Loading...
11/16/2004~~ + • ~ • i REGULAR MEETING z OF THE 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 FOR THE s CITY OF LAS CRUCES 6 City Council Chambers ~ November 1fi, 2004 s fi:00 p.m. 9 ~o BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 1 i Bruce Buchman, Chairman iz William Ludtke i3 Quentin Ford i4 Elizabeth Camunez is STAFF PRESENT: i~ Brian Harper, Planner ~ ~ Richard Jacquez, Legal is Steve Archuleta, Fire Department i~ Atilana Orozco, Recording Secretary 20 Robert Kyle, Planner zi Lani R. McCarson, Planner 2z Karen Bennett, Planner '. 1 DISCLAIMER 2 These minutes are prepared verbatim to the best of the recording secretary's knowledge and 3 notes taken. 4 s CHAIR BRUCE BUCHMAN: We'll be starting in a couple of minutes. There's agenda's 6 on the back if anybody wants to pick one up. Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I'd ~ like to call to order the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting for the month of s November. On our agenda tonight, we have two annexation plats, one preliminary plat, a two final plats, two master plans and two initial zonings. The first thing we need to do, is 1o we need to approve the minutes from the October 26th, meeting, and I think we all have 11 two pages to add to the minutes. These were corrections. I also have a couple of 12 corrections to make on page number 11, line 23, let's see, or would this be the area... I 13 want to add the words, "facing away from the homes." So we're going to add in "away 14 from". On page 13, line 11, Commissioner Binneweg's statement, and I talked to her 1s about this. We need to add, "from a lay off of the land"_ So we're going to add, "of the 16 land'". And, any other Commissioners have any corrections to the minutes? 17 QUENTIN FORD: Mr. Chairman, I move the minutes be approved with those 1s corrections. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 20 ELIZABETH CAMUNEZ: I second it. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, I guess I've got to call the roll. Commissioner Ford? 22 FORD: Aye. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 24 WILLIAM LUDTKE: Aye. z ~ ~ i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 2 CAMUNEZ: Aye. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes aye. On the agenda tonight we have four 4 items on the consent agenda. The consent agenda basically means these are items s that have been presented to staff. There are no negative comments_ Everything has ~ been approved. There has been no negative input from the citizens and they will be ~ approved as they're presented, unless somebody from the audience or a Commissioner s wishes to take them off the consent agenda and have them discussed. So I will briefly 9 give the highlights of each item on the consent agenda. If anybody in the audience io wishes it to be removed, I need you to raise your hand and state your name and then i i we'll discuss that item. The first item on the consent agenda is Case S-03-014, and if 12 you don't have an agenda, they're on the screens on the side. This is your request for a i3 final plat approval of Mesa Village Subdivision. Is there anybody in the audience that i4 wishes this to be removed from the consent agenda? Hearing no one, Commissioners? is This item will stay on the consent agenda. Items... The next three items all apply to the i6 Mission Santa Clara annexation. There are three cases here. I'll read them as one i~ because with the Subdivision Code requires the Planning and Zoning Commission hear is the annexation requesting its components in one case, but separate action taken on the i9 master plan annexation and initial zoning request. If they stay on the consent agenda, 20 we don't have to approve them once they all will be approved together. So Case 5-04- 21 106 is a request for annexation of 40 acres in the Mission Santa Clara area. Is there 22 anybody that wishes to have this item removed from the consent agenda? Okay, so the 23 annexation goes through. Case S-04-107, is a request for the master plan, the basic 3 3 i over line plan of this area. Anybody want that removed? Okay, Commissioners, I'm a sorry, I've got to come back to you. Case S-04-106, any Commissioners want that 3 removed? Okay. Case S-04-107? All right. And then the initial zoning for the same a area, the same 40 acres, is Case 22589. Anybody that wants to question that zoning? s Commissioners? All right, those three will stay in the consent agenda. That's one, two, s three and four. So all four items that are on the consent agenda will remain there and ~ that... s FORD: Moving with that action, I would move that the agenda be approved. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? io CAMUNEZ: Second it. ii CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. I'll call the roll. Commissioner Ford? 12 FORD: Aye. t3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? is LUDTKE: Aye. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? i6 CAMUNEZ: Aye. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the board, the Chair votes aye. Very good, so the agenda is stands as presented. We've got one, two, three, four. New business. And again, we t9 have three items that are submitted as one. And again, I'll read this. The City Code 20 requires the Planning and Zoning Commission hear the annexation requests and its 2t components in one case. So we'll hear everything at once and then we'll vote on them 2a individually afterwards. Okay. So this is a request for annexation submitted by 4 ~ ~ i Diamond Land Surveying for Northminster Presbyterian Church, Case S-04-104. Is the 2 applicant ready? Okay. ~ BRIAN HARPER: Mr. Chairman, real quick, I just want to remind you, we need a a motion to suspend the rules, to hear the cases together and a vote on that, before we s can actually hear them all together. 6 FORD: So moved. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Second? s CAMUNEZ: Second. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: All in favor? io ALL BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. i i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Harper. Okay, applicant, would you please step i2 forward and present all three of them. i3 APPLICANT: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good evening, my name is John is Carmody. I'm with Gunaji- Klement. I came to present the Northminster Annexation and is master plan and initial zoning. What you're looking at up there, yes with the lights, I i6 hope you can see. t~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Hold on just a second. is JOHN CARMODY: Okay. i9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. For now, yeah. 20 CARMODY: Okay. What, what we have is 2 parcels of land here, existing uses. The 21 City limits runs right down through the middle of the building and the church and the 22 property on the south side, right the gentleman's front door. We wanted to clean up the z3 City limits boundary, so that's why we're here tonight. The property had no zoning. I, I s i think maybe it was A-2, excuse me. As you can see, I have an improvement survey of 2 the property. The white line, the dashed line, is the existing City, excuse me, the 3 existing City limits line. We have proposed to move it all the way to the west on the, on a the boundary. At the same time, we are requesting, because the process, wants us to s do a master plan. All of these uses are existing and we also have submitted a zoning 6 plat. We are requesting a 3, a C-3 zoning for the church because of the property size ~ and on the southern piece of property, R-1 a, it's a residence. He isn't using it for a s business and I will answer any questions you might have. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, thank you. Mr. Harper. io HARPER: Mr. Chairman, thank you, Commissioners. This is, as the applicant said, ~ t Case numbers are S-04-104, 5-04-105 and 22588. This is a request for annexation for iz approximately; the annexation portion being 1.905 acres, roughly, in size, for a total, the i3 total property area is 6.05 acres, into the corporate limits of the City of Las Cruces. This ~4 property is located along Valley Drive, just north of Mayfield High School, and I'll show is you the overhead in a second. It is on the northern end of the City limits. Proposed ~6 zoning districts by the applicant are R-1 a, and C-3C. On the vicinity map on the screen, i~ as you can see, this is Hoagland here, North Valley Drive, City limit line in blue, is bisecting the property here, the property in yellow. An aerial photo shows you that, that z~ City limit line does in fact cut right through the church, the building, the structure itself zo and right across the front portion of the house, here on the southern property. The 21 applicant is seeking to, here's some site photos. The applicant is seeking to annex the zz 1.905 acres that is outside the boundaries of the City of Las Cruces and we're not sure z3 if that was a mapping error or an annexation error previously, but the applicant would 6 ~ ~ i like to correct that error. The City's all on board with making that correction. There is 2 multi-jurisdictional issues on one property now, as it stands. But currently the City, the 3 portions inside the City limits are zoned A-2, which is no longer, that's a zoning category a that no longer exists under the 2001 Zoning Code. So in many ways, this is also a s clean up of the, of the, of the zoning issues that the property has. The annexation plat ~ on the overhead shows you the portion, a hatch line portion that's being annexed, here. ~ The zone changes on the property, specifically, are for C-3C, on the northern end, s where the church is located, and R-1a, on the southern end, where the house is ~ located. DRC has reviewed this request, as has staff, and the recommendations are for io approval for the annexation plat, with no conditions, approval with no conditions for the i i master plan and approval with no conditions for the initial zoning. The applicant has 12 also provided in their power point, I believe, a list of the prohibited uses in the C-3C, at i3 their request. That will be available as well if you'd like to see it. I can pull the is applicant's power point back up. If you have any questions from staff about the write up ~5 or the presentation, I'd be happy to answer them. i6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Let's turn on the lights. At this time, we'll turn the i~ microphone over to the, the audience. Anybody that has questions, are welcome to ask is questions. The, the way we try to limit this, is each person is allowed about 3 minutes i9 and we ask you that if you do have questions, we not get the same repetition over and zo over again. If you do have a question, please come to the microphone; state your name ai clearly, because we do have to record these minutes verbatim. So is there anybody in zz the audience that has a question concerning any one of these three cases? Nobody? If ~ ~ i you don't speak now, we, we won't come back to you. Only chance. Okay. 2 Commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Ford. 3 FORD: Typically, I'm not real clear on the ownership of the entirety. Is all of this a property owned by the church? The entire plat? s GEORGE RAWSON: I'm George Rawson, I'm an elder with the session of the 6 Northminster Presbyterian Church and yes, we own the entire piece of property. It was ~ bought as one piece of property and the mistake was made in about 1984, or 1982. s When we bought the property, we didn't realize that it was sold to us as a split piece of 9 property right on, on the County and the City lines. But we do own everything, yes. On io the 4 acre piece where the church is. ii FORD: Just out of curiosity, from whom was that purchased? Do you remember? 