm going to vote for yours for one reason. Now I think you're 9 concept, and I've seen some of your other homes for affordable homes, are io commendable. But if it hadn't been for those affordable homes, personally, and I'll bring t 1 more of this up as I pulled one of the other items off the Consent Agenda, I think we iz need to do same looking at annexation and a better orderly annexation for the City. So 13 I just was, wanted to make my point heard and that Mr. Ludtke, I think you, you had i4 brought this up before, about peace meal annexation and I think that's something we've, t s we may need to look at. i6 LUDTKE: That and you know, this annexation in this city, this annexation in this city is, i~ is leading down a road which is going to be a problem. I mean, infrastructure in this city is is poor. I come from back east in Chicago. It was already developed, but just looking at i~ what they did over the years, is a little different scenario. But the infrastructure in this zo city, is, is, is not up to par. zi CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. All right, any other comments? Okay now, remember we zz have to vote on each one of these independently. So, I will accept a motion, at this z3 time, on the first case, the annexation. 3s • i i CAMUNEZ: I make a motion that we approve 5-04~-109. 2 BINNEWEG: Second. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. I will call the roll. Commissioner Ludtke? 4 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 6 FORD: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 8 CAMUNEZ: Aye, findings and discussion. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? io BINNEWEG: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit: ii CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes aye based on findings, discussion and site 12 visit, so the first one passes. I'll take a motion... ~3 BINNEWEG: You're on a roll. is CAMUNEZ: I make a motion that we approve 5-04-108. ~s FORD: No conditions. i~ CAMUNEZ: No conditions. i~ BINNEWEG. Second. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. I'll call the roll again on S-04-108. Commissioner Ludtke? i9 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 21 FORD: Aye, findings, site visit and discussions. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 23 CAMUNEZ: Aye, findings and discussion. 3G r • i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 2 BINNEWEG: Aye, discussion, findings and site visit. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes aye based on discussion, findings and site 4 visit. The last case... s CAMUNEZ: I make a motion we approve Case 22590. 6 FORD: Second. No conditions. 7 CAMUNEZ: No conditions on that one either. s FORD; Second. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call the roll. Commissioner Ludtke? io LUDTKE: Aye, findings. ii CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 12 FORD: Aye, findings, site visit and discussion. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? is CAMUNEZ: Aye, findings and discussion. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 16 BINNEWEG: Aye, discussion, findings, site visit. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes aye based on findings, conditions and site ig visits. I said conditions. No, no... is BWNEWEG: Discussion. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Discussion, that's right. Findings, discussion and site visit. So all 21 three of them pass. Thank you very much for your time. That was New Business 3, 4 22 and 5. Okay. New Business number 6 is the one we took off Consent Agenda, which z3 was C2, is that correct? 37 ,. ~ OROZCO: PUD-04-07. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: PUD-04-07, that's correct. Before we get in to the full discussion, 3 Commissioners, I'll discuss this with you. As you can see at the bottom of this, the 4 Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of it in July. I, I'm not s comfortable. I don't see anything that has changed. There's nothing that convinced me 6 that this is, should be approved. This was my reason for pulling it off. The question I 7 wilt ask of Staff, is in July it came to us as a Zone Change, now it's coming to us as a s PUD. Who did the Zone Change Staff? 9 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, it came before you in July as a PUD Concept io Plan Approval and Zone Change to PUD. The Planning and Zoning Commission did 1 i deny it be a 2-2 split vote that went forward to City Council with the recommendation of 12 denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The City Council overturned that i~ recommendation and approved the Zone Change and Concept Plan. Now the next, the 14 next step in the PUD process is the Final Site Plan. That is what is before you tonight. It is is the PUD Final Site Plan. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, coming back to the Commissioners then, I'd like to make i~ one comment that I'm basing my denial on, is in the minutes from July 27~", when we ig first heard this, page 21, oops, page number 18. No, that's not what I'm looking for, no. i9 Page 18, 21, okay. Eighteen... Okay, the Chair votes no, which was myself, based on 20 the fact, "I do not think this is something that she be allowed as a test case." When it 21 was being heard, the reason they wanted this changes in the requirements for the front zz setback and the garage setback, was a test case. And in this particular area up there, z3 there are no citizens currently really to oppose. And I'm wondering, do we need to ~s s r t make a test case, approve it, and then 2 or 3 years from now find out we've made a 2 mistake? Go ahead, no, because this is kind of... 3 BINNEWEG: You know, I've seen these projects in other places. Just because we a haven't seen one in Las Cruces, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: I know that. 6 BINNEWEG: The fact is, it's a concept that I'm very excited about. I've seen it in other ~ places and I think it's an alternative to your basic tracts where everybody only sees your s front doors and that's all. This has a much better flow of neighborly interaction than a 9 traditional tract does. io CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. And I remember that comment from last time also. t i BINNEWEG: Yes. i2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. 13 BINNEWEG: I remember yours from last time too. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: I don't... Depending upon the Commission, I, I don't know... Do is you want to hear this whole thing? i6 BINNEWEG: No. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: No. is BINNEWEG: No. ~9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. Ford? 20 FORD: I was not present in July. I've heard none of it. I have site visit and read this 21 and I'll make my opinion on that. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Commissioner Ludtke? 23 LUDTKE: NO. ~~ i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Mr. Attorney, we're kind of changing the rules a little bit 2 here. Can we just vote on this again now, seeing as I took it off the Consent Agenda, 3 do we have to hear it? What is the proper way to proceed? 4 JACQUEZ: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Central Robert's Rules of Order, I think the s Chairman, as you have done, can pull the rest of the Commission and ask if they want 6 to hear this case. If they don't, then we'll praceed without any comments from the ~ Commission. You may also just want to pull the audience. I know you did that in the s beginning and nobody from the audience asked that this matter be removed from the g Consent Agenda. I know Commissioner, Chairman Buchman, you did, but just as a io formality. ii CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. iz JACQUEZ: And again, if Staff doesn't want to give their presentation, they can forego ~3 giving their presentation and you can move simply to a motion to approve each three i4 individually and vote on each three individually. Is MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Point of information Mr. Chairman. My name is David t6 Steinborn. I'm one of the Developers. I think this is a due process issue. You have the i~ right to pull it off of Consent. We have a right to have a hearing. You have the right to i$ leave it on Consent and vote on it on Consent. I don't think you have a right to take it i9 off Consent and not give us our chance to talk. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Steinborn. Is there anyone in the audience at this 21 time that wishes to make a comment on this case, as recommended by our Attorney? 22 Okay. Mr. Kyle, do you wish to go through the whole presentation? 40 t ~ • ~ KYLE: Mr. Chairman, I think Staff's, Staff s report represents Staffs position. We are z recommending approval of it. It's consistent with the Approved Concept Plan and Zone ~ Change. It was approved by the City Council. Staff's happy to do their presentation if a the Applicants wish to do theirs if we can ever make technology work. You know, they s may so do that. If the Commission feels that they want to go ahead and vote it up, I 6 don't think the Applicants would, would protest that action, but... ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, thank you. Mr. Ludtke? s LUDTKE: I think I was in San Diego, California when this case came through. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 1o LUDTKE: It was in July when I was San Diego, California. i i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. That's right. There was only... iz LUDTKE: I'd like to hear the case. 13 BINNEWEG: Four of us. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: You'd like to hear the case? Okay. zs LUDTKE: Bring it on. i6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. All right. In that case, because it is off the Consent Agenda, i~ do we have a representative of Sonoma Ranch that would like to make a presentation? is APPLICANT: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Mr. Gunaji, I'm the i~ Consulting Engineer for the Sonoma Ranch Development. We will take you very zo quickly through a very concise presentation on this particular site plan. This is a 2i Planned Unit Development and we are before you for the Final, Final Plat, Final Site zz Plan Application. On the left hand side you see Del Prado Number II, on the right hand 23 side, you see Del Prado Number I. We have discussed in great detail last time how this 41 • i has been put together. I just wanted to show you, this is the front street scene, typical 2 front street scene from that particular site plan that you've seen. And these are the 3 different types of floor plans that will be constructed in to this particular development. 