Loading...
10/26/2004~. '- • • 1 REGULAR MEETING 2 OF THE 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~ FOR THE 5 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 6 City Council Chambers 7 October 26, 2004 8 6:00 pm 9 10 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 11 Bruce Buchman, Chair 12 Nancy Binneweg, Vice-Chair 13 Elizabeth Camunez, Secretary 14 William Ludtke 15 Quentin Ford 16 17 STAFF PRESENT: 18 Lani Ruth McCarron, Planner 19 Vincent Banegas, Development and MPO Administrator 20 Richard Jacquez, Legal Department 21 Robert Gonzalez, Fire Department 22 Helen Revels, Community Development Tech 23 Carmen Alicia Lucero, Recording Secretary 24 25 CHAIR BRUCE BUCHMAN: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to call to order the Planning and Zoning meeting for October 26t", thank you for coming. On this evening's agenda, -1- '. 1, 1 we do have one postponement; that won't be heard until next month, so if anybody came 2 wanting to hear the zone change for 5223 5tagecaach Lane, Case 22587, that has been 3 postponed to the November 16th, meeting. We won't be discussing that tonight. 4 Tonight we have two Zone Changes, one Preliminary Plat, one Final Site Plan, and one 5 Master Plan. 6 One of the first items that we need to do is approve the minutes from the September 28th 7 meeting. But first, are there any corrections, or changes to the minutes, Commissioners? 8 FORD: I would move approval of minutes far the September 28th, 2004 meeting. 9 LUDTKE: Second. 1 o CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, I'll call the roll. Commissioner Binneweg? 11 BINNEWEG: Aye. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 1 ~ FORD: Aye. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Lunke? ~ 5 LUDTKE: Aye. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Ludtke, I'm sorry, and, Commissioner Camunez? 17 CAMUNEZ: Aye. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes Aye. The minutes are approved as presented. 19 Ladies and gentlemen, the next item is going to be the Consent Agenda, and as you can 20 see on the board, we have two items on the Consent Agenda. This agenda allows us to pass 21 items without any discussion, since these items have been reviewed by staff, there's been no 22 input from the public, and consent cases will automatically be approved when we approve the 23 agenda, unless one of you or a Commissioner wishes to take them off the Consent Agenda. 24 So, the first item on consent is a request...is Case 22584, which is a request for multiple 25 zone changes. This is the property located east of the future extension of Roadrunner Parkway, west 'of the future extension of Rinconada Boulevard. -2- ~ . • 1 Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to hear this case? Please raise your hand. 2 Do you wish this to come off the Consent Agenda? Would you please came to the microphone 3 and state your name for us. Or, stand up and state your name so we can hear it. 4 HARRIET CAT STEVENS: My name is Harriet Cat Stevens. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, OK. Case Number 22584 comes off Consent, and now 6 becomes New Business Case four. OK. 7 The next item on the Consent Agenda is Case S-04-150, is a request for Preliminary 8 Plat approval of Mission Espada Subdivision; this is east of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard along the 9 extension of Sonoma Springs Avenue. 10 Is this S-110, what did I say? 11 LUDTKE: 05. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Did I say 05? OK, I'm sorry, Case S-04-110, OK, I stand corrected. 13 Extension of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard along the extension of Sonoma Springs Avenue, 14 immediately south of North Fork of the Las Cruces Arroyo. Is there anybody in the audience 15 that wishes this case taken off the Consent Agenda? No one? Alt right, Commissioners? Any 16 of the Commissioners wish this case off the Consent Agenda? In that case, Case S-Q4-11Q will 1T remain on the Consent Agenda and the other case is taken off. 18 At this time I need a motion to approve the Agenda as amended. 19 BINNEWEG: So moved. 20 FORD: Second. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call the roll. Commissioner Binneweg? 22 BINNEWEG: Aye. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 24 FORD: Aye. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? LUDTKE: Aye. -3- ~ a • ~ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Mun...Mun...? 2 CAMUNEZ: Camunez. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Camunez? 4 CAMUNEZ: Aye. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair...l vote Aye also. OK. 6 New Business case one; it's aPUD-04...woops, I need a motion or is it...l need a 7 motion to hear this case. $ LUDTKE: I make a motion to hear Case PUD-04-06. 