12 George, you've been here long enough to know. You should know. z3 RAWSON: I should know Mr. Ford. I've actually looked at the deed and I wanted to i4 say Tashiro, but it was one of the farmers in the area at the time. is FORD: That wasn't part of the old Mayfield property farms? i6 RAWSON; No, it was not. i~ FORD: Okay. And, I'm just curious, at that point in time, were there building permits is had to be issued or were there any? I'm just... To me, it's kind of unusual that the, i9 the... 20 RAWSON: Well... 21 FORD: The City Limits could have gone through a building, or a building being built on 22 each of the City Limits. s ~. r i RAWSON: Well, the property was bought at one point in time and it was the z Quesenberry annexation... 3 FORD: Okay. a RAWSON: Mr. Carmody just reminded me of, but what happened was, when we built s the first section there, it was built entirely in the County and it went through the... That's 6 when we discovered we had this little issue. And, it was built entirely in the County and ~ permitted in the County. And then we built the sanctuary, the largest parts on the other s side. We've got the building permit from the City of Las Cruces. All the utilities are a served by the City of Las Cruces too. So it's been kind of strange. So we thought it's io time now to get this cleaned up. i i FORD: I agree with you on that one. I was out looking at it this afternoon and it just... I tz couldn't visualize how it might have happened or I couldn't remember when or how? t3 That's all I have. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other Commissioners? I have a couple of questions. Mr. is Carmody? i6 CARMODY: Yes. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Why did you say you wanted the C-3C zoning? You mentioned is property size? i9 CARMODY: Property size. I believe the C-2 zoning and the 4 acres is a little bit too 20 large for the requirements on it. We talked with staff and that was... It won't meet the 21 C-2 requirements for it. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Staff also made some notes in here and I kind of go along with 23 them, along that area, and we had a lot of people that were unhappy with the zoning in 9 i that area, why couldn't we get by with say, an O-2 zoning, because that would z accommodate a church? ~ RAWSON: Mr. Chair, the churches now are going to small book stores, we do a counseling, we lease space to people who do family programs. We also have several ~ different events that we want to start doing with churches, rather than just as an activity ~ that we might see on Sundays. So, recreational activities and things like that. So, by ~ the mere fact that we're 4 acres, it's, it's pretty hard to do those types of things, a coffee s shop, etc., in an O-1/O-2 zone. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: But, in an O-2, all those items, I think would fit in there. What are io your long range plans for this property? i i RAWSON: Well, our long range plans are probably to move. The facility, we've talked iz to some other churches that might be interested in purchasing the facility if we can i~ straighten things out, but we may move. But, the long range plans are to try to sell it to i4 another church organization that... We have about 6 that are interested now that they ~s want the flexibility to do different things in spaces like 4 acres. As you can imagine, we i6 only 11 thousand feet on it and there's lots of room for expansion. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: But as soon as we make it a C-3, and they put a for sale sign on it, zs then it goes anywhere else they want. i9 RAWSON: Well that might be true, but... 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And what I'm thinking of, is my limiting the zoning to an O-2, we're 21 enforcing better procedure for the City by the Zoning Code and letting you retain all the 22 needs that you need. I feel there is no need for a higher than a C-3, because as soon z3 as you get the zoning, a for sale goes up and you move your property somewhere else, io • M i yes, it would be nice if another church goes in there, but I'm not comfortable in any way, 2 giving this a C-3, along that area. 3 RAWSON: Have you seen our proposed conditions? a CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. s RAWSON: We have C-3, with conditions, and... 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. I, I'm not, I'm not comfortable with those conditions. They ~ seem to be misplaced or lost. I think the O-2, gives you the same conditions that way. s RAWSON: Well, the problem with 0-2, if I might, Mr. Chair, is that it restricts on the 9 size of the... If, for example, if I wanted a coffee shop or a book store, I can only go io 1,500 to 2,000 feet. But happens if I want a $3 thousand dollar, or a 3,000 square foot i z Christina Book Store? I have 4 acres. I have plenty of parking. iz CHAIR BUCHMAN: Then in that case, you come back to us. That's my feelings. Any i~ other questions Commissioners? is FORD: Kind of back of what I was asking you earlier. The present property is rental is property? i6 RAWSON: No sir. That property is used as a church right now. ~~ FORD: I mean, the house that's there is it? i~ RAWSON: The house is owned by an individual who lives on that property. t9 FORD: It's not owned by the church? 20 RAWSON: No, it isn't. We were asked by City staff to, to see if we could bring that 21 parcel in on annexation. That wasn't our idea. As a matter of fact, the church paid the 22 fee. The church paid for all of the engineering and surveying because the applicant, the ~~ ~~ ~ ! ~ i neighbor was not willing to do that and so, by direction of staff, we did that on our own z to try to help. 3 FORD: When that piece of property is proposed and the zoning would, if it goes as C-3, 4 would be a C-3 property. s RAWSON: Na, it's R-1 a. And it used to be used as a trucking headquarters there, as a 6 matter of fact. ~ FORD: I guess I misread this. I, I interpreted as it being the whole... It's what you s have bounded in yellow there, was one proposal and it would be one zoning. 9 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, if I might clear that up, just real quick? Commissioner Ford, io no, it's the southern... It's about 2 acres on the southern half, is R-1 a, the proposal for i i that house and the northern 4 acres would be the church and that's their proposed C- iz 3C. I just want to clear up a couple of things real quick. The coffee shop idea, within an i3 O-2, if it was for the church use only, or as part of the church's use, then it would be is allowed within the church itself. But, if it was an open commercial business, you know, is to the public, it would not be allowed in the O-2. There is no size limitation in an O-2, i6 though, on the business size. So the 1,500 square feet or that number that was put out i~ there is... That's a limitation in the O-1 zoning district, not in the O-2 zoning district. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. i9 FORD: Brian, before you... Basically, for a church use, almost anything goes in the 20 zoning, doesn't it? 21 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ford, I, I believe there are some limitations for 2z where church's can go basically. But there are many, there are many categories that 23 allow for churches, yes. That would be all, except the manufacturing. iz .~ i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke. 2 LUDTKE: I think the reason I'm going to be opposed to that C zoning is that I want the 3 opporkunity to have the owner, whoever that would be, to come in and request that a zoning change and... So, I'm not really in favor of it at this time. I want to take a look at s who's going to buy that property and what their intention is far that property. I don't feel 6 like if it's going to be a church, there's plenty of zoning there that can be used, other ~ than a C-3. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 9 CAMUNEZ: I have a question. io LUDTKE: And one more thing I wanted to ask is, why the property owner of that home i i isn't here this evening, isn't concerned about this zoning change? There's no concern t2 at all? i3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Go ahead. is CARMODY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I talked with the gentleman on quite a few is occasions. He told me that he would be willing to participate, as long as it didn't cost i6 him anything and as long as he didn't have to spend any time at it. We explained to him i~ what we were doing. He signed the application and as far as he knew, that's all he had is to do. He was... i9 LUDTKE: I'm just going to... 20 CARMODY: He was in favor of it. z~ LUDTKE: He's aware that he's going to come into the City and his real estate taxes zz might be (inaudible)? z3 CARMODY: He signed the application sir. Yes. i~ ~ ~ i CAMUNEZ: I have a question. You had stated earlier that a trucking business was z being run out of that residence. So, if you, if you were to change this to C-3, then that 3 means that he could continue that trucking business, correct? a CARMODY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, no that isn't correct because we are not s requesting 3C/C-3 zoning for that piece of property on the south side. If we could go 6 back to the zoning plat, there we go, you had it. Okay, that'll work. ~ CAMUNEZ: I see. s CARMODY: It's the property on the south side, the R-1 a. He wouldn't be allowed to do 9 that and he understands that also. He told me he hadn't run his trucking outfit for a io couple of years. i t CAMUNEZ: Thank you. iz CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other questions Commissioners? to that case... Go ahead. i~ FORD: We need a motion correct? i4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, we need to entertain a motion on the case. is FORD: I would so move. 16 CAMUNEZ: Second it. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, I'll call... is HARPER: Mr., Mr... i9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, now we have to... zo HARPER: We have to un-suspend the rules and vote on it separately, if in fact we're zi going to vote. z2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Un-suspend the rules and we're go to vote first. z3 FORD: That's, that's what I meant. is ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. z HARPER: Yeah, and I also want to point out, you can make a recommendation for a ~ different zone. a CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. s HARPER: As opposed to... 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: When it comes to it. ~ HARPER: Okay, I just wanted to make sure. a CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yeah. Okay, the first is Case S-04-104, which you have 9 approved, which is the annexation. io FORD: Yes. i i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Commissioner Ford? ~z FORD: I would move, move approval of that, let's get it on the (inaudible). t3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, an what grounds? i4 FORD: Move approval of S-04-104, for annexation. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Okay, and you second it? i~ CAMUNEZ: I second it. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Now I'm calling for the vote. is FORD: Aye. i9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: On what grounds? You remember that. 20 FORD: Okay, this is on to remove it so we can consider the... 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Oh, no it's already been removed. Didn't, didn't we just... 22 FORD: We voted. Okay, okay. 23 LUDTKE: We're voting on the annexation. zs ,. 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, we're voting on the annexation now. z FORD: Aye, based on site visit, information and discussion. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Very good. Commissioner Ludtke? a LUDTKE: Aye, on findings. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 6 CAMUNEZ: Aye, findings and site visit. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes aye, on findings, site visit. Okay, now Case s S-04-105, is a request for the master plan approval. a FORD: Mr. Chairman, I move approval of Case S-04-105, as presented to us. to CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 11 CAMUNEZ: Second it. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And I'll call the roll. Commissioner Ford? 13 FORD: Aye, based on site visit, discussion and other information provided. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? is LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 17 CAMUNEZ: Aye, findings and site visit. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes aye, based on findings and site visit. Case 19 22588, now this is a request for the zoning change. 20 FORD: Mr. Chairman, I move approval of 22588, as presented to us, with the condition 21 that the zoning be O-2. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a secand? 23 CAMUNEZ: Second it. 16 ~ ~ i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. I will call the roll on Case 22588, with the condition that the z zoning will be O-2. Commissioner Ford? ~ FORD: Aye, based on site visit, discussion and other information. a CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? s LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? ~ CAMUNEZ: Aye, site visit and findings. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes aye, based on site visit and findings. That 9 passes, all three of them pass, with the one change on the zoning. io HARPER: Mr. Chairman, could, could I make a point real quick? On the master plan i i that you just went over. iz CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. i3 HARPER: It calls out on the master plan that the proposed uses are commercial. So, it is would probably be, since you made a vote on the zoning for O-2, that we revisit the is master plan or you think about revisiting the master plan. The one you approved, i~ currently calls up the uses as commercial. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: It contains a single family home site... is HARPER: If you'll look in your packet under the, there is a sheet called the ig Northminster Master Plan in your packet. If you look at that sheet, you'll see that based 20 on parcel 1 and 2, both have proposed uses called out on that and on parcel 1, the 21 proposed uses are C-3. That does not... 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, hold on a minute, where, where are you at? 23 HARPER: Within your packet... i~ • ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. z HARPER: And I don't have a page number. Northminster Master Plan packet page. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 4 HARPER: If you look on parcel 1, the proposed uses are C-3. That would not match s up with the recommended zoning you just... With the conditioned you attached on the 6 zoning with the O-2. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. s HARPER: The master plan should go hand and hand with the zoning. So, I would ~ recommend that you think about... io LUDTKE: Amending it. i ~ CAMUNEZ: Amending it? iz FORD: Brian? i~ HARPER: Revisiting the master plan. i~ FORD: Just to be argumentative... is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Hold on a second, hold on a second. i6 RICHARD JACQUEZ: We need a motion to reconsider. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. We need a motion to reconsider. is LUDTKE: Motion to reconsider the master plan. t9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Case 5-04-105. 20 LUDTKE: Correct. zi CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Now we can discuss it. z2 CAMUNEZ: Second it. 18 z CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. So the discussion would be changing the Northminster z Master Plan, parcel 1, changing proposed uses from C-3, to O-2. 3 HARPER: Well, office uses, I mean... 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. s HARPER: They're basically proposing commercial uses with their master plan and you 6 would need to change that to like office uses or... 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Office and church. s HARPER: Church uses... 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. io HARPER: Or commercial type use, yes. i i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. ~z FORD: As the one who made the motion, I'd just like to ask for a clarification. We often 13 times approve master plans and then later they come back to us for subsequent zoning i4 and zoning changes. Isn't it rather mood point, whether we not, we do the... is HARPER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ford, in fact, if they do come back for a zone i6 change, they should be amending their master plan at the same time with that, so... i~ Those, those zone changes you see, if they do not match with the master plan, the is master plan should be amended as well. i~ FORD: Would we have to get permission then of the applicant... zo CHAIR BUCHMAN: No. zt FORD: To change the master plan? 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, because that's our option. 23 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, no you wouldn't. i~ . ! ! i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yeah. And, and I kind of agree with what you're saying. I don't 2 want to leave any loose edges. Let's, let's go ahead, we've discussed it. We're going ~ to... We've amended it. Now we take a vote on the amendment. Now, do we vote on a it? Do we have to have a motion? s FORD: We haven't had a motion to amend it. 6 LUDTKE: If you had a motion to amend it. ~ JACQUEZ: Make a motion to the amendment to change the master plan. a FORD: I would, I would move then to amend the master plan to the zoning from parcel 9 1, to reflect O-2, rather than C-3. io CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Is there a second? i i CAMUNEZ: I second it. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. I'll call for a vote. Commissioner Ford? 13 FORD: Aye. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 1s LUDTKE: Aye. i6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? i~ CAMUNEZ: Aye. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes aye. Okay, thank you, Mr. Harper for ig cleaning up the loose edges that your Chairman was not able to do. 20 HARPER: Actually, Mr. Chairman, you should thank Robert Kyle for pointing that out to 2i me. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Robert who? Okay, that brings us to Case S-p4-111. It is the 23 preliminary plat approval for Legends West Subdivision, phases III and IV, submitted by 20 i Denton Ventures. Is the applicant ready? Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is 2 Matt Kenney with Denton Ventures and f'm representing Blue Horse Development on 3 this project. This is phases III and IV, of Legends West. It's a preliminary plat. It's the 4 continuation of the master plan that's already been approved for this property. The s property is located north of Picacho Hills Drive on Motel Boulevard between Motel and 6 Roadrunner Lane. The project is set up with lots that are approximately 50 x 105 foot ~ wide, to provide an affordable lot for the local home purchaser in the area. There is s approximately 190 lots, which is well within the range of the master planned area. the ~ alignment of Tashiro, which is an MPO collector, is the alignment that was designated 1o by the MPO Policy Committee and as well as, as discussions with the EBID, in making i i the crossing. They have a, an existing gate in the area that needs to be replaced and ~z we're coordinating with that as well in this location. The intent of Tashiro is, of course, i3 to meet the MPO plan, but it is our intent to put a crash gate at this end so that there is t4 no access from Roadrunner Lane. It'll merely be an emergency access for emergency is vehicles, fire and medical. I know that there's been concerns from at least two people in i6 the area that we're sending a bunch of traffic in that direction. That is not the intent at i~ this time. That's a closer picture. The project area is approximately 36 acres. There's is 190 lots, for a density of approximately 7'/z dwelling units per acre, which meets the R-1 i~ density. And that's... Completes my presentation, I'd be happy to answer any zo questions you may have. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Kenney. Staff. zz MCCARSON: Chairman, Commissioners, I'll just be brief and try not to repeat any of 23 the information Mr. Kenney gave you. As you stated earlier, this is Case S-04-111, the zi , • i Legends West Subdivision preliminary plats for phases III and tV. The vicinity map... 2 This property is located along Road-... Well, technically along Roadrunner Lane and 3 the irrigation ditch that runs along with it, just west of there, and Motel Boulevard is a a little bit further east. The Field of Dreams is where, where this labeled subject property s is located and it's not labeled, but Tashiro Road comes through here and will continue 6 later on through phases, through all of the phases of the Legends West development. ~ This is the aerial photo of the property. The existing use is currently farmland. If you'll s recall, there, of the Legends West Master Plan, phases I and II, located in this area, are 9 currently under construction. This is the approved Legends West master plan that you io did see earlier this year, along with phases I, II and V that were also approved earlier ii this year. What's before you tonight is phases III and IV, a continuation on of, of the 12 same master planned area. Again, I'm just going to point out that Mr. Kenney was i3 eluding to the Tashiro Drive extension, continuing on, over the lateral and to is Roadrunner Lane. Again, this is not open for public access and will be allowed for is emergency purposes only. It will contain a crash gate. This is the preliminary plat. It ib contains 190 Tots on approximately 36 acres. The only outstanding comments currently ~~ on the preliminary plats, are minor comments with EBID and NMDCT and staff, along is with the DRC, is recommending approval of the preliminary plats, with the condition that i9 these outstanding comments be resolved prior to the submittal of the final plats for 20 phases III and IV. Staff was contacted by several people and there were several letters 21 of concern or protest, if you might say, they were handed out to you in your places 22 before the meeting. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer and I can go 23 back. 2z t CHAIR BUCHMAN: A quick one Mrs. McCarson. What are the conditions again, z please? 3 MCCARSON; The conditions are that all outstanding comments be resolved with EBID a and NMDOT, prior to the submittal of the final plats for phases III and IV. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Where do we find that in our packet? 6 MCCARSON: It should be in your... It's page 2, on the back of the first page. '~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. s MCCARSON: They're double sided. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN; Okay. You don't want the whole thing, just what the condition at io all. Okay, I see what you're saying now. i i MCCARSON: Right. That was the DRC recommendation. It's my understanding that ~z the EBID comments are very, very minor and easily resolvable and DOT comments are 13 resolved. Actually, we just don't have a confirmation of that yet. i4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, thank you. is LUDTKE: Wasn't this a... Weren't those the conditions also at the beginning when we ib did the original master plan? t7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No. is LUDTKE: We talked at length about the... This was quite a few months back. ig Remember? Do you remember? zo CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, I remember. We talked about... 