4 This is the rear end scene where we call it an alley way or a street and the garages are s on the rear side and not on the front side. This is the Phase II typical street scene on 6 the Phase II portion of the, of this particular development. These are the type of ~ products that we are planning to propose, building this particular case. And this is the s street scene for that particular development. This is the rear, rear end, I would just call g the back alley scene where the traffic for the cars and how they will go. And so, to basically what we are doing here is putting together a very nicely planned, Planned Unit i i Development. If you have particular questions that you want to ask, we'll be glad to l2 answer them. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Gunaji. Staff. Mr. Kyle? 14 KYLE: I shouldn't have messed with this one, since we actually got it working, but... is Mr. Chairman, this is a request for Final Site Plan Approval of a PUD proposal for a i6 property located along Sedona Hills Parkway in Sonoma Ranch East. The, the zoning ~~ map should more accurately reflect this as PUD, that is the approved zoning, but that is zoning there hasn't been updating yet, but you can see the subject property is is approximately 33 acres. It's located on the north side of Sedona Hills Parkway, just 20 north of the Sam Graft Park, which is located here. You have Sonoma Ranch Boulevard zz here on the west side of the property. It is a PUD request for essentially asingle-family 22 residential on Phase I, approximately 1 QO units. Phase II is, is basically a condominium 23 type setting, where you'll have multiple dwellings on a single parcel of land. They will 42 r. i be served by, by dedicated City streets, City Utilities, etc. The Applicants are proposing z a significant amount of open space, as well as recreational area for the residents of the 3 development. And as I previously stated, the Commission did recommend denial of the a Concept Plan and Zone Change, but the City Council did approve that at it's September s City Council Meeting and then, as I said, the next step in the game then would be the 6 Final Site Plan, which is before you this evening. Within the PUD, there are numbers of ~ deviations that were approved. They are primarily to the setback requirements. Within s Phase I, which is the single-family rear loaded lots, they are asking fora 12 foot, or they 9 have received a 12 foot secondary front setback, as opposed to 15, required by code io and the garage setback will be allowed to be 20 feet, as opposed to the 25 that would i i ordinarily been required in the R-1 zone, which is what the property was zoned previous iz to the PUD. Then Phase II, which is where the condominiums are being proposed, that t3 was zoned R-4. The typical front setback in the R-4 is 20 feet. What was approved i4 through the, the proposal was a 12 foot front yard setback and I think you kind of got an is example of what that would like with one of the photos that Dr. Gunaji showed. And i6 again, a 12 foot side yard setback and then within Phase II, they also sought and the i~ deviation was approved, to allow them to utilize a 37 foot wide road cross section, 37 to foot right-of-way and road cross section, in lieu of the 50 feet required by the City's i9 Design Standards. This is a thematic map of it. It's not the actual Site Plan, but it gives zo you a better idea, I think, especially with the colors. The green areas are open space zi areas being proposed within the development. If you notice, at least specifically within zz Phase I, you have a recreational center up here, pool and other amenities for the z3 development and then you have an open space system that will get you down to Sam a3 i Graft Park, as well as open space along the perimeters of the development and then a z significant amount of open space within Phase II, which is the condominium portion of 3 the development. And I think that all ties nicely in to the existence of Sam Graft Park, 4 with them providing recreational network far the entire area. Mr. Chairman, this is a s more specific Site Plan. It's essentially a Preliminary Subdivision Plat for all intents and 6 purposes. This would be Phase I, which is the single-family rear loaded lots and this is ~ the eastern half of that development, the Rec. Center up here and then essentially you'll x have single-family lots plotted out with easements and driving aisles to provide access 9 to the rear of those developments. And then again, you see the open space network io that takes you down to Sam Graft Park on the south side of Sedona Hills, this being the i i western half of that particular phase, again, the same thing, you have access roads or 1z access driving aisles coming off of the dedicated City streets that will provide access to i3 the rear of these units for parking, etc. Phase II, is essentially one big parcel of land 14 with the exception of the City streets, which loop through there. Those, again, will be is built as condominiums. Now, the multiple-dwellings on a common piece of property, but i6 the dwellings themselves can be conveyed to feasible to a buyer. They would actually i~ own their little footprint and then undivided interest in the remaining open space or ~s common area of the development. With that Mr. Chairman, it has been through a i~ review. The DRC and Staff does recommend approval with no conditions. Again, it is 20 consistent with policies within the City's Comprehensive Plan and it does comply with 21 the approved Concept Plan. And that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to zz answer any questions that the Commission may have. 44 ~ ~ i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Kyle. I'll open it again to members of the public. Is a there anybody in the public that has a question concerning this case? Please raise your 3 hand and came forward. If not, I'll close it to public comment. Commissioners, 4 questions? s FORD: I had one question. Mr. Kyle? You need the exercise. There, there was a 6 comment made about the proposed front setback including the garage. Did I hear ~ correctly that the garages would be in the rear? s KYLE: Mr. Chairman, in Phase I, which is the single-family development, let me go ~ back to this. Yes, the garages are in the, in the rear of the unit. They're rear loaded. io On the condominium side, over here, you would essentially have your driveways and 11 the garages in the front of the units. And so in Phase II, for instance, which is this 12 condominium area, it's a zoned, it was zoned R-4. The setback within the R-4 is 2Q i3 feet, that's for the garage. What was approved through their development was a 12 foot is front yard setback. So essentially you have the street, narrower street cross section, is driveway and garage within 12 feet of the, of the property line. i6 FORD: Again I ask, is the garage in the front or in the back? i~ KYLE: It's in the front in Phase II. It's in the rear in Phase I. ig CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke go ahead. ~9 LUDTKE: Is this, is this design similar to what we're going to see go in up here on zo Northrise and Roadrunner in that... We went through a development... zt CWAIR BUCHMAN: No. I think that was... z2 LUDTKE: A month or so ago, a gated development that couldn't be... You know... 23 (inaudible) 45 ~ ~ i BtNNEWEG: A lot of open space. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yeah, open space, but the... 3 KYLE: Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Ludtke, could you make sure you speak in to the 4 mike just so we can pick up the minutes. s LUDTKE: Yeah. ~ KYLE: I want to make sure it's clear. ~ LUDTKE: Is this development like the development that we're having on Northrise and s Roadrunner that we talked about right before the Commission a couple of months ago? 9 A similar? io CHAIR BUCHMAN: I think that it's very similar, except the front will be the back and i i the back will be the front. I2 LUDTKE: That's how I think that's... i3 KYLE: More or less. They have... Within that particular development, they have, I t4 don't want to call them boulevards, but streets that, that the properties all front. They is have larger front yards, but then they have private alley ways, which would provide the t6 access to the lot as far as the garage is considered, etc. i~ LUDTKE: Thank you. ig KYLE: So it is very similar to that. A little bit of configuration, but very similar. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Any other Commissioners? Go ahead Commissioner 20 Ludtke. z~ LUDTKE: So what was the problem of when we had the two, when you had the 2-2 z2 split? What was the reason for denial on those two votes? 45 ., i CHAIR BUCHMAN: My reason was the, the test case concept. I didn't believe that this 2 was something that should be allowed to be a test case based on us making smaller 3 IOtS. 4 BINNEWEG: Setbacks. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Smaller setbacks. And two of us agree that way and there's only 6 four of us here and, and Commissioner Binneweg and Commissioner Sanchez voted for ~ it. s BINNEWEG: Couldn't sway you. a CHAIR BUCHMAN; Nope. io LUDTKE: I think a couple of months ago though when, on this issue, I was... This, this ~ ~ development that's going up here, we all voted. i2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, that's correct. That's correct, because we weren't... i~ LUDTKE: I think (inaudible) in between there. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Asking for any setbacks on that development. is LUDTKE: Well, that's... iU CHAIR BUCHMAN: This developer was asking for setbacks. i~ LUDTKE: Right. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: And that's why I (inaudible) up. Commissioner Camunez? ~9 CAMUNEZ: Mr. Chair, if I recall correctly, also, one of the issues that we have with this 20 was the 30 foot right-of-way. 21 BINNEWEG: 37. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That... 23 CAMUNEZ: 37 foot right-of-way, excuse me. ~~ ~ ~ i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. Yes. 2 CAMUNEZ: Was that correct? 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That was one of the, the items also. And I think at that time... Is 4 Mr. Soriano, Soriano in here? No. Okay. s LUDTKE: Which we went ahead and voted in favor of it for this new development. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. ~ LUDTKE: Also, they were smaller. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. Okay. 9 LUDTKE: So... to CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other questions? At this time, I will accept a motion on PUD- i i 04-07. iz FORD: Mr. Chairman, I move approval of PUD-04-07, with, with no conditions. i3 BINNEWEG: Second. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. I will call the roll. Commissioner Ludtke? is LUDTKE: Aye, findings. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? i~ FORD: Aye, findings and discussion. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? i9 CAMUNEZ: I'm going to stick with nay because I'm concerned about that 30 foot, 37 20 foot right-of-way. zi CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 22 BINNEWEG; Aye, based on findings, discussion. 48 ~ ~ i CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes no based on my same findings as before. I z do not think this should be allowed as a test case with the setbacks, but it still passes 3- 3 2. Thank you very much for your time and your input. Okay. Right. Sonoma Ranch II a Annexation. I would like to hear... Pardon me? s BINNEWEG: All three of them at once, right? 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All three can be heard at once. ~ FORD: So moved. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: All in favor on the Commission. Everybody in favor say aye. 9 BOARD: Aye. io CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Submitted by Sonoma Ranch II, LLC. You don't look like i i the Applicant Robert. Is the Applicant going to make a presentation? 12 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, the Applicant is, we're just trying to get the, their power point to 13 load up. I don't know if the delay is just lots of graphics on it? Darn Consultants. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Some people have the computer techs and some people don't. is GUNAJI: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, with your indulgence, I would i~ like to introduce you to some (inaudible) present from the State Land Office. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Just, just for the record, please state your name. is GUNAJI: My name is Mr. Gunaji. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. 20 GUNAJI: I'm the Consulting Engineer for this Sonoma Ranch Development. The zi reason we are doing that is because this land was acquired out of the (inaudible) of 22 acquiring from the State Land Office and Mr. Dennis Garcia, available is Mr. Dennis 49 i Garcia, Assistant Commissioner for Natural Resources, would just like to make a small z statement as to the State Land Office. Mr. Garcia? 3 DENNIS GARCIA: Goad evening Mr. Commissioner and Chairman. My name is a Dennis Garcia. I'm with the New Mexico State Land Office. I'm from Santa Fe and I'm s here on behalf of Commissioner Patrick Lions and we support the annexation of, in the 6 Master Plan Approval and the zoning of the acreage that was referenced by this ~ gentlemen, over on the east mesa. We feel that this acreage will benefit the City of Las s Cruces and the revenue from this acreage will benefit the educational community. ~ Thank you. io CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Garcia. ii GUNAJI: We are before you for what we call the Sonoma Ranch East II Annexation. I zz hope you can see my laser light. This parcel is the Sonoma East, which consists of 322 i3 acres that is being requested far annexing in to the City. Just to give orientation here, I is present Sonoma Hills Parkway, that is right here and in the previous case, we is discussed this right here. This is the Sonoma Ranch South. So, it's a development that i6 comes along with our plans to attempt the City of Las Cruces boundaries to the east i~ and conformance with the, with the plans. This is the aerial view of the general area. ~~ You'll notice that this is the Las Cruces water supply tank. This is the extension of the i9 Sedona's Parkway and as our roads go to the next tank and this is a general idea of 20 how the area is located. The Annexation Plat consists of 322 acres, just in to the 21 existing the Sonoma Ranch East, which is this side, and this is the area that we are zz requesting annexation for. The Master Plan, the Master Plan for the, for the entire z3 annexation. There are different parcels having different land use that we have so s r i conformed to the Comprehensive Plan and discussed this land use extensively with the z City. There's all kinds of combinations of land use. We have, have arroyo that's down 3 here as an open area and the same thing dawn here. That is where the City's water 4 tank exists. Working with the City, we'll probably, work with a very nice public area s down there. In the, in the area that up further, are green areas and so I just wanted to G point out to you that this area consists of various combinations of land use consistent ~ with the Comprehensive Plan. This is the zoning tract and this is how it is, we're s proposing zoning on it, on your map, I (inaudible) to see... This is where all the zoning 9 is given to you and a number of acreage is down here. And east/west thoroughfares io are going to, that are shown down here. This is Calle (inaudible) that is shown down i i right here. The open space that we're proposing, that we, when we combine together 12 amounts to about 23.4$ acres of public use. With that, I would like to stop and request i3 any questions, if you have specifically, and I will answer those questions, either now or i4 after the Staff presentation. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Gunaji. Staff? Mr. Kyle? i6 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, as stated, this is an annexation request for a property located on 1~ the east mesa, Sonoma Ranch East II. The request consists of an Annexation Plat, a is Master Plan and approval of an Initial Zoning Request, as part of the annexation i9 package. The property, essentially the eastern half of Section 34, in township 22 south, zo range 2 east of the New Mexico Geological Surveys. It's east. It's adjacent to and 21 immediately east of Sonoma Ranch East existing development. As stated, it's z2 approximately 322 acres. The proposal does consist of a mixed land use proposal. It 23 consists of single-family residential and medium and high density zoning requests, si ~ ~ . i multi-family medium density and high density residential, as well as commercial and z office uses. The Applicants providing open space, a zoning request, as well as flood 3 control zoning in accordance with the City's requirements for the existing arroyos on the a property. This is an aerial of the area. This is the subject property, 322 acres. The s existing Sonoma Ranch East is located here. As Dr. Gunaji said, the proposal you just 6 acted on is located here. You have Sonoma Ranch Boulevard's alignment, along here, ~ Dona Ana Branch Community College. The Annexation Plat, again, a technical s document. Basically, it's a, it's a boundary survey of the 322 acres. Existing... a Adjacent zoning on the west side is PUD. This is area is part of the Las Alamedas io Central development area. Immediately adjacent to the request you have R-1 Condit-, i i R-1 c, not conditional, just R-1 c, which is a low density single-family residential. You 12 have PUD zoning on the southern half of Sonoma Ranch East. That is a, a larger i3 estate, half acre and above, gated community within the Sonoma Ranch East, and then i4 a small park, pocket of G2 zoning on this particular small parcel. The zoning around is the development on the east and the north is all holding and is not within the City Limits. i6 Mr. Chairman, the, the Master Plan, it's dift'tcult to read at the resolution that it is, but i~ essentially what's being called out within the Master Plan, as far as land uses are is concerned, is predominantly single-family uses within this, let's call it the western half of i9 the development. It's primarily R-1 a zoning, at approximately 3-6 dwellings per acre zo density. Within the center portion of the request is, the predominant request, is for R- zi 1 b, or single-family high density, which allows up to 12 dwellings per acre and has a Za little smaller lot size and you can get a combination of town house type development, z3 maybe some clustered development, etc. And that finally decided to load. The sz ~ ~ i eastern... It took it that long to load. The eastern half of the development, and you'll 2 see it with a little more clarity on the zoning request, but on the eastern border of the 3 development is where you have the multi-family, as well as the commercial and office 4 requests. There's an arroyo that goes through the northern third of the property. They s are asking for open space, USR zoning for that, which is an open space recreational 6 zoning, as well as FC, or flood control. And, as stated by the Applicants, there's about 4 ~ '/z acres of land within this area that, at least initial discussions are for dedication to the s City for park and/or other public, quasi-public uses and a couple of small pods within the g single-family residential area where the Applicants will be developing that open space. to Given its size, it will remain in private ownership of the Homeowner's Association and i i will not be accepted, or dedicated to the City of Las Cruces. This is the zoning map. ~z Essentially, it divides the property in to thirds. That's just an overview of the area. The i3 northern third of the property, as I indicated, you have a request for R-1a, which is is single-family medium density, again, the arroyo that goes through there, asking for an is overlay of flood control as well as open space and recreational zoning, R-1 to the south. i6 This portion of the request would be R-1 b, which is the single-family high density and z~ then within this tract they're asking for a combination C-2, commercial medium intensity, is O-2, professional office and then R-3, which is the multi-dwelling medium density is zoning. If it's approved as requested, that particular tract will have all three of those 20 zoning designations and that gives the Applicants the flexibility to do a combination of 21 commercial and, and potentially multi-dwelling or even single dwelling within that as a z2 combination where you could have commercial, on like say the ground flood, maybe loft 23 apartments, something along those lines, or just an apartment complex in association 53 ~ ~ i with some kind of office or, or commercial type development. The middle third of the 2 development, again, you have R-1 a, R-1 b and then a combination of commercial high 3 intensity and multi-family medium density and then a small portion right aver here is 4 proposed for C-2. As I indicated earlier in the presentation, this little portion of property s is already zoned C~2, within the Sonoma Ranch East development and this will just 6 coincide with that to make it a more developable tract of land. The