9 BINNEWEG: Second. 1o CHAIR BUCHMAN; Is there a second? 11 CAMUNEZ: Second. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Case PUD-04-06 is a request for the Final Site Plan of Los 14 Con...Contensus...Con... 15 BINNEWEG: Los Contentos. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN:...Contentos... 17 BINNEWEG: Los Contentos. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...submitted by Gerald C. Lundeen and Dan Lilley for Del Rey Associates. 19 FORD: Mr. Chairman, didn't you make the item off the Consent Agenda New Business number 2U one? 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, I made it number four. 22 BINNEWEG: Four, number four. 23 FORD: I stand corrected. I misheard. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That's OK, I made two mistakes already, I'm ahead of you. Is the 25 applicant ready to present his case? -4- 1 DAN LILLEY: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, Dan Lilley, Lilley Engineering, Inc. If I may describe the 2 location, Los Contentos is a Planned Unit Development that has been in existence for several 3 years now. We have gone thraugh...in front of this Commission for one minor revision about 4 three years ago, four years ago to allow for some lot line adjustments, some set back 5 adjustments, some minor adjustments, but our density stayed at about 120 to 140 units. We've 6 dropped the density dawn; I believe your packet has exact density from the original PUD. 7 We've dropped the density dawn with this amendment... we're requesting the density to 8 be dropped down from $0 single family units and 24 apartment units. I believe the original 9 application had...the original PUD was approved for 120 apartment units. 1 o To give you a location; this is located about 750 feet west of Del Rey towards the 11 interstate on Mars Avenue. As you can see on the project location, Phase I of the PUD has 12 already been completed; it's right in this location here, it's a dead end cul-de-sac with 13 approximately 15 or 16 units in it, I believe, and this parcel right here is the one that we're 14 following through with the completion of the development of the PUD. 15 As you can see, the interstate, I'm loosing my...the interstate over here, Highway 70 and 16 Del Rey. The actual project layout will have...the...l've given you the map here with the 17 contours to show you there's quite a bit of elevation drop across the property. The apartments 18 will be located in this area right here, whereas, the original approved PUD, the apartments were 19 located in this section right here, in the middle, basically in the middle of this; about 120 units 20 were located in the middle of this. They've been relocated up stream, I'll go into that a little bit 21 later, to give you an idea of we're going to...of how we're going to deal with the grade breaks, 22 there'll be a retaining wall along the edge of the apartment complex, a retaining wall in the 23 backyards of these lots, and a retaining wall on the back yards of these lots. That's this little 24 description right here; kind of give you an idea of what that'll look like. The retaining wall of the 25 apartment complex is what is drawn here in this description; it gives you an idea of a vehicle -5- 1 pulling up and sees a four foot wall, a four foot wall right here, so the headlights don't shine out 2 into the residential area. 3 Clear it up a little bit, just to kind of give you an idea of the size of the lots, the road 4 infrastructure, the...we have several on site ponding areas that we've kind of 5 identified...preliminarily identified for ponding, for retention, all of the City design standards will 6 be complied with, with the exception of anything that'd been previously approved in the PUD. 7 Essentially, we're here before you because we're taking a major reduction in the amount 8 of units...of the density, for lack of a better way of putting it, we're taking a major reduction in 9 the density and we're changing the road network. The developers have worked with Mr. Gerald 10 Lundeen, of Lundeen and Associates, on the layout, the architecture of the neighborhood, of the 11 layout of the apartments and the location of the apartments. 12 These apartments, by the way, although originally located in the middle here, have been 13 moved up to a location, and I'll show you...l'll get to that right here. This would be the 14 existing...back in here would be what we've identified as Phase I that's already built out. These 15 are...and let me go back a page to show you where at...right here his area is already built out, 16 these are existing homes along the back side of the Phase II, what we're calling Phase II, in the 17 apartments. And, if you look...here, Mr. Lundeen is given a rendering of what the perspective 18 would look like from the people in the apartments on this side and the existing residential units 19 back here, rental units, a few are rental units. 