21 LUDTKE: (Inaudible) and they were talking about which way the road would be 2z directed and so on... 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, yeah, but, but... 23 • i LUDTKE: We made the conditions at that time. z CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, that they had to come back in and, and tell us exactly where 3 the roads would be built. 4 MCCARSON: Right. That was, Chairman, Commissioner Ludtke, that was through the s MPO and Policy Committee and the TAC, and that was resolved. That was the 6 alignment of Tashiro, whether it would swing to the north or immediately run to the west ~ and that was decided that it would run to the west as indicated on these drawings. s LUDTKE: I just, I just wondered if this, if the EBID and Department of Transportation, if 9 that condition already exists on a, on a master? io MCCARSON: I don't believe so. t i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Now, 1 have... iz LUDTKE: (Inaudible) i~ MCCARSON: This is actually the first time that the NMDOT comments have ever is arisen. ~s CHAIR BUCHMAN: I have the, the approval of phases I, III and IV, and that condition i~ was not in there. But at that time, we did talk about the roads. And say, that had to be i~ finalized before we would approve anything more. ~s MCCARSON: Right. And now, I mean, now with III and IV, and with the connection to i9 across the lateral and over to Roadrunner Lane, I mean EBID is more concerned with 20 the crossing and the construction of this crossing and how all this is going to work and 21 they need to be heavily involved with the crossing construction. 2z CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 23 LUDTKE: Thank you. 24 i CHAIR BUCHMAN: At this time, audience, is there anybody present here tonight that z wishes to speak for or against this or have any questions on this case? If so, would you 3 please raise your hands? Yes ma'am, would you come forward to the microphone and a state your name. s MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Good evening Commissioners, my name is Coween 6 Shaman and my apologies on my letter of concern. I did neglect to give you any contact ~ information. I believe Mrs. McCarson does have information that she's, can give you or s I can. But I wrote the letter and my main concerns are to fold and I'm not 100 percent 9 sure how you would choose to address those. But, my first concern is the condition of 1o Roadrunner Lane as a road that would be receiving any additional traffic. I understand i i what has been presented regarding the Tashiro entrance onto Roadrunner Lane. I, I 12 understand. That sounds like a, a reasonable idea at this point to have it as emergency i3 access only for the emergency personnel. However, they wilt be using a, an existing t4 crossing further north, which will obviously pull traffic in to and out of this area. It's is probably, what, about, maybe 200 feet north of the actual subdivision. Maybe not quite i6 that far. So, there will be some traffic evidently put on to Roadrunner Lane, which at i~ this point can't contain any more. It, it's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that is there has been easements worked out with the property immediately to the north, to i9 allow the road that you see curving to the north, right there, that one that's covering to 20 the north, to allow it to continue and make an "S" curve back towards the west and join 21 in to Roadrunner Lane. I, I think that's probably a given and, of course, I'm concerned 22 about the additional traffic. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, we, we'll bring that up. Go ahead. 25 . ! • i C~WEEN SHAMAN: My second concern is simply from a matter of the design of the 2 subdivision. I'm hoping that at same point the citizens of the Las Cruces community 3 decide that they're a valuable jewel of the desert is worth being preserved. And I do a understand that people want to have an affordable place to came and, and call their s own, but at the same time, I very much would support attempting to either condense the 6 development and still allow for open areas. That's what I'm terming clustered ~ development. I guess that's a planning term. Or, flat out try to just fit higher density s communities where they better fit and in my mind, the aerial view kind of showed it 9 pretty well. Actually, the surrounding areas, at this paint, are not highly developed. io There are several small farms in the area and this seems... My concern is that this is a ii too high density division. I, I would propose something more along the line of what 12 Rillito Acres is doing right now, which is about a quarter of an acre. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. is SHAMAN: And, and any questions or... That's in a nutshell, basically. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: We... Stay there, let me kind of answer something, if I can. The z6 last three, four meetings, we've had people like yourself that are seriously concerned z~ about growkh in the City come forward and say what you have said. We are, are limited is to what we can do. Yes we can came back to the contractor and say, you know, no you i9 can't build it that way, but I think Commissioner Ford brought it up last time, until the 20 City of Las Cruces buys land through taxation or whatever they're going to do and says, 2i that will be open land. The people who own this, these, this land, have the right to zone 22 it within the requirements and yes we, we do know we're putting more people, but they 23 keep coming all the time. So, it's, it's kind of hard from the Board, to say no, we're not 26 i going to grow, because it's going to happen all over the City. There's just one house 2 after another keeps, keeps growing. So it's... We, we appreciate your comments. It's ~ kind of hard to do much about them. a SHAMAN: If, if, if I can... s CHAIR BUCHMAN: So, I'll let you come back to (inaudible). 6 SHAMAN: If I can comment, just make one comment to address that. I did not bring ~ any specific examples with me tonight, but I work in a, in a surveying office. We, we s don't do large subdivisions, but we do substantial numbers of improvement surveys, so I 9 see subdivision plats everyday and there are existing subdivisions which have taken io obvious effort to incorporate open areas into their subdivision design. Now I, t ~ admittance part of this is some of them are on areas where they do have drainage iz areas, arroyo's that need to be left intact. But, also, part of it is flat out people say, we ~3 don't want our back yard to be back yard, you know, bordering on another person's is back yard. We'd rather have like a common area in between so that we can all enjoy a ~s little bit of greenery or native desert plants or whatever it is. And I see that, quite, quite i~ often. That the only one I can think of off the top of my head is located on the, you i~ know, it's off of Roadrunner Parkway. So, it's called Las Ventanas de Los Organos. I is don't know. I'd be happy to show you a plat, if, if, you know, any time. But, at the same i9 time, I have been told that I need to try to encourage Baard Members, such as yourself, zo to, to stop and consider that this is something that as, as a community we should be 21 striving towards. So, I'm, I'm only hoping that it can happen and I do think that some 22 people, when given a choice, may choose to live in a clustered type development. In 23 fact, I think that's happening right now in Melilla, because Mesilla had that, that z~r ,. , • i restrictive zoning for so long, where you had to have a 5 acre parcel and basically it's 2 zoned a lot of the Mesilla/Mesillero families' right out of ever owning property in Mesilla 3 again. So, I think that they're moving towards that, where they can have smaller actual a land owned by individuals, but yet, they have a pecan orchard in their back yard. And, s so, it can be done. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 7 SHAMAN: And I do appreciate your time and I think each one of you is in a position to, s to give this your, your positive input, if, if you can. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you very much. to SHAMAN: Thank you very much for your time. i i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to make a 12 comment? Yes. Please come forward and state your name. i3 MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: My name, my name is Jim Seawald. I live right across ~a Roadrunner Lane from this new development. And I recognize that it's going to happen is and I only came down here tonight to state publicly in my disapproval of it is ~~ incompatible with our neighborhood out there. The dramatic change. There's nothing i~ out there that looks anything like this and I don't like it. I understand that it's going to is happen anyway, but I only came down here to say that. ~~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, thank you. Yes sir. zo MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: My name is Frank Gutierrez and I represent Dr. Peter 21 Uranga, which is Rillito Acres, LLC. We own the subdivision immediately... He owns 22 the subdivision immediately to the south. You have a letter from Dr. Uranga in there, 23 expressing his concern. I think you'll see that he's saying is not so much approved to 28 ~ ~ i the subdivision as, as much as I like valley land. I think the valley, as we now, it is 2 changing and will continue to change. But I think, the thing that Dr. Uranga was ~ addressing that he asked me to speak on, is that it happens to deal with Roadrunner a primarily and the amount of traffic that will create. I know you have a gate there, but if s it's not going to be used, other than the one who carries around the key to open it, but ~ for an emergency, but why even have it there. And I guess, the last meeting, we talked ~ about, if I remember right, I was listening to you, that, that road that kind of curves up s there, it looked like the dead end and the recommendation was not to go, or at least the 9 thought was or feeling was, not to go over to Roadrunner. But, I see that road moving ~o up there, which says there's something else on the other side of it and it continues to i i grow and, and I'm not sure that our infrastructure, I'm not sure the roads, whatever, the i2 electrical, everything is capable of dealing with that at this point in time. So again, the i~ concern is not so much the subdivision itself, but I think the high potential for is Roadrunner and what it's going to be there, as far as traffic and safety. We, in our is subdivision that we have now, we've already noticed an increase in some of the traffic, i6 people trying to cut, so they don't have to go to Roadrunner, going through and I'm i~ afraid once that, that gate's there, when there's a road there, that says to me, some day is it's going through. And at what point, I don't know? Thank you. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Thank you Mr. Gutierrez. Anybody else? Okay, at this 20 time, I'm going to close it to the public and I'm going to come back to Mr. Kenney 2i because of the two people that brought up the questions on Roadrunner Lane. Why zz can't it be a major road and what is the plans for that little area coming back to 23 Roadrunner. Could you address that for us please? 29 . ~ ~ i KENNEY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'd be happy to. As far as Tashiro Drive, z that's the MPO Policy Committee, has set that as the alignment for Tashiro Drive and ~ we're following that. As far... There is an existing crossing to the north, that is for a 4 private residence and, and it will not be used as access to this project. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a map that you could show us? I think that last one might ~ be a little bit... ~ KENNEY: It's this property in here that has a crossing of this lateral and it is to a s private residence. As far as the road that's swinging up here, good planning, you 9 always are put in a position where you have to extend roads to your adjacent properties. io You can't land lock the adjacent landowner, but that's a minor local road that you're t r seeing extended up. It's not a major thoroughfare plan and there isn't any intention to rz connect that roadway to Roadrunner Lane. Is that...? r3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, so there, there are no intentions... Can you go back two is slides? One more, one more, okay. There you go. is KENNEY: This is... r6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That area there is just for growth. That area is not planned to i~ come around and connect to Roadrunner'? is KENNEY: No sir. r9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That's... Okay. That kind of answers my questions. Go ahead zo Commissioner Ludtke. zi LUDTKE: But I thought it was... I thought we were discussing over in that upper left zz hand corner? z3 CAMUNEZ: This other one. 3p x. i LUDTKE: That area. Is that what the young lady was saying? Was the young lady z referring to that piece? 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Colleen. No, you were talking about it further, weren't you? 4 SHAMAN: No. No, I am speaking of a crossing that is very close to that northwest 5 corner. I don't, I don't know exactly how far. There is a private one that he's speaking 6 about further north. In fact, they were installed by the same person, but there are two. ~ KENNEY: It is my understanding that at this northwest corner of the property there is a s gate, a slew gate that the EBID uses to release irrigation waters, but I don't believe that 9 it's an actual crossing. There is a crossing a few 100 feet north of this corner that is to io an existing residence, a private residence. i ~ LUDTKE: And I've, and I had seen that today when I was there. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Any other Commissioners? i~ LUDTKE: Thank you. No. is CAMUNEZ: Yes, I have a concern about it. I used to live in that area before this is Tashiro land was developed like it is and Roadrunner cannot handle very much traffic i6 that I know. You all say that there's not going to be an opening to Roadrunner, but you i~ know, we need to think long term. If traffic gets real bad there, it's eventually going to is have to come out at Roadrunner and Roadrunner, I don't think can handle that kind of i~ traffic. So, I'm like the lady here, I'm concerned about what's going to happen on 20 Roadrunner in the future. 21 KENNEY: Well, and I, I agree with you, that Roadrunner, as a two lane rural road, is 22 not designed to handle the capacity of this type of development. 23 CAMUNEZ: It's not. 31 i KENNEY: And it's our intention not to send traffic. If there was in fact a project or an z intent to carry traffic out that way, it would also need to include a reconstruction project 3 of Roadrunner Lane itself. Now as far as the MPO thoroughfare plan, when you look at a carrying out the intent of the plan, it's developer's responsibility for providing aright-of- s way for the MPO thoroughfare plan. How the projects are handled in the future, as far 6 as reconstruction of Roadrunner Lane, is partially determined by bodies like this that ~ regulate what happens to those roads. s CAMUNEZ: Now, how well is EBID willing to work with you all? Because we had lots ~ of problems with EBID. Lots. io KENNEY: I... Chairman, Commissioners, I have met with Henry Magallanes of the iz EBID and as I mentioned, they are planning on replacing that gate and they are in fact 12 willing to work with us on a crossing that would be both the place for the new gate and 13 for the physical crossing of Tashiro. Now, as far as their comments that we're seeing as t4 part of the condition, they're talking about wanting to coordinate construction is documents, which is the next phase in a subdivision process. We go to final plat and x6 construction drawings. So we haven't submitted anything to them at this point because i~ we aren't doing construction drawings yet, but they are agreeable to the concept of that is crossing at that point at that place. ~9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right. zo KENNEY: And the dedication of the crossing would be to the developer, not to the City. 21 It's my understanding that there's issues between the City and EBID with some of these 2z crossings, but as far as I understand, if it's to a private individual, that is not an issue. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford. 32 1 , i FORD: Matt, what is... What easements does EBID have now along your property? z Do they have an easement between your property and Roadrunner'? Is there a canal, a 3 ditch, a (inaudible) there? ~ KENNEY: There is an irrigation ditch along the north property line to serve the s farmland, that as, it will be left in place to serve the property to the north and there is a 6 30 foot, I'm saying 30 foot, I don't know... There is in fact a strip left that's hard to see ~ on this, on this lot and I don't want to say it's 30 feet, it may be 20 feet, but there is a s strip left for that irrigation ditch. One thing that I would like to mention on the, the issue ~ of open space and, and pedestrian traffic and things of that nature, the Field of Dreams io stadium is located on this piece of property here. Directly to the north is a piece of t i property that's approximately 12 acres. The developer of Legends West is in the iz process of working with the school district to provide an open space buffer. They can i3 possibly use it for practice fields or whatever their needs are and it would include an 14 amphitheater at the southeast corner. In addition to that, within the project itself, is Tashiro Drive has a 30 foot walking lane that is similar, will be built out similar to the 16 path that's along Triviz and then there are pedestrian access points to the lateral so that people have the ability to use the, the real atmosphere and there are some smaller ig open spaces within this project that are going to be incorporated as well. And I just i9 wanted to point that out. zo FORD: Now, I'm going to continue my question though. 2i KENNEY: Okay. z2 FORD: Along Roadrunner, is there EBID easement there? We've talked about and z3 you've mentioned the gate at the end of Tashiro, is that across a canal or it's there? 33 ~~ i ~ i KENNEY: The gate will be located on the developer's property so that trafFc cannot z enter or exit at this location. 3 FORD: But there's no... 4 KENNEY: But EBID has its own lateral right-of--way outside of the property of the s project. 6 FORD: That's what I was getting at. ~ KENNEY: Okay. s FORD: EBID has an easement all along your property there? a KENNEY: Yes sir. There's a lateral along the western boundary of the project. io FORD: So, any, any future changes or anything would have to be with their approval? i ~ Like putting crossings or roads or anything in there? iz KENNEY: We are in fact going to build a crossing with the project. We're going to put 13 the pipe crossing in. i4 FORD: Okay. is KENNEY: But we're going to limit access... r6 FORD: But that's only at the end of Tashiro? KENNEY: With, with a gate. At Tashiro, is FORD: Yeah. You're not contemplating any other (inaudible)? i9 KENNEY: No, there are no other crossings. zo FORD: That, that's what I was getting to. There are two plats up further to the, to the zi east, would it be... Is there a possibility those might be considered for green space, zz open space or, or some kind of public activity? You see what I'm talking about? There 34 i not numbers, so I can't tell you that it's lot, or maybe there are. I can't read them. 58 2 and 59. 3 KENNEY: On the, on the... 4 FORD: Way, way to the east. To the north now. You're getting close. A little bit to the s northwest there. 6 KENNEY: In here? ~ FORD: No, no. Keep going to northwest. Right there, right there. There you are. s CAMUNEZ: Right there. 9 KENNEY: Chairman, Commissioners... io FORD: Those two seem out of character with the other lots and I was just wondering i i the possibility of donation of the use of those. iz KENNEY: Actually, something that's, that's happened since we submitted this i3 preliminary plat, is that there's a storm sewer lift station with phase I and the is engineering department of the City has asked for a pond to help the lift station and that zs pond is going to be located, I keep losing my arrow, in this area right here and this road id has been reconfigured to come through like this. So those lots are no longer there, but i~ there will in fact be a 1 acre open space at this location right here. There will be a 1 is acre tract of land dedicated to the City. i9 FORD: And that, that could be in the concept of a park, in addition to a lift station? zo KENNEY: It, it will be, it will be fenced as a pond. zt FORD: Okay. ~s i KENNEY: The facilities of the City of Las Cruces did not want a pond that's less than a 2 certain size. Public Works is accepting that 1 acre pond for maintenance as a pond, not 3 as a park. 4 FORD: And one additional question I have, will all the. traffic in this area feed out in a s single exit on to Motel Boulevard? I, I couldn't see any other access out of there on to a 6 major arterial, other than (inaudible). ~ CAMUNEZ: Isn't there exits onto Motel Boulevard and then also Valley Drive. Isn't that s the way it is? Tashiro, Tashiro can come off on to Motel Boulevard, right there by the 9 school and then it can go out to Valley. io KENNEY: Correct, and then Motel Boulevard comes to Picacho. i i CAMUNEZ: Right. 12 KENNEY: But as far as access points from the minor locals within the project, they all 13 filter back to Tashiro, which is the collector. is FORD: Wetl then, the answer is that there is only one exit for all phases there. is KENNEY: Yes, as far as traffic flow. Now, as far as emergency access, we do in fact i6 have this one and it's possible to use farm roads as a third point of access for i~ emergencies. ig FORD: Right. i9 KENNEY: But as far as local resident use, there is one point of access at Tashiro. zo CAMUNEZ: So Tashiro would be the main artery, so to speak? 21 KENNEY: That's correct. 22 CAMUNEZ: And then it dead ends right at, at, at that irrigation ditch on Roadrunner? 23 KENNEY: That is correct. 36 • z LUDTKE: So the plan has already been changed (inaudible) we're going to approve? z CHAIR BUCHMAN: It's a preliminary plat, you've got to... 3 KENNEY: Yeah this, this is a preliminary plat, which talks about the number of lots and a the type of sizes. Alignments of roads and lot configurations can be changed on the s final plat. And we will in fact up date the file with a revised preliminary plat to show the, 6 the lot that we're going to dedicate for the, the pond. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Anymore questions Commissioners? s LUDTKE: Is the... 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Go ahead. io LUDTKE: 1 mean the... Yashiro, when it goes over to Roadrunner Lane, that i i crossover, will also meet design for the City? iz CHAIR BUCHMAN: There's not, not a crossover. i3 CAMUNEZ: No, not yet. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Not yet. is CAMUNEZ; Not yet. i6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: They're working on it. i~ CAMUNEZ: But that's why I'm saying, I bet in the future there will be. is LUDTKE: I am asking is, is it going to be done all at one time or are you going to build i~ an access road there for emergencies and in the future thafll be opened up for zo development to the west and then it'll all be ripped out and replaced with something that 21 design meets the City? Is the City in on the design for that access also? 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I think, one of the reasons is, what we're talking about land outside 23 of the City. ~~ • i CAMUNEZ: Yeah, see, Roadrunner, Roadrunner is County. 