southern third of the ~ property, again, R-1 a, R-1 b within the center portion, a continuation of the C-3 and R-3, a and then within this smaller tract, which will be essentially at the intersection of two 9 major arterial roadways, a request for high density multi-family dwelling and high io intensity commercial dwelling. And Staff and the Applicants have worked together over ~ t numerous meetings to come up with a combination of land uses within this particular iz development that Staff felt it met the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and, and i3 also met the Developer's goals and aims within their development and what we're 14 bringing to you tonight does represent that. We've, without going in to specifics on the is different parcels, we have worked with the Developers to ensure that certain parcels, i6 even though they have this multiple zoning on it, will not go all multi-family residential or i~ all residential. They will have to have some kind of combination of office or commercial is and multi-family residential so that we get the mix that we are looking for within the t9 development. And as I outlined within my Staff report, in looking at a large proposal like 20 this, we, we try to look at it in terms of a mix of uses that complies with a certain ration zi of land uses that was called out in the Comprehensive Plan. This particular 22 development, looking at itself, comes very, very close to those numbers, that distribution 23 of land use mixture that we're looking at. The Comp Plan looks at it, the distribution of 54 g, t i land uses, in terms of a one mile radius, that subject property is within one mile, given z the overwhelmingly majority of land on the north and east that is either holding or un- 3 zoned, Federal land outside of the City Limits, there's no way that the proposal comes a even close, nothing in the area can came close to meeting that, those specific ratios s within that one mile study area because of all that holding and un-zoned land. But in 6 looking specifically at this development, they've made a very good attempt to meet 7 those ratios and Staff is very pleased with the work we've had with the Applicant on this ~ particular development to achieve that. With that Mr. Chairman, the Development 9 Review Committee and Staff has reviewed the request and we are recommending io approval of all three items, the Annexation Plat, the Master Plan and the Initial Zoning i i Request, with no conditions. I do want to point out that I did hand out to you prior to the 12 meeting some a-mails that Staff received. Staff has also received one phone call from ~3 residents within the area who have expressed concerns with timing of this development i4 and ingress and egress to the area existing roads, etc. And I do want to point out that is within this particular development we do have a principal arterial roadway on the south i~ side. There's a collector here, another arterial roadway on this northern third and then i~ assume they'll be a collector roadway of some, well, it'll be a collector, at some ~s (inaudible) will be a collector road, where I believe it will be on the northern side. Within i9 the western side, you have an existing arterial roadway and then the eastern, I'm sorry, zo it's a collector on the west side. And then on the east side, that is the extension of zi Mesa Grande Boulevard, which will come down from Highway 70 and then continue on 22 to the south. There's proposed development at the Highway 70 and Mesa Grande z~ intersection, that actually if it's approved and goes forward, will do their improvements, ss r ~ ' i their prorated share of improvements on Mesa Grande, which will get us to, I believe it's 2 about a half section from this particular property. If they develop this property, they will 3 build their prorated share of developments to those roadways. With that Mr. Chairman, a that concludes my presentation and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may s have. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Kyle. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes ~ to make any comments or questions on this particular, these particular cases? Yes 8 ma'am, would you please come forward and state your name? a MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Good evening Commissioners, my name is Nancy Stotts io and I just have a question about the open space zoning that `s being applied in this. i i This is the first time I've actually seen the new, those new zoning codes actually used 12 and that's very exciting to see them being put to use, but my recollection of the two new i3 open space zones that were approved, were that there's both an open space- i4 recreational and also an open space-conservation, I believe it was called, which was is going to emphasize keeping the area in a natural state as opposed to developing as an i6 act of recreation site, and I was jus curious about the choice of using OSR for the two ~7 arroyos in this development and what the, what the plans in terms of recreation for is those areas might be? i9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. Kyle do y-... You're going to try and look here? 20 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Staff has proposed the initial (inaudible) to that question to the 21 Applicants to address their development plans. 2z CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Okay, they're good. Mr. Gunaji, or...? 23 GUNAJI: Yeah, my partner Mr. Carmody will respond to the question. 56 ! w 1 JOHN CARMODY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Jahn Carmody, Project 2 Manager for Sonoma Ranch. On the south side, Robert, the back arrow? I want to go 3 to your aerial. Your aerial. Back, the other back. All right. There's an arroyo in some 4 open space zoning down here in the southeast corner. That's the Las Cruces Arroyo s and I also believe that it's also part of the arroyo network trails that the City's been 6 working on that will take you all the way from... I lost my mouse. Okay, this is the ~ arroyo down here. It runs right on in to Sonoma Ranch South. This is the north fork of s the Las Cruces Arroyo. There is a committee working on a trail network system to run 9 right up this arroyo all the way to the mountains. That part down there, I don't believe io we have a problem with the conservation zoning in that one, but I have to tell you, that z i arroyo is already destroyed in that particular portion. The BLM, if you could see this 12 picture a little clearer, I walked through there a couple of days ago. The week before I i3 did a threatened and endangered species study with some biologists and I also spent a 14 day out there with an archeologist. We walked through that arroyo and where it crosses is through our property, it's been heavenly mined when they mined dawn here in Section ~6 3, so there's not a whole lot of natural vegetation right there. This arroyo up here is a i~ very minor arroyo and it actually ends just right back in here. This is the Alameda is Arroyo and the main stem runs all the way up to the mountains. This south stem right i9 down here terminates right up in here. There's a, there's a dam up in there. It's very 20 narrow. And that's why we've asked far the zoning that we have. We foresee that it 21 can be used as part of the Las Cruces Trail Network. If you look at Sonoma Ranch, you 22 will see that we don't go in and destroy them, but we will enhance them, if anything. 23 hope that answers your question. s~ i GUNAJI: I'd like to make one more addition Mr. Chairman. The, the Engineering 2 Policy of the Sonoma Ranch Development, as to the arroyos, are concerned. We have 3 never enclosed in to the flood planes of any arroyo that goes through our property. We a are very careful to do a flood (inaudible) study and map the flood plane as required by s the FEMA and always left of the development outside those. So the intention is that the 6 arroyos can be used as natural trails and allow the natural flows of water to go to it's ~ determined draining. So, I just want to emphasize from the point of our engineering s design, we seldom encroach in that arroyo and (inaudible) that arroyo to do in our a subdivision development. io CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Gunaji. Any, anyone else in the public have any i i questions? Yes sir? Please come forward. 12 MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: My name is (inaudible) Hillback. We live at 4024 Lucky z3 4ak in Sedona Hills and we built in Sedona Hills a year ago knowing that this area i4 would be developed. We're pro growth and we're in favor of it. My concern is that as is this area grows, with the two other subdivisions that have come up, the Horton i6 Subdivision and the Phillippou, that the only feet of road is the Sonoma, or the Golf Club ~~ Road entrance. And I guess my question is of the Planners, what is Sonoma Ranch is Boulevard planning for feeding us, or feeding out, out of that area? What, where does i9 the timeline come in? 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Hillback. Staff? 21 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, there's... You have an a-mail, one of the z2 a-mails that I sent you, it has a response within that from Robert Garza, Acting Assistant 2~ City Manager, and former Director of Public Works, and within that a-mail, he indicates 58 o. s i that the City has had discussions with the, the development players within this area 2 along Sonoma Ranch and that there's currently plans that would, that hopefully bring 3 Sonoma Ranch from Highway 70 dawn to Lohman, within the next year. I know that the 4 current Developer, Mr. Phillippou, within the Missions area, will be picking up Sonoma s Ranch, where the pavement ends currently, and taking that south to Lohman in the 6 relative near future. I'm not going to put a timeline on it, but it's happening very soon. ~ We have Sonoma Ranch paved right to about here, where it essentially borders the s Alameda Properties, which... Let me come back. I hate computers. Which picks it up 9 at this point and takes it... This portion is within the Alameda Property Groups and then io Sonoma Ranch North picks it up at this point and takes it to Highway 70. There are ~ i planned arterial within here that would stretch across, a very small portion of, of iz Sonoma Ranch is actually paved right now, where Morning Star ties in to it and it t3 provides access to the Dona Ana Branch. With the development at Sonoma Ranch za East, this, the Developers will be doing their prorated share of improvements to that is particular roadway and it gets us very close to our tie in with the existing paved portion i6 where it does pick up with Morning Star and provides access out to Roadrunner i~ Parkway. In addition to which, as stated, it looks like, hopefully, we will have something is in place that will get that road under construction, if not constructed within the next year 19 and that would give us another north/south access point in to this area beyond just zo Roadrunner Parkway and the existing two ways in to the development now through Golf 21 Club Road and, and the conditioned road, which both provide access to Roadrunner 22 Parkway. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Thank you Mr. Kyle. Go ahead sir. s9 i CARMQDY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'd like to add a little bit and give this 2 gentlemen a more specific answer as to what's going on out there right now. Number 3 one, Sonoma Ranch Boulevard from Northrise down to the arroyo will be about a million a dollar construction project to Sonoma Ranch. I picked up the permit, excuse me, I paid s for the permit today. The Developers of Sonoma Ranch intend to start construction 6 from Northrise right down to the arroyo right after the first of the year. The job has been ~ permitted and it will, as soon as we select as a contractor, will go under construction, as s soon as we can mobilize that contractor. The next thing you need to know is that he's 9 correct. Right now all that traffic does go out Golf Club Road. Golf Club Road is a io collector street and that collector has no driveway access. I just wanted to point it out. i i It's not a residential street. The capacity of it is a lot greater than a residential street. 12 Currently, we are constructing Quatrojitas, which will start right here. As a matter of i3 fact, curb and gutters down, the base coarse is down. We are building that street to is here right now as we talk. In Del Prado III and IV, we intend to build that, our portion of is that collector right up here to the edge of the Dona Ana Branch. We've been working i6 with New Mexico State University and the Dona Ana Branch. We're going to build their i7 part of Quatrojitas because the schools don't build infrastructure. So when we get down ig in to that area, we will go ahead and build this portion of Quatrojitas to the existing i9 pavement right there. That gives us another complete access to Morning Star and gets 20 us a lot closer to having Sonoma Ranch Boulevard and the partners of Sonoma Ranch zi are very interested in seeing that boulevard built all the way to Lohman Avenue. With z2 the construction of this section right here, we will have built 100 percent of Sonoma 23 Ranch within our properky. Our development up in this area won't happen for 6 months 60 Y ~, 1 to another year, but we're going ahead with the plans and we will build that road. It is, it z is permitted. A couple of things I'd like to point out to you in our subdivision is this street 3 right here, this is a major local, not required. We're trying to spend a little extra money, 4 do it right, make a nice street. We like good flow through our subdivision. I can tell you s what's going on up here in the north. I don't have any answers for you down here in the 6 south. This stuff has all been before you and I assume you are better educated as to ~ what the traffic relief is going to happen down in here, but we are going to provide you, s the City, with more access to, it'll be to Roadrunner right now and hopefully in the next 6 a months to a year we're going to see Sonoma Ranch built from Lohman, or at least the to construction started from Lohman up to Highway 70. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you sir. lz HILLBACK: Excuse me? How does that fit with your project plans or how, with your 13 development stages? How does that fit? What's your timeline for development? 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Let's... is CARMODY: Right now. Excuse me. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN; Excuse me, just a minute. That was, just for our record, that was 17 Mr. Hillback? 1s HILLBACK: Yeah, a fallow up question. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yeah, okay. zo CARMODY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, we foresee Sono-, the first lots in Sonoma zl Ranch East being close to or ready for market at the end of next year. If the City follows zz through with Sonoma Ranch Boulevard, we'll see it under construction within the next 61 1 R i year. That's about all I can tell you for right now. We're trying to work with it all z together. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Is there anybody else in the audience that has anything a new? Anything different to question or bring up? All right. Thank you. At this time, I will s turn it over to the Commissioners. Are there any Commissioners...? The lady first. 6 Commissioner Binneweg? ~ BINNEWEG: I appreciate Sonoma Ranch people spending time explaining all this s because, like I said, it's a big parcel, and we can read our notes, but we don't get the 9 whole idea of haw the layout goes. I appreciate the presentation. io CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? i i FORD: I'm just, curiosity. Robert, can you comment on the ownership around the 12 proposed annexation? Is that public state, private, what is its status? i3 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ford, I'm just looking at my property research ~4 map so that I can give you clear information. It looks like everything on the, to the north, is east is all, the north side and the east side and down in this area, is all State of New i6 Mexico property. Immediately to the south here, this is BLM property. So you have i~ State of New Mexico property on the north and east and then BLM immediately to the i s south. i~ FORD: (Inaudible)... zo KYLE: West, to the west is, is all again lands within the Las Alamedas Central zi development. 22 FORD: And it's the blue line that's the City Limits? The existing City Limits? b2 i KYLE; That is correct Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ford, the existing City Limits 2 follows this line. Now the, the Commission at last months meeting just acted on an 3 annexation for 40 acres right here. That has not gone to City Council yet, but assuming a it gets appraved, it'll just basically fill in a 40 acre block right there, but then yeah, it s continues up this side and across here. With the approval of this annexation, of course 6 the line will shift over to the east. ~ FORD: Well now... The piece to the north then that is State property, public property? s Only... 9 KYLE: Right it... State of New Mexico, correct. to FORD: Okay. ii KYLE: Under control of the, of the Land Office, the individual who spoke at the i2 beginning of the case. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other Commissioners? Mr. Kyle, any chance of getting a t4 larger aerial view up there? I'd like to bring up the land that was annexed in February of is '03. t6 KYLE: No. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: No. Okay. is KYLE: Sorry Mr. Chairman, the, the presentations were prepared and we don't have a 19 live link to Arc View, so I can't bring in a better map. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right. 21 KYLE: Which properties are you referring to? zz CHAIR BUCHMAN; The 235 acres that we annexed in February, which is going to be 23 almost dir-... Yes, you got it. 63 .. i KYLE: Mr. Chairman, it's, it's this area... 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Going all the way... 3 KYLE: Right here. It's the, the Missions area. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: How far south? s KYLE: Where am I going here? It is immediately adjacent to the south side of the 6 existing Sonoma Ranch East. It's right here. It's on the inside of this blue line. Here's ~ your subject property. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. One of my main concerns, one of my main concerns is, is ~ annexing so much land before we develop what we have. And, and I guess Mr. Gunaji, io I'll call you back. The land within Sonoma Ranch, what percent of that land would you i i say now is developed? And, and I don't need an exact amount. Half of it? Two thirds i z of it? i~ GUNAJI: I would say half of it. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Half of it. is GUNAJI: Yes. i6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. i~ GUNAJI: Probably more than half of it. ig CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Go ahead Mr. Steinborn. ig GUNAJI: I will let Mr. Steinborn answer that. zo STEINBORN: In Sonoma Ranch... I'm sorry, David Steinborn, I'm one of the... 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. zz STEINBORN: Developers. In Sonoma Ranch South, 100 percent of 395 acres are 23 developed. Sonoma Ranch East, 224 acres. All of it but the Del Prado is now 64 ~ i i developed and you've approved that tonight. It'll go to the City Council. When that's 2 approved by the City, there is no further land in Sonoma Ranch East. This is the next 3 piece and Mr. Chairman, you made a really good point earlier on another agenda item, a when you said, "Why do we keep getting these piece-meal annexations?" It takes a, it s takes a lot of time to put together a large enough piece and Mr. Thurston is having that 6 problem in the north. Our agreement with the State Land Office, and I don't know how ~ to point to it here, but our agreement with the State Land Office is if you... Well, why s don't you, okay. Is, as we develop this piece of land and put Mesa Grande in here, we ~ also have to design the zoning and the roadways so that they logically go in to this io piece and articulate in to this piece and articulate in to this piece, so that as we develop z ~ it, it, we don't develop it internally, we develop internally and externally- It's a big iz investment to put this major road in and this major road and this major road and it 13 doesn't work to do it for small pieces of land because the front end cost of aver sizing all is the roads and all the utilities and the few people in the public that are left need to know is that the Developer puts 100 percent of that money in. The City doesn't put any of it in. t6 So where we're at right now is, fortunately, the State was willing to release a piece of i~ land because they saw both the need for the City to keep growing and it was an is opportunity for them to take a piece of Truss Land and convert it to money to benefit the i9 schools in the State of New Mexico. If we could, and we don't have it here, but it we zo looked at a big map of all the State Truss Lands, it was just by a flip of a coin that this zi piece of land wasn't annexed in the major State annexation several years ago because zz there's huge amounts of State Land between here and Highway 70 and east, that are z3 already in the City Limits. So if you look at all of the land of, of the State, this is just a 6s i little island that was left out and we're getting it finished. Thank you very much. Unless 2 you have que-... 