20 Kind of give you an idea of what we're proposing, some vegetation, grade breaks, we're 21 even lowering the apartments even more than...so we're looking at less than a two story home 22 because we're sinking the apartments down. They're a good 20 foot off of the fence. The 23 property line being here, you can see these lines here, we've...that he's drawn. They give you 24 a site perspective of where you're looking at. So, in between the apartments and the existing 25 homes, you have vegetation, a rock wall...there're many obstructions that prevent, you know, -6- a ~ . 1 that basically interaction of backyards, and buffers some what...buffer the existing homes on the 2 Phase I. 3 To give you an idea of what the apartments will look like, I believe you've seen these in 4 the packet, but I thought I'd show them out here for illustration purposes. This would be the 5 back side of the apartments, so you see the pool...a pool in the foreground. This kind of gives 6 you an idea of the architecture, and style, and the effort that the developers are putting into the 7 community here. 8 Again, we have the single family homes. These renderings have been done by Mr. 9 Lundeen, but single family residence, the typical example, this conceptual example of the single 1o family residence as well as patio homes or town homes where you have the lot line going right 11 down the center of the home here, and maybe garages facing each other...opposing each 12 other, so use a common driveway. 13 At the entrance, they propose...within the City's regulations they signed a side entrance 14 like we have in many of the communities now that are going up. This is the concept of bringing 15 the neighborhood, the architecture, the atmosphere up so they can promote this to...for the type 16 of housing they're doing as well as the apartments. 17 To give you an idea, these are the setbacks, they were approved on the original PUD, 18 we're requesting no change, no amendment to these setbacks, these are the original setbacks 19 by the approved PUD, I thought I throw them in here for information purposes; we're not 20 proposing any changes other than the layout and the makeup of the actual units themselves. 21 As far as the development schedule, we're looking at as soon as we get approval for the 22 PUD amendment, we're looking at following straight into the final plat and construction phase 23 process, potentially the beginning of January, starting the infrastructure. 24 Apartments, after the infrastructure is completed, or even in conjunction with, we'll start 25 doing the process of permitting the apartments. _~_ ~ r • 1 Other than that, if there are any questions, I'd be glad to answer some questions, Mr. 2 Lundeen is here as well if there're any questions that can be directed to him, I will definitely 3 defer to him, but anything else, I'll be glad to answer. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Lilley. Audience, we'll give you a chance in a couple of 5 minutes. Staff? 6 LANI RUTH McCARSON: Chairman, Commissioners, I do have a brief presentation; I'll try not 7 to repeat any of the information Mr. Lilley did. $ As you stated, previously, this is Case PUD-04-06, this is a major PUD amendment to 9 the existing Los Contentas PUD. The original Los Contentos PUD was approved in 1997. 1o Some of you might recall that, you've served on the Commission a while, and the PUD had 11 been amendment once previously in 2000 to broaden the uses that were allowed in the PUD. 12 You saw this...the location map from Mr. Lilley. The property is currently vacant. Phase 13 I of the existing PUD along Ben Bolt Place is fully developed, consisting of single family 14 detached homes. The remainder of the PUD consisting of approximately 13 acres is vacant. 15 The Final Site Plan that the amendments that the applicant is proposing proposes single 16 family lots, town homes, as well as apartments. The proposal will allow 24 apartments and $3 17 single family lots, 59 of these which will be attached town homes. 18 The developer, also, in negotiations with staff, has agreed upon the completion of the full ~ 9 construction of the remainder of Mars Avenue that there will be a bicycle lane striped along 20 Mars Avenue to connect with the existing bicycle lane on Del Rey Boulevard. 