2 LUDTKE: Oh, okay. Okay. 3 CAMUNEZ: So we're talking on the other side of the ditch. a CHAIR BUCHMAN: You can't even be concerned. s LUDTKE: Okay, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, but you're concern is well taken and yeah. ~ LUDTKE: We'll deal with that next year when it comes. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yeah. 9 FORD: If I might add, one of the... io KENNEY: Chairman, Commissioners, just to give you a little comfort, we will be ii building it 96 feet wide because the EBID wants 24 foot pipe sections and so to get at i2 least 8Q feet, which is the width of the right-of-way, we have to go to 4 pipe lengths, i3 which is 96 feet. So the crossing will in fact be adequate for a collector crossing. is LUDTKE: Thank you. ~s FORD: Just to kind of, one other comment to philosophize that comment, I think it's i6 unrealistic to think that Roadrunner is going to remain as a small country road with the ~~ development that's going on north of there. It's going to have to become a major is collector, a major arterial. So, I mean, it's kind of, I mean, to me, unrealistic to just, to i9 worry about it now. zo CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yeah, you're right. 21 CAMUNEZ: It is. 38 i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yeah, we can't worry about it now. We'd like to, but it's not what 2 our charge is tonight. Okay, in that case, I'm ready to entertain a motion on Case S-04- 3 111. a FORD: I would move approval of S-04-111, with the conditions as stated under s recommendations. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And just for the record, would you please read that. ~ FORD: Yes, the DRC, based on before mentioned findings, recommends approval of s the preliminary phases, plat far phases II, III and IV, Legends West Subdivision, with the g condition that all outstanding comments are resolved with Elephant Butte Irrigation to District and the New Mexico Department of Transportation, prior to the submittal of the i i final plats with phases III and IV. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Is there a second? i~ CAMUNEZ: I second it. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, I will call the roll. Commissioner Ford? is FORD: Yes, based on site visit and discussion. z6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? i~ LUDTKE: Aye, findings. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? i~ CAMUNEZ; Aye, findings and site visit. Zo CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes aye based on discussion and findings. Thank 21 you very much. And, the last case we have is 5-04-021, a request for final plat approval 22 of Sotota. Did I pronounce that right? 2~ APPLICANT: Sotolla. ~~ i CAMUNEZ: Sotolla. Sotolla. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That's not the way she told me to say it. 3 CAMUNEZ: Sotolla. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: See, now, now, that's not the way... Is the applicant ready? s APPLICANT; Yes I am Mr. Chairman. Dan Lilley of Lilley Engineering. Sotolla Estates 6 is a combination of Cholla and Sotol Road. It was either Cholla or Sotolla, so... ~ Essentially the subdivision is a... We, we'd, we're in front of the Commissioner, or the s Board or several, several weeks back for a zone change. It was Agriculture- A-2. We ~ changed it to R-E, I believe, Estates that allowed for half acre lots. There was concern io from the neighbors that the covenants called for 1 acre and things like that. So, the i i developer basically said we'll go with 1 acre minimum. So we've proposed a 12 subdivision of the 3 acres into 3 _ 1 acre lots, which is larger than, you know, the i3 allowed, the allowed lot size is half acre, but we basically are just using this property for 14 3 decent size 1 acre lots. The vicinity, the project location, being again, along Las is Alturas, where Cholla goes underneath both interstates. It's the cross tie, the State i6 Highway road between Stern Drive and Las Alturas. The, the aerial, aerial map here i~ shows it's right, right by the Aldershots. I believe this is Aldershots Nursery right here is where they grow a lot of their, their vegetation and plants. As you can see, this is where ~~ Las Alturas swerves around to get to... This will come into play here in a little bit on the zo next picture. I'll, I'll kind of explain a little bit about this swerve because there is a, a 21 slight issue as to, as to the, well not an issue, but a concern about this triangle piece 22 here. Let me go ahead that one while we're talking about it. The overall site view z3 where I'm pointing at here, this triangular piece is owned by the Highway Department. 40 . ~ ~ 1 We had requested, originally requested that they vacated. Their surveyor said no, we're z reserving this piece of property that we have right here for future, potential future, you 3 know, interchange, or off-ramp or something that we may want to do in this particular 4 location. That, that's another reason why the swerve of the road through here and s alignment, they have a wide section of the highway. The interstate has a wide section 6 through here and they actually have owned this property since the original development ~ of Las Alturas subdivision. This particular parcel right here, if you can see again, we, s we will be accessing the north portion ofi this subdivision, and I'll go back to the lot 9 before. A layout of the property shows how we're doing our 3 acres, 3-1 acre lots. This to particular parcel right here already has a house. It's about 90 percent complete on it 11 and the Highway Department, New Mexico's Department of Transportation has 12 approved access from Cholla within, across their right-of-way to both of these parcels. 13 I have a permit for a little bit of widening of an existing driveway that's here, crossing the 14 DOT right-of-way and coming down an easement to get to this parcel here. They did is not want to give us two. They were agreeable to how we had designed this with an 16 access easement all the way across here. This particular access easement was 17' widened. I had originally had it cut off at lot 2, so the lot 2, could do whatever they 18 wanted. The Fire Marshall, the Fire Department requested that we carry that easement, 19 essentially to allow for when, when the driveway is put in for this house here, that any 20 fire, fire equipment could pull up the driveway, back out and turn around and that way al they would provide a, a method of turning around for emergency vehicles. The Las 22 Alturas Drive, the State Highway Department, our original request was for access to Las 23 Alturas, but that was denied. They did not want any residential access to this, to this 41 r , i road. So we did have to come off of Cholla. So essentially, for Sotol, which is the only 2 City right-of--way that we abut, that is adjacent to the property. Sotol originally had 3 potential access for the 3 acres, 1 driveway. Now we're, we're still only accessing one 4 driveway to Sotol and the other 2 lots would be going through the State Highway, right s away to Cholla. So there is a request, request for improvements... No improvements 6 to Sotol Drive, which essentially, you see here, that Sotol Drive is a paved road all the ~ way through here. Very similar to every single street that comes right off of Las Alturas, s especially in this area. That is a request that we, that we not do any improvements to 9 Sotol and simply just have another driveway, just one more driveway coming in and io accessing this property. There, there a couple of drainage easements across here, but i i essentially when this lot develops, they will access Sotol Drive, the other 2 north to tz Cholla. I think I've kind of covered the, the justification and the request for i3 improvement, variance to improvements. If there are any questions, I would be glad to 14 respond, clarify anything I need to do that... Any questions you may have. is CHAIR BUGHMAN: Thank you Mr. Lilley. Staff. i6 MCCARSON: Chairman, Commissioners, I'll just breeze through mine. It's essentially i~ a repeat of Mr. Lilley just did his wonderful presentation, surprisingly wonderful. This is is Case S-04-121, Sotolla Estates, the property site being just over 3 acres, the number of i9 lots proposed 3, existing zoning on the property RE, requiring a half acre minimum. 20 This is the vicinity map of the subject property located between Cholla and Sotol along 21 Las Alturas Drive. The aerial photo is the same that you just saw. You can see existing 2z residential lot, large lot, single family in the area, and again the subject property located 23 here in red. I did also draw in some of the items that Mr. Lilley just had. This would be 42 ~ A i the NMDOT approved crossing and this is the emergency access, along with the z emergency turnaround that the Fire Department did require at the DRC meeting. These 3 are a couple site photos. The one on the bottom is the existing improvements on Sotol a Drive. You can see its existing condition. As Mr. Lilley stated, the only waiver he's s requested is to the required, half of the required improvements along Sotol Drive, as the 6 design standards require. A couple other photos, the property was hard to get a, a ~ good picture of. A couple other photos. This is a single family dwelling currently under g construction on lot one. The DRC was, is recommending approval of the final plat with 9 a couple of conditions, that, one, only one access paint be allowed onto 5otol Drive, io two, that no improvements will be required along Sotol Drive and three, that an z i emergency turnaround be provided on lot 2, along with the 25 foot wide, all weather, iz passable surface, to be determined and approved by the Fire Department. Other than i~ that, I have no further information. There was a letter that staff did receive that it was 1a handed out to you in your places before. It was not necessarily a letter about this is subdivision, but more about the, the lot size. They were preferring a 2 acre lot size, i6 rather than the 1 acre, and that was the only comment that staff did receive on the i~ notification. If you have any other questions, I can answer them. ig CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody from the public that wishes to speak i~ on this? Anybody? Okay, I close it for public comment. Is she going to work for you 20 Mr. Lilley, is that why she's... z~ LILLEY: Mr. Commissioner... zz CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, I'm just... a3 ~ A i LILLEY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I, I would like to address... Actually, I'm, 2 there's, there's... I'm supposed to get better and better with my presentations every 3 time, so I have to top it with my next one that I show you, so... And I did have another 4 one that I would, would have presented, but I'm waiting for the next time. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Commissioners, go ahead. Commissioner Ford. 6 FORD: I'm full of questions now. Mrs. McCarson, you just made a statement that ~ bothered me a little bit. You said aright-of-way of 25 foot at easement or it's going to ~ be 25 or 20? I'd like to see it 25, but the findings show 20. g MCCARSON: Right, Chairman Buchman, Commissioner Ford, if you'd like it to be 25, io you could amend that. The Fire Department was only requesting 20 feet because it t i only serves as single family residence. 12 FORD: tt just seems awfully narrow, 20 feet. i3 MCCARSON: If you'd like it to be 25, you can implement the amendment and I'm sure 14 the Fire Department would appreciate it. is FORD: I will. When I make a motion, I'll do that. i~ MCCARSON: Okay. i~ FORD: The other que-, comment I'd like to make is in regard to Mr. Kyle, if he would, is look at the map that shows the City Limits through here. This, this is an interesting ig point. This property isn't involved, but properties all around are split by the City Limits 20 between City and ETZ. Is there anything we can do to correct some of these or to get... 21 It seems like, it seems like it's an unusual situation. 