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Steinborn. 4 STEINBORN: Unless you've got questions for me? s CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, not at this time. 6 STEINBORN: Thank you very much. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: My concern, again could be unfounded, but I'm looking at, at the s amount of, of zoning, no, the amount of annexation that we're doing in the City. A ~ newspaper article that we read a while ago is talking about 14,000 acres on the west io mesa. I know it doesn't involve, but there's other State Land that two years from now, ii the States say hey, we can, can build some more. When is the last time StafF, that we iz did any type of comprehensive planning on zoning? Oh, there you are. 13 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the City adopted it's Comprehensive Plan in is 1999. It's essentially a 20 year land use. It's a 20 year Comprehensive Plan_ It is addresses land use, utilities, economic development, environment, housing, etc. That is I6 our current policy document that guides our actions. That's why we rewrote the Zoning ~~ Code to comply with that Comprehensive Plan, etc. That's the document that we, that is we look at and within that document, it specifies that, that the impetus toward growth i9 within the City will be toward the east mesa. And so as we are seeing, these proposals 20 that are coming in, they, they largely are, in particular, this particular case, is consistent 21 with the City's Comprehensive Plan for its future growth plan. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. And, and I see on Article, Item number four, where you 23 have mentioned the following goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 66 ~ 1 ~ The Land Use Elements says, "The City shall encourage urban residential development z on the east mesa." It doesn't say it should annex land. Or is that to kind of insinuate it 3 there? 4 KYLE: Well, it, it's certainly to insinuate that as the City grows, those are the growth s patterns we want to see. The, the reality of the situation, and I was speaking to Doctor 6 Ford about it today, is for all intensive purposes, all large parcels of lands capable of 7 doing this scale of development within the existing City Limits, are Master Planned. s They're under development plans and for future growth, the ability to keep ahead of 9 demands, if there's existing stock and, and land uses set up to meet those future needs, io we find ourselves in a position where, where people are annexing lands. So they have ~ ~ lands to do things with. There are very, very little, very, very few parcels of land of any iz size left within the City to develop, that have not already been Master Planned, etc. And ~3 so as Developers like Sonoma Ranch and, and Mr. Phillippou and Mr. Pickle, are i4 reaching the, the endpoint of their existing developments, there's, there's really only one is place to go, and that's to annex land in to the City and actually grow the City. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: But I think that's exactly... What, what bothers me is we have 17 thousands of acres that are Master Planned, but they're not built. And, and then we, we is annex another 300 acres. In a way, aren't we encouraging leap frogging? Aren't we i9 putting more in before the infrastructure is developed? zo KYLE: Mr. Chairman, that's... In certain areas, that could be absolutely true. In this zi particular area where we're continuing to the east, you have existing... I would not say zz we're leap frogging because you've got utilities and City infrastructure right to the z3 boundary of this property, where it's the natural orderly continuation of the City's growth. 67 i There, there could be areas and issues where you don't have City utilities or City 2 infrastructure in the area and annexing that area and having to extend a significant 3 amount of infrastructure to that site, would constitute leap frog development. But at this 4 point, this proposal certainly is not there. Some of the previous annexations we've s looked at, Dos Suenos, even Los Enamorados, even this evenings Rincon Mesa 6 request are adjacent to City infrastructure. The abilities with the City sewers in that ~ area, the ability for the City to provide water service and/or a private utility to provide 8 water service exists. You have paved City streets to that area and, and so I don't, I 9 wouldn't characterize it as a leap frog. I'm actually looking at most of what we're seeing io as very orderly growth of the City. ii CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right. These two a-mails that you presented us with, is this just tz for our information, or should the public be made aware of these? 13 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, those were two a-mails that I was forwarded. Those were e- i4 mails sent to the City from residents within the, I believe the Sonoma Ranch area, with is the concerns largely raises and discussed tonight, which is infrastructure improvements, t6 ways in and out of the area. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. t8 KYLE: Staff provided those, as we always provide the Commission with copies of any i9 written protest or anything we've got. I received those yesterday or this morning and zo that's why you didn't receive them as part of your actual packet. z~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. And you, neither one of these two people were present this zz evening? 23 KYLE: I don't know if they are or not? 68 i CHAIR BUCHMAN: To our knowledge? Steven Stolberg? Or a Joyce Getz, Grotz? z Okay. All right. Commissioners, any other questions? ~ FORD: No other questions. I would move approval of S-04-120. a LUDTKE: Second. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 6 FORD: With, with no... ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: There are no conditions. s LUDTKE: Conditions. 9 FORD: No conditions. io CHAIR BUCHMAN: So now we... Okay, this is on the annexation. Okay, thank you. i i FORD: Yes, the annexation. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call the roll. Commissioner Ludtke? i3 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 1s FORD: Aye. i6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: On what grounds? i~ FORD: Discussion, site visit. ~a CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 19 CAMUNEZ: Aye, findings, discussion. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 21 BINNEWEG: Aye, findings and discussion. 69 • i CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes no, based on the fact (don't feel we need 2 additional annexation until we are com-, we are constructed more in our present areas- 3 Okay, on to the next one. So that one does pass. I'll take a, a motion on the next case. 4 FORD: I move approval of S-04-119, no conditions. s BINNEWEG: Second. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And I'll call the roll. Commissioner Ludtke? ~ LUDTKE: Aye, findings. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 9 FORD: Aye, findings, site visit and discussion. ~o CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? i ~ CAMUNEZ: Aye, findings and discussion. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? i3 BINNEWEG: Aye, findings and discussion. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: And again the Chair will vote no based on the comment, "I don't is think we're ready for the Master Plan or the Annexation." And then the last case, I'll i6 take a motion. i~ LUDTKE: Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Case 22591. is CAMUNEZ: Second it. i9 CHAIR 6UCHMAN: Okay, I'll call the roll. Commissioner Ludtke? 20 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 2t COMMISSIONER FORD: Aye, findings, site visit and discussion. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 23 CAMUNEZ: Aye, findings and discussion. ~ro i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 2 BINNEWEG: Aye, findings and discussion. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair will vote no again based on the reasons that I have 4 stressed before. All three of these do pass. Thank you very much for your time and s consideration. I think these are all the cases that we have before us this evening. ~ FORD: No, no, no. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: No. There's one more? s FORD: We've got another one. 9 BINNEWEG: Yeah, number ten. io CHAIR BUCHMAN: Well, where did that one come from? i i BINNEWEG: We've got number ten. He pulled it off. Someone pulled it off. It's the 12 Preliminary Plat. i3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Ah, that was Mr. Ludtke. is BINNEWEG: Mr. Ludtke. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Yes. 16 BINNEWEG: Look what you did. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Z-04? S-Q4? S-04-132, this is a request for Preliminary ig Plat approval on the property known as Stone Gate Subdivision at Rio Del Rancho, i9 submitted by Underwood Engineering for Mesilla Valley Development. Is the Applicant 20 ready to make the presentation? zi APPLICANT: My name is Eddie Binns. I am involved in the development of Rancho 2z Del Rey. My seats sorer than yours and in foregoing duplications, I would say if z3 someone's got any questions, I'd be glad to answer them and then let's go home. ~i t CHAIR BUCHMAN: We're going to stay longer than you are so, but... z LUDTKE: Staff? 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. a EDDIE BINNS: You want to make a presentation? Well, I was going to let them ask s questions and we go home, you too. 6 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ludtke requested this pulled be pulled off ~ Consent and is requesting the presentation by Staff, so... s LUDTKE: Go for it. a HARPER: No problem. This is Case S-04-132. It is a request for Preliminary Plat io approval of Stone Gate Subdivision at Rancho Del Rey. This is the Phase I of the i t Stone Gate Subdivision. The property is located off Roadrunner Parkway and Settler's 12 Pass, Or the north, generally at the northeast corner of Roadrunner Parkway and ~3 Settler's Pass and I'll show you the overhead in a second. It is approximately 14.9 i4 acres in size and the number of proposed lots is 42. The zoning is R-1 a, currently. This is vicinity map shows you the subject property location in red. This is currently i6 Roadrunner Parkway, down in this location as it ends at U.S. 70 or Bataan Memorial i~ east and west. It is scheduled to be built through and passed by this development on i$ the western edge here. You can't see it here, but you'll get a better look at it on the i9 aerial photograph and on the plat itself. This property is located east of the Pines zo developments and the Settler's Ridge developments here. And this is Settler's Pass zi and this the turn, this is Settler's Pass, which will also be extended for this development 22 and meet up later with Rinconada Boulevard. Aerial photo, once again, this, this red z3 extension here is just kind of trying to show you where Settler's Pass is going to be. ~z .