21 You saw the proposed elevations of some of the homes, and the signs, and different 22 things proposed by the architect and the applicant. Staff has done a full review of the major 23 PUD amendment, and we da recommend approval of the amendment with no conditions. 24 There's substantial support of the Comprehensive Plan in providing a variety of housing types 25 as well as the bicycle lane and the aff-site improvements that I mentioned, and the architectural elements proposed. -8- 1 Staff has not been contacted by any surrounding property owners, and I can answer any 2 questions you might have. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mrs. McCarson. At this time, we will open the floor to ~ questions from citizens. Let me explain the ground rules a little bit; if you have a group of 5 people, and you have a representative who wishes to speak, we'll allow that representative for 6 your group 10 minutes, otherwise each individual person we will allow no more than three 7 minutes. And, we ask one thing, there's quite a few people here, and I noticed on one of the 8 cases we have some petitions signed by different people stating the same thing over and over 9 again. 10 We want your input, but we don't want ten people getting up saying the same thing aver 11 and over again. So, if somebody has addressed a point that you wish to make, unless you 12 have something new to add to it, it is no benefit to us to hear the same thing over and over 13 again. 14 So, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to comment on this? Please raise your 15 hand. Yes, will you come to the microphone, and state your name please, for the recorder. 1fi FRANCIS BOLDT: Francis Boldt. My property is right here, and I'm very concerned about 17 apartments...two story apartments, I believe, that would be looking right over in my backyard. 18 and, I've...the question I have is why...wouldn't it be better to have the apartments down here, 19 closer to the freeway, than up here? Since these are existing single family homes, I think, you 20 know, put homes right next to them would be better to have, you know, single family dwellings 21 here. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, is that all? 23 BOLDT: That's my comment. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right. Thank you. Anybody else wish to make a comment? Yes sir, 25 please come forward, state your name. _g_ A 1 CAL JENKINS: My name is Cal Jenkins and I live two doors from Fran, and I too am worried 2 about the apartments in the back. I bought in here four years ago, in the existing one, there was 3 only four houses occupied at the time. We were shown a rough sketch of what was going to 4 take place in the extra Phase II, III, and IV. And, nothing was said about apartments in the back 5 of us; they were all supposed to be single family dwellings. This is the first notice we have seen 6 stating the apartments would be directly in the back of us. I don't know what we'll have to do to 7 change that, if at all possible, but that's my concern. $ CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, thank you Mr. Jenkins. Is there any one else? All right. At this time, 9 I'm going to close the floor to public content...or public comment, and Mr. Lilley, would you like 10 to make any comments on these two concerns about the apartments right in back? 11 LILLEY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I would like to address that and then I'm going to defer 12 to Mr. Lundeen to give you some of the background behind the choice of location. 13 Essentially, the location of the apartments are, as you can see, and, if I may put the 14 other one back up here, have a great deal to do with not just the best way to stick them in a 15 corner, so to speak, but more along the line with the topography. If you can see the drop in 16 elevation; each one of these contours, I believe they're five foot intervals, I mean, two foot 17 intervals, so you're looking at about a 20 foot drop across the property and we have put a great 18 deal of effort into lowering this, putting in some architectural features. 