22 ROBERT KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ford, Robert Kyle for the record. The 23 City Limit line looks like an ugly saw blade in this area. If you, if you look at it going up 44 ~ ~ i and dawn that strip... A couple of years ago staff was approached by numerous 2 residents of that area, based on some information they had received from the County 3 Assessor's office. They had concerns the City Limit lines were cutting through the 4 middle of homes in some instances. Staff did start some initial research and fact finding s and approaching some of those residents regarding taking care of the problem, 6 essentially doing what we did on the earlier case this evening with the north, with the ~ Westminster Annexation and taking care of the City Limit line cutting through the middle a of properties. Since that time, it's my understanding that those residents who had 9 initially received information from the Assessor's Office was able to work those io situations out. The Assessor's were able to adequately do what they needed to do with ~ i the property, whether it was in the City or the, the ETZ and, and the issue is kind of sat 12 fallow since then, but it was no, there was no (inaudible) from the neighbors or the i3 affected residents to push an annexation at that particular time. I've got the file sitting i4 somewhere in my office, but we haven't done anything on it for a couple of years. is FORD: But didn't already create some problems in the future? i6 KYLE: Potentially it could. And again, that's one of the reasons why it came up. The i~ Assessor's office, Dona Ana County had concerns with it, but, like I said, there was is some... We, we did some studies, we presented some information related to the pro's i9 and con's, yes. I mean, you know, if you call and your house is burning down, who do 20 you call? Dona Ana County? You know, City of Las Cruces? But, but based on the 21 information and the research we did at that particular time and in trying to take 22 something forward, it, it got to a point where it was kind of standing on its own and, and 23 it did not move forward. We can certainly look in to reviving that project and make 45 C ry i contact with those residents again, but I think once, once the individuals who kind of 2 started pushing the issue were able to resolve their issues with the County, as far as the 3 assessment, etc., it was no longer an issue for them. So... But, we certainly can take a 4 look at it. s FORD: It just looks like it would be very awkward, for example, if you go onto variance 6 for (inaudible) a piece of property. ~ KYLE: It could be. I mean, what it comes down to is we look at it and say well, what s you want is on the County side of it, so go to the ETZ Commission. 9 FORD: Okay. to CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. I'm going to come back at you. Why do you want to i i change to 25 feet? For the fire? iz FORD: I think 20 feet is a little bit on the narrow side for safety purposes and for the i3 sake of the land and for having a turn around capability in there. to CHAIR BUCHMAN: And Mr. Lilley, do you feel comfortable with us taking part of your is property for additional and then I'll come back to the Fire Department. Let's, let's ask t6 you first. Do you feel comfortable? i~ LILLEY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ford, we had the discussion in the DRC. I is originally proposed a 15 foot easement. Basically, the Highway Department wanted me i9 to provide some sort of easement to get all the way across. The Fire Department came zo up at the DRC and made a suggestion and said look, 15 feet is not enough, 1 need 20 21 feet and I want 20 feet improved. In other words, I've got to do a surface that they can zz drive on 20 feet, which is actually, and I don't want to speak for the Fire Department, but 23 that's the same requirement, if I had a commercial building and I had to have access to 46 ~ ~ i the back of it, I'd have to have 20 feet on the side to get around to the back. That's the, 2 a dimensional requirement that, that is applicable to a lot of different circumstances. 3 Twenty-five feet, if we made it 5 more feet, quite frankly, that's probably still within the 4 setback, that it's not going to interfere, maybe where any houses are going to be s located, but to what extent are we giving the extra 5 more feet. There will be no future 4 improvements, no future developments and the request from the Fire Department was 7 they only wanted 20 feet of, of improved and there would be an extra 5 feet that I would s definitely say, I don't want to improve 5 more feet if we only really need 20 feet. That's, 9 that would be my concern, giving more than is really requested. io CHAIR BUCHMAN; Okay. Yes, I'd like to hear from the Fire Department then. i i FIRE: Chairman, Mr. Commissioner, Steve Archuleta for the record, Las Cruces Fire ~z Department. As Mr. Lilley stated, it was discussed at the DRC meeting and all issues i3 were addressed at that time on our end and we are content with the 20 foot access road 14 and, and we do not have a problem with that. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Thank you. Do you have any problem with leaving it at 20? i~ FORD: No, I have none. No. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. ~s FORD; No. t was just more or less questioning it because it was in print in one place at i9 20 feet and Mrs. McCarson said 25, and I just wanted to make sure we were clear on it. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Okay. Any other, any other Commissioner comments? If 21 not, then I'll take a motion... z2 FORD: I move approval of S-04-021, with the conditions that only one access point 23 shall be allowed onto Sotol Drive, no improvements shall be required along Sotol Drive 47 ! ~ ~ • ~ and the emergency turn around on Lot 2, shall be provided along the 20 foot wide, all 2 weather, passable surface, to be determined and approved by the Fire Department. ~ CAMUNEZ: I second it. a CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call the roll, Commissioner Ford? s FORD: Aye, based on site visit, findings and discussion. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? ~ LUDTKE: Aye, findings. s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 9 CAMUNEZ: Aye, findings and discussion. io CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes aye, based on discussion, site visit and ii findings. Okay, that closes the cases. Don't you be making any motions yet Mr. Ford, iz Commissioner Ford. Let's see, any other business to be brought before the i3 Commission tonight? Any public comments? Thank you for coming? 14 SHAMAN: Mr. Commissioner? is CHAIR BUCHMAN; Yes. t6 SHAMAN: Is, is this an appropriate time to talk about a few more comments? I, I was i~ going to ask if I could have her pull up one of the photographs and make some is comments. I don't when it's an appropriate time for this? i9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, I think the cases... zo CAMUNEZ: The cases are closed. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN; Are, are all closed now. You're quite welcome afterwards to, to 22 speak with them, but the cases are closed. The discussion is, is finished. No, not at 23 this time. If, if there's anything new, you're, you're welcome. 48 • ~ FORD: Was it about a specific... z SHAMAN: Well... 3 FORD: Proposal to us? 4 SHAMAN: No. I just didn't know when I'm supposed to jump in with questions that I s might have of another speaker once you have closed the public input portion of this 6 meeting. So I just... ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yeah... s SHAMAN: (Inaudible) and decided to wait until the public participation portion. 9 LUDTKE: There isn't any other public comment. ~o CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, there isn't any other public comment. When the public... We ii take your input. We want your input, as to yes or no, what's wrong, what's good, what's 12 bad, okay? Then we make our decision. Now, if, if we open it back up to the public and i3 there's just 15 to 20 people here, last time there was 125 people here. It... We just i4 can't do it. So we have to go by the precedent we set. We discuss it, we open to you, is you give us your input, we discuss it and then we vote on it and that case is closed. So, i4 any other new business? Any other comments we're open to at this time. Any staff i~ comments. ~s MCCARSON: I just have one item Chairman, Commissioners, I would like to introduce ig anew staff member, Karen Bennett, sitting on the end of the table here. She's the 20 newest, well the second newest actually we just hired someone else on Monday also. 21 So Karen will be joining us for Planning and Zoning Commission and other items. The 22 other Planner that we did hire on Monday is James White and he'll be here at the 23 December meeting. You can, we can introduce him at that time. 49 i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Thank you. We're you getting up to say something Mr. 2 Kyle? 3 KYLE: I told you I'd get you back for that earlier comment. Mr. Chairman, as the, as 4 we were in the public participation portion of this meeting, it is a public meeting. The s public can speak on about any topic they want to. She may want to bring up specifics ~ regarding a specific case. She may just want to talk about some philosophical thing. In ~ concept, she can speak to the specifics of a particular case that does not mean that this s Commission is going to reconsider it, they've already made their decision. But, any 9 member of the public who wants to approach the board can essentially, in accordance io with your rules for speaking, 3 minutes, 1 minutes, whatever you want to grant them, i i can speak about any topic they want to. iz CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. i3 KYLE: And I just want to advise the Commission that, based on discussions with Legal is and, and it would be appropriate if, if the lady would like to make comments related to ~s any case on the agenda or any issues in general. She, she should be allowed to do i6 that. i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. I apologize in not letting you come forward. If you do wish, is by all means, we don't mean to intimidate. I think the thing we mean to do is kind of i9 limit it, if anything, but yes, if you have a, we'll give you a couple more minutes, if you'd zo like to make a comment. zi SHAMAN: Okay, I appreciate it. Thank you again. Not quite knowing when to jump in, zz I understand that you guy's have, had your discussion and your decision. I did have, z3 obviously, some comments that 1 didn't know when I was supposed to say. All I wanted 50 i to say is it's been mentioned more than once about the MPO decision for the 2 alignment of Tashiro, which you cannot see on this map, but I would like to try to point 3 out on the map what we're looking at presently given their decision. First off, let me a point out this Callejon de Mecho. This is an existing unimproved road, which connects s Roadrunner Lane to Burke, to Burke Road to our west, and this, of course, being 6 Roadrunner Lane. Tashiro, I believe is probably this, probably this right here, coming ~ in, and then they're talking about a very slight jog north. Their old plan went like this, g okay. And that was the one that the MPO considered and elected with the more straight 9 shot west. It comes in probably right here and (know this from speaking with Zia ao Engineering folks who previously were handing, handling it instead of the Denton, or the i i present company. This is a home. This is private parcel. This is a private parcel. This t2 is a commercial nursery greenhouse. And I just wanted to point this out, they, they i3 were not very happy, the MPO, with having it came out there because these are also is private residences. This is Winterhaven Subdivision. In my letter, I had asked about this is possibility of having it cut through Rillito Acres and join in to Callejon de Mecho, or I'm ~6 sorry, Calle, Calle de Fria. I, I am incorrect. This is the one that goes through. And as I i~ said, it's only. It's, it's actually less than 100 feet from this crossing that exists right now, is which is a two standard crossing. And, I just thought that, that is interesting and I, i9 hope that in the future possibly an existing road can be utilized for an east/west tie in, 20 rather than going through peoples homes or properties. It's just a thought. I, I do zi understand your decisions been made. 2z CHAIR BUCHMAN: And, and we appreciate... 