~ ~ ~ u t You can almost see a grading mark here on the aerial, as well as a grading mark for z Roadrunner here. So this is the corner. The property is located off the corner back 3 here. Settler's Pass will be built and extended to allow for access to this first phase of a this subdivision. This is a look at the Preliminary Plat. This is Settler's Pass as it ends s Curren-, currently it ends here, I believe. This is the extension they will be building 6 across what is going to be Roadrunner Parkway, allowing for access here. Settler's ~ Pass will be built all the way to this location on the eastern side. I believe Phase II of s this development is just to the east of this and of course there'll be an extension of ~ Settler's Pass at that time as well. This does fall within the perimeters of the approved io Rancho Del Rey Master Plan for density and use. That same Master Plan, I'll go back, ii does outline proposed improvements for both Settler's Pass and Roadrunner Parkway 12 in the future. Upon the completion of the, I believe the Pines Unit $, which is one of the 13 last units of the Pines to be completed over here, the western half of Roadrunner ~4 Parkway will be built along the fronting portion of Mr. Binns' property. Upon completion is of several other parcels within the Rancho Del Rey area, including Stone Gate I and II, i6 and the Eagles I and II, the eastern half of Roadrunner will be built. That is part of the 17 approved Master Plan. So we're looking at a coup-, construction of the western half of is Roadrunner along this area, upon the completion of the Pines Unit $, which is coming ~9 up fairly quickly, and I'll let Mr. Binns speak to that a little bit if you have questions 20 specifically about that development. The DRC has reviewed this plat and is 21 recommending approval with the following condition that the Applicant work directly with 22 Public Works Staff to address any outstanding drainage design concerns before 73 P k ~. i submittal of a Final Plat. With that, that concludes my presentation. If you have any z specific questions, I'd by happy to try and answer them or defer to the applicant. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Harper. Mr. Ludtke? a LUDTKE: I guess I wanted to know what the... What, what are the... Are there any s outstanding drainage design problems here? 6 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ludtke, I'd defer... 7 LUDTKE: (Inaudible)... s HARPER: I'd defer to the Applicant's Engineer. They have discussion, they've had a discussions with Public Works about the specifics of that. So I'd let Mr. Underwood io answer that question. ii APPLICANT: I'm Larry Underwood, Underwood Engineering, Engineer for this project. iz To answer your questions, yes, Staff has not completed the review for the drainage i3 report. They asked for more time and we're working with Staff in getting that. All good is questions resolved, but we have submitted a Drainage Report and they are reviewing it. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Underwood. i6 LUDTKE: That's, that's going to be a condition on this one? 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. is LUDTKE: (Inaudible)... i9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. 20 LUDTKE: (Inaudible)... 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, work with Public Works. Okay. 22 LUDTKE: I don't like to really pass things on Consent if there's a condition. I want to 23 know what that condition is. 74 M } , • i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Very good. Okay. Good paint, okay. 2 LUDTKE: I'll make a motion to... 3 FORD: Now, now let me ask Eddie a question first. 4 LUDTKE: Oh, I'm sorry. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, go ahead. 6 FORD: Eddie, I'm going to... Get up and exercise yourself (inaudible). ~ BINNEWEG: God, (inaudible) telling everybody what to do tonight. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right. All right. 9 FORD: This has no bearing on it whatsoever, just curiosity. Why did you start to go io out in the middle of that property far this development? You got lost out there some i i place? 12 BINNS: Yes and no. If you look at these four corners around that major intersection, i~ those four corners are zoned for other uses rather than residential, i.e., church's, private i4 schools, offices, those types of things. is FORD: Okay. i6 BINNS: So that we are going passed those parcels, then the Stone Gate Subdivision t~ will be four different phases, about 200 houses in this general area. The Eagle i$ Subdivision is another couple of hundred houses that will be on these ridge areas to the i9 north of this and they are currently in the review process and you'll be seeing some of 20 those here shortly. 21 FORD: Like I said, just curious, to kind of... It's a little glob... zz BINNS: Right, but... z3 FORD: Right out in the middle of it there. ~s . i r. i BINNS: But it was to get away from that busy intersection because no one wants a z house sitting right on the intersection of Missouri and Telshor. 3 FORD: You've learned how to plan. 4 BINNS: That's comparable. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Enough fraternizing with the builders. Okay. Do you have a 6 question also? Or you want to continue with your motion? You made a motion, okay. 7 Is there a second? s FORD: Second. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. I will call the roll. ~o HARPER: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, point of order. You want to ask if there was i i anybody in the public that would like to speak on this case. I don't believe that was 12 made, an offer was made to the public. i3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: We missed that. i4 HARPER: No sir. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: I apologize. Is there anyone...? Yes sir, please. 16 MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Mr. Chairman, my name is Richard Gordenier. I live at the 17 end of Settler's Pass there. Can you tell me, or...? Mr. Binns, can you tell me how is many houses, roughly, when the development is completed, that we're going to have up 19 there? With different phases. You mentioned, I guess Phase I. 20 BINNS: In the Stone Gate Subdivision? 2i RICHARD GORDENIER: Right. And then you mentioned something else up in the... 22 BINNS: Stone Gate Subdivision will have a couple hundred houses in there. The 23 Eagles will be a couple hundred houses in there. 76 ~ ~' 7. i GORDENIER: All right. So a total of roughly 400? 2 BINNS: 400, in that section. There will be an additional housing in this other acreage 3 that will be processed at a later date. 4 GORDENIER: And you have no date on that yet? s BINNS: (Inaudible)... 6 GORDENIER: Okay. Thank you. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. s LUDTKE: And then the, that south, that southwest, southwest of that intersection is, is 9 R, R-3, right there. io BINNS: This is R-3 here. ~i LUDTKE: Right behind his could be apartments in there. iz BINNS: That's correct. i3 LUDTKE: Got that? is CHAIR BUCHMAN: All that undeveloped land, I rest my case. All right, we have a is motion. Is there a... Well first, a mo-... Anybody else in the audience, please to ib question this? I apologize. Don't laugh at me. There is a motion. Is there a second to i~ hear this? is FORD: I had seconded. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, I will ca-, now call the roll. Commissioner Ludtke? 20 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 2z FORD: Aye, findings, discussion, site visit. z3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? ~~ ~.~ i CAMUNEZ: Findings, discussion, aye. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Can I have your vote? 3 CAMUNEZ: Oh, aye. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? ~ { » s BINNEWEG: Aye, findings and discussion. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes aye, based on findings and discussion. ~ Thank you Mr. Binns. ~ FORD: I didn't, I didn't hear you and I (inaudible)... 9 LUDTKE: Thank you Mr. Binns for your patience. io CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ha-, okay. Next we have.... Is there any other ix business to be brought before the Commission this evening? Is there any public 12 participation? Is there anybody from the public that wishes to say something new? i3 Okay. Before the Staff Comments, I wish to make a couple of comments. Mr. is Jacquez? Hello? Public participation, two months ago we had a person take a case off is Consent, just because, like myself, she thought there was too many, too much zoning i~ and too many new zonings being done. As we have this listed here, Public i7 Participation, Robert's Rules of Orders doesn't say anything on this, but am I allowed to is lead the public by saying, "Is there anything new", because this particular woman, and I i9 don't know if you remember it, but she went up and she went through all the hearing, or 20 all the particulars on one case that we heard already. And I don't think that's our intent 21 to let people bring it up again. Is it? 22 JACQUEZ: Commissioner Buchman and, and the rest of the Commissioners, my 23 understanding of the Public Participation at the end of the meeting is basically that it's in ~s r . . ~ its general most broad term, let the public comment on any issue they want and in, in 2 that case, I know she was talking about a case that was already discussed. The, the 3 purpose of that, I think is moved at that point because the Commission has already 4 made a decision on it. So you can't go back and, and... s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Right. ~ JACQUEZ: Revote. You, you... I mean, under presumed to Robert's Rules or Order, 7 you could make a motion to reconsider that case based on it, but, you're, you're not s required to do that. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: But, I, I'm concerned, and again hypothetical, three or four people io at the end of the meeting want to keep going over the same thing that have already 11 been approved or denied. Do we let them? 12 JACQUEZ: You, you can limit it. Yes. You can... 