23 SHAMAN: Thank you. si f , ~ • i CHAIR BUCHMAN: Your time. I, I know you've been at least, probably all three of z these hearings. So, do continue to come back and we'll take your hearing, your ideas 3 in the future, as the changes are going to be made because we know they're going to 4 be made. s SHAMAN: Absolutely. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Commissioners, I have a little pet peeve I'd like to talk ~ to you about, to see if you want to do what I want to do. Your new, so you didn't see a g lot of this, but in the past, years ago, Mr. Denmark, when he was the Community 9 Development Director, would present us with what items we voted on and whether or io not the Council approved or denied or what they did. I always felt that, you know, I'm i i giving my time... Yeah, I've read some big ones in the paper, but I like to know what's iz going on after it goes to Council. I've requested three or four different times. I'd like to x3 have an unanimous approval to write a letter to the new Community Development i4 Director requesting an outcome of the ordinances that are presented to the City Council, is if you want them. What are your thoughts? You've been around for a Tong time. i6 FORD: I'm completely in sympathy with you. In fact, I pushed for that first one. The only thing 1 was concerned is that the letter should not go where you suggested, but is probably either to the Mayor or the City Manager. i9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 20 FORD: I mean, that might get a little more attention. zl CHAIR BUCHMAN: Do you... zz CAMUNEZ: But, isn't what you're getting at that we would like to know... z3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. sz • i CAMUNEZ: How Council voted... z CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, yeah. 3 CAMUNEZ: Versus how we voted? 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, okay. Oh, Mr. Kyle, (inaudible) to see you there at the s podium. What is your recommendation that we do? Because I've talked to you before 6 about this too. ~ KYLE: You will... To advise the Commission, you will be receiving the year end review s at your next meeting. Staff will provide you with the infiormation for the entire year. a We'll just go through the agenda's and, and pick it out. Staff would also apologize that, io that information has not been, brought to you in any remotely regular fashion. It's, it's i i a... I apologize. It was probably my responsibility to provide you that information. It iz was just something that is very easy to slip your mind when you're as busy as you are 13 and then you realize that tomorrow is P and Z and we haven't done that and I'll take i4 care of it next month. Staff will be bringing you that information next month, like I said. is I'm just going to lump the entire year onto so it, so you know what has occurred and i~ then we will, as things are changing within our department, new staff members. I'm 17 going to be back in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission on a regular basis. I is think that'll make you very happy Mr. Chairman. And, and I think with that, my i9 involvement with the Planning and Zoning Commission on a more regular basis, it'll be 20 easier to, to bring that information to you. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right then. 22 KYLE: Okay. 53 r p Y • i CHAIR BUCHMAN: In the future, can we expect this on a monthly basis if something z has been brought to Council? Or, because I, I don't want to wait for... 3 KYLE: Well it would almost be, it would almost be easier for staff, I think, if we did 4 make it a typical agenda item if we just gave you an update every single month, instead s of trying to remember, did I do it last quarter, or where are we at? And that's why this, ~ you know, next month, I'm just going to bring you the entire year and then we'll just start ~ reporting... s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 9 KYLE: To the Commission every month at our regular meetings on what Council action io has been taken. Generally speaking, as you're all aware, I mean, once you act on a z t zone change case, it's going to probably be about a month and a half or even two 12 months before it gets to Council, so there's always a significant amount of lag time. but, i3 but we'll just start in, in 'Q5, with monthly reports. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Right. is KYLE: And if there's nothing more, we'll report that there has been no action. But I i6 think it would easier just to make it an agenda item, then try to remember to, to, to send i~ out the, the letters, etc. is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Sure, I, I think that would be... i9 CAMUNEZ: Yeah, I think that would be better. zo CHAIR BUCHMAN: That would be very nice. 21 FORD: I think that would be, also, good for the, for our public to know what the zz relationship is between the public and us and the Council so that items are approved, z~ not approved and that they are reviewed. 54 ., ~ ~ • i KYLE: We'll just... Actually, I don't see any problem at all making that an, an actual z agenda item. At the end of the agenda we'll have, you know, Council report or, or 3 something and we'll just provide it as information. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN; Okay. s KYLE: So, to that end, you don't have to send the letter to anybody. If you want, send 6 it to me and, and attach a hammer so I can hit myself on my head to remind myself. ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll attach it. Okay. a FORD: I hate to compliment Mr. Kyle, but that was a nice suggestion. g CHAIR BUCHMAN: You're going to work with him? io CAMUNEZ: They just like you, that's why they're picking on you. 11 KYLE: I feel the love. iz CAMUNEZ: I have a question on that. I know that we're just a recommending Board, t3 but my question to you is, these items that come before us, does Council have any i4 review of them before they come to us? is CHAIR BUCHMAN: Truthfully now. i6 CAMUNEZ: Yeah, truthfully. Because, I know we're just a recommending Board and i~ Council doesn't have to go with what we approve, but it seems like there's a bit of it that is they go against us on. i9 KYLE; To, to my knowledge, the City Council, as a body, is not aware of items in depth zo before you guys see them. Now staff on larger development proposals, we, we've been zi given directive from Council that when we get a submittal on, on a larger development, zz we advise the Mayor, the Manager, and that District Councilor, just so they're aware z3 because they start getting phone calls pretty quick once it becomes public knowledge. ss - .. --.. f i But that is just a very basic, more or less, just the, the case abstracts that that you get. 2 Here's what's been proposed, here's kind of what they're, they're planning to do. 3 Whether or not Council is, is having, or individual Councilors are having discussions a with, with people prior is, and staff is not aware of. It's cerkainly our advice to s applicant's, as well as the public, on any item that, that would, would routinely go to 6 them, like a zone change, not to discuss the matter with the City Council before it goes ~ to them so that we can avoid any perception of exparte communication. So, I'd say s generally speaking, no, the Council is not... The Council hasn't had the case before 9 you guys get the case. They, they're getting the packet that staff prepares after your ~o action. We provide them, obviously, with the minutes, so they know what action i i occurred here. We do a write up, a Council Action Form, where we explain, much like tz your staff report, it's a different staff report to City Council, and then the case is i3 presented to them and, and presumably it's the first time they've come across it. i4 FORD: Mr. Kyle and Commissioner Camunez, I'm not quite correct in that we do have is certain statutory requirements and, and privileges, I believe, too. Don't we? That things t6 have to be approved here, or come here before they can go to Council? i~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Oh yes, yeah. is KYLE: Correct. Under... 19 FORD: And our action is final on some of these. zo KYLE: You're action... The Planning and Zoning Commission is final authority on zi subdivision actions, master plans, preliminary plats, final plats, etc. Now some of that 22 authority has been delegated to staff. 23 FORD: Yeah. sb w ~ r~ i KYLE: Staff can approve final plats, etc. The City Council has delegated certain 2 authorities to you. They have retained certain authorities. Zone changes, you are a 3 recommending body. Annexations, you are a recommending body, then it goes to City a Council for consideration. So, but yes you are correct. The Planning and Zoning s Commission does have final authority on, on quite a bit of the agenda that comes before ~ them, just not on zoning actions. And they, and... ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Was that a yes or a no? s CAMUNEZ: I don't know? 9 KYLE: To be honest with you, I think that, and you'll see the numbers when we io provide that report to you next month, but I think the City Council has been fairly t ~ consistent with P and Z's action. There, there's a few where they've gone contrary to i2 the recommendations, but for the most part, they, they follow along. One of the issues, i3 I mean, when you only have, you know, 4 or maybe 5 Commissioners, close votes have is impacts on things and so something, especially with the 2~2 split, something die is because it didn't get an approval vote a cleared denial vote, so they go with a split vote, i6 well they may end up approving it because, you know, the votes are there. But, I don't i~ think that the, the, that the general reaction of the Council, 1 think, is quite supportive of is the, the Planning and Zoning Commissions actions and the time that you spend i9 reviewing the cases before they go before the City Council. So... 20 CAMUNEZ: Okay, thank you. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I think when, when we see this year review and we go back and 22 look at how we voted in each one, can... Yeah, would that be difficult, to give the year s~ ~ ~ ~ 1 and what the Council did, just opposite that can you put how we voted? No, we'll go z back through our notes, we don't mind, yeah, yeah. 3 CAMUNEZ: Yeah, we, we can (inaudible). 4 KYLE: It's a little bit extra work, but we can do that_ s CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Any other comments? 6 CAMUNEZ: We don't mean to give you more work Robert. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes we do. ~ KYLE: Yeah, now that we have hired Mrs. Bennett and Mr. White, sure bring us more 9 work. to CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right, bring it on. Just, just to make staff aware, do you know 11 how Mr. Ford closed the meeting last time? I move we adjourn, all in favor leave. 12 FORD: So move again. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the time is at 7:40 p.m. Thank you very much people. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 58 CHAIRPERSON