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, I can limit the amount of time. i4 JACQUEZ: Yes sir. 1s CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right. i6 JACQUEZ: Yes sir. You can't let them just go on until the wee hours of the night. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. is JACQUEZ: You can tell them, you have 3 minutes to... 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 20 JACQUEZ: To give your public comments and, and then cut them off. 2i CHAIR BUCHMAN: So we, we do have to let them... 22 JACQUEZ: Yes. Yes. 79 U ~ r i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you. One more comment I'd like 2 to make. Mr. Kyle. And I know Mr. Ford commented on it. Thank you fior your report on 3 the end of year action report. It, it is nice like I requested 39 cases and there are only 2 a that they voted against us on. But you will... s BINNEWEG: I have a question on... ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'm not done, just a minute. ~ BINNEWEG: Hey, I have something. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: In the packet, are you going to give this to us, you said in monthly ~ report. Will you give us a packet report or just kind of a general like this at the, put on io our desk? Or have you even thought that far yet? 11 KYLE: We... Our, our intention, at least after the discussion we had last month, would iz be prepare something kind of similar to what you have and just include it in your packet. t3 Now... i4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. ~s KYLE: What I didn't want to do and you tell me what you want, I felt, especially, I didn't i~ want to go back and give you 39 case abstracts. I figured, hey, what you're really i~ interested in is the ones that you were reversed on. So, what do you want? Do you is want us, because we will now, we're going to be bringing these to you on a monthly i9 basis now as part of your P & Z packets. Do you want us to give you the case abstracts zo for everything that occurred the previous month with the action? Or, or really do you 21 just want to be apprised when something goes contrary to your recommendation? z2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: In the past, we received a brief abstract and a decision from z3 Council with the case number and then a brief. Really, that's all I want to know. so h i' :r • i KYLE: Then basically what I gave you on the two cases, is the case abstract and 2 then... ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. a KYLE: Just the action. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, just that. 6 KYLE: That's not a problem. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. s KYLE: And is that format okay, just as a quick StafF Report? ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: That's fine by me. Now wait a minute, wait a minute, io Commissioner Binneweg? ii BINNEWEG: No, no, I had a, a, just a question about how Council came about a t2 decision? The first one on La Colonia there? What did...? Council decided not to i3 change the zoning. Did they make the woman take a door out and make it a single- t4 family house or what? is KYLE: Well what it... Is that same... i6 BINNEWEG: That's what my point of view is. ~~ KYLE: That's kind of the next step. They denied the zone change request. As such, i$ it's in illegal duplex on the property and as such, we have essentially waited... She is indicated to me that she was going to appeal to District Court. We're going to let... We 20 essentially let that window run. It's a 30 day appeal period to District Court, not 15, like 21 it is from you to Council. So, we're going to let that appeal window run. I think it's up by z2 now and basically, yeah. Staff will have to advise her that she needs to remove the z3 kitchen facilities of one of those units, so essentially it functions as, as asingle-family s~ • ,. ~. 1 dup-, or asingle-family residence. And that will be our next step, is to advise her that 2 that's what she needs to do to comply with the zoning, unless she can provide us 3 documentation to the contrary so that we can legally document the duplex. Now we 4 certainly couldn't when we looked at it in terms of a four-plex. We could find no building s permits for it. So, another option that she does have, given the fact that it is 3 pieces of ~ land, if she's creative, she could replat it and essentially keep those two dwellings, as ~ long as she can meet the other requirements of the lot. But, so she does have a couple s of options, but most likely, at least Staff will be advising her that she needs to remove 9 one of those kitchen units so it does become asingle-family residence. 1o CHAIR BUCHMAN: Wow, okay. Great. 11 BINNEWEG: Thanks. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Anybody... Anykhing else on the... 13 FORD: The only thing that... Personally, I would like to see is a tracking, so that we 14 know these cases are moving forward or have moved forward and mainly just the action 1s of the Council. I, I don't care far a detailed explanation of their thought process. If there 16 is such... 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I, I think we all feel the same way, yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. I 1s have one more thing before we turn over for Staff Comments. Mrs. Ochs. I, I'd like to 19 address the situation of our minutes. And, and I don't know what happened this time, 20 but I'd like to bring to your attention and Staff knows about this, problems we had in the 21 past. And I find the minutes, to me, to be a very, very important part of my packet. I 22 came on this Board in January of 2002. And from January 2002, until September 2003, 23 which was 20 months, 20 different meetings, we had 6 times, just like now, with no sz ;. , ! ~ i minutes whatsoever. We had 4 occasions where we had minutes from 2 months ago, 2 but no minutes for the last month. We had 2 times in that 20 months when we had 3 minutes from 3 months. Three months ago, 2 months ago, and last month. We had 4 4 times with minutes from the last month and the 2 months ago and 4 times were correct. s Okay, so that was 10 times in the 20 months that basically we had minutes from the ~ month before. Since October 3, until November 14th, 13 minutes, 13 meetings, we've ~ had the minutes every time. So 23 out of 33 meetings, 65 percent of the time, we've had 8 the minutes. Why can't we have them every meeting? I don't know who's job it is to a track it? What happens? I, I just don't want to come to a meeting like I did tonight. io There was questions that I would like to have read about the zonings from the last ii meeting that I couldn't read about. Were they passed? I don't know? I am so strong iz about this and I feel so strong because it, it's, it's a liaison that we have with Staff. 13 We're volunteers. The public doesn't like us when we vote things dawn. We don't have is anybody but Staff and if Staff's not there to help me, I'm not going to attend the 1s meetings. So I'm going to give you this notice and I hope for the rest, maybe another t6 Board Member or two feels the same way. If I come to a meeting in the future and I z~ don't have minutes, I will not attend that meeting. I can see no reason when the fact is that the New Mexico law requires the minutes be provided within 10 days. So I just t9 wanted to make you aware that to me, the minutes are important and to see if you could zo provide us with the minutes in the future? 21 CHRISTINE OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Let me assure you, we do understand how z2 important the minutes are. Certainly you can't expect people to remember, you know, 23 the details and the minutes provide that information you need to move forward. This 83 ~ .:. ~. ~ was a City mistake. I think we've been doing very good in the recent past. We, in 2 shifting jobs around, because we do have a vacancy, we missed something. It was 3 completely our mistake. I apologize, but we have corrected and I am confident that, that 4 we will have the minutes on time as we have in the past. We are refilling the position of s the vacancy in, in doing the minutes and, and we just got overwhelmed with the 6 workload and not having staff. And, and we let it fall through the cracks and that will not ~ happen again. We have created a lot of safeguard so that we can make sure that, that $ happens. So, you will have the minutes and again, I apologize. We do know how ~ important the minutes are to you, but they're also very important to the Applicant's and io to, to the public who can't come here to be able to look at those minutes and get caught i i upon what's happening. So, we will do much better and I'm confident that we can. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 13 CAMUNEZ: May I add something to that please? is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. is CAMUNEZ: And the minutes will be verbatim? i6 OCHS: Yes, we'll do the P & Z... The, the minutes of this Board are verbatim and if ~~ you'd like to change that, we will continue to do verbatim. i$ CAMUNEZ: That's not... Thank you. i9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other comments on that? 20 FORD: I, I second your concern. 2i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, okay. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, Staff 22 Comments? You don't want to say anything? Mrs. McCarson? We haven't heard from 23 you all night. $4 r .•y r • ~ MCCARSON: I only have one tiny thing. You haven't seen Commissioner Sanchez in 2 the last couple of months and we did receive word from him. He's still out of the country 3 in Columbia on military leave. He sends his best and holiday wishes and is expected 4 back in January. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: So under those circumstances when he misses three meetings, h 6 has checked with you. There is no need to do anything. He is allowed to miss ~ meetings then. s MCCARSON: No, that's right. There's an exception, I believe, it's under military leave. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. io MCCARSON: And out of the country and he did, he was thinking he would be back this ~ ~ time, but his leave was extended in Columbia. So... iz CHAIR BUCHMAN; Thank you. i3 MCCARSON: But as long as he's checking up with us, I feel confident with that. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. Yes, I have no problem with that at all. I move. ~s CAMUNEZ: Me too. i6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. It is 8, oh my gosh, 8:43, the meeting is a urned. Thank 1"T you very much. is 20 CHAIRPERSON zi 22 1~n . ~ f~ V 23 RECORDING SECRETARY ss i ~ ~ ~.