19 If this were a residence, if this was single family residence, they would not be required to 20 drop it two or three feet below, they would not be required to put landscaping in the back; they 21 could have a two story building, they could have a two story home and it would be right up 22 against...they're looking the same, you know, the same thing in the backyard. We could have 23 packed the 50 foot wide or 40 foot wide lots all along the back of that. 24 We're putting 24 units...24 units, and not all of them are backing up against this, and not 25 all of them are on the second story in this area right here; whereas, if you look at the distance, you're looking at, you know, several hundred feet right across here. I think it's, I believe it's like -10- `~ • s 1 400 feet. We could have had ten homes backing up against there, whereas we'll have 12 2 apartments...24 apartments in this layout right here. 3 Mr. Lundeen will go aver that a little bit more too. But, you have the idea of the vehicles 4 traffic coming in and out, we're putting...you put apartments in this center location, in the center 5 area here, and you have not only...not only you have a situation where the vehicle's lights 6 coming in, disturbing even more of an area, right here is just the prime location for that. And, I 7 would like to defer to Mr. Lundeen, if I could, for the rest of that. $ CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Thank you. Mr. Lundeen? 9 GERALD LUNDEEN: As you can see by this sketch up here...oh, Gerry Lundeen, architect on 10 the project. You look at this sketch on the two screens here. We have high wind... 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. Lundeen? The recorder...would you speak in the micro...thank you. 12 LUNDEEN: We have high windows on the walkway so that you can see the person standing on 13 the back patio, doesn't see the person inside, and the vision of that person doesn't look down 14 into the yard. The other unit below it has a high window, but it just looks out into the landscape 15 swale that takes the drainage both ways. So there's...in the entire height of the building, top of 16 the roof we have up to 27 feet, this is really no more than probably a story and a half house...if 17 you had a story and a half house built next to you, I'd be the same thing. ~$ CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, Mr. Lundeen, I have a quick question... ~~ LUNDEEN: Certainly. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: This rendering here, you have a two story units... 2~ LUNDEEN: Mh hm. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...is this going to be the area facing the homes, or will this be the area 23 facing the homes? 24 LUNDEEN: It will be the back side of that sketch. The back side of the sketch shows a 25 cantilevered walkway...you have that plan there? LILLEY: Is that it right there? -11- A ~ LUNDEEN: The...yeah, you can see the back side of the plan in the lower corner here... 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 3 LUNDEEN: ...that is all covered and also screened and windowed. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right. OK. 5 LUNDEEN: There's no invasion of privacy at all. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right, thank you. At this time I'm going to turn the floor over to 7 Commissioners. Questions from Commissioners, comments? Mr. Ludtke, you have the floor. 8 LUDTKE: Mr. Lundeen? 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, Ludtke. 1o BINNEWEG: Lundeen. 11 LUDTKE: Who's the...who's the architect? 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Oh, who's oh, OK, the architect is... 13 LUDTKE: Lundeen? 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. 15 LUDTKE: Mr. Lundeen? Come up here to the microphone, would you please? Can you tell 16 me the importance of having those apartments in that location, versus another location? Can ~ 7 you tell me an actual factual reason? ~$ LUNDEEN: Certainly. 19 LUDTKE: OK. 20 LUNDEEN: In the development of this scheme, my clients wanted something that looked like a 21 small town, kind of a little village, if you will, and one of the ways we're doing this village 22 approach is to keep everything coming up the hill, and this would be kind of the crowning place 23 with the height higher than most of the units on the subdivision. And, consequently, it gave us 24 kind of a, without a clock tower or some vertical element, it kind of gave us this nice little sweep, 25 because we're following the contours of the land up to that corner. It gave us a nice place to put away the cars behind the retaining wall, and also it gave us a nice place to feature this wall as -12- t ~ • 1 you came into the complex going to the other units, so that the apartments, which would have 2 been kind of imposing had they been in the middle of the complex, are now off to the side, and 3 actually help identify the place. And, that was the big idea behind what we did. 4 LUDTKE: Is there any reason they can't be on the west end of the development? 5 LUNDEEN: Yeah, my clients are...wanted to have... 6 LUDTKE: Rather than the village concept? 7 LUNDEEN: They wanted to have the houses, and the patio units, and town homes, they 8 wanted to have those kind of clustered around little parkways and ponding areas, and 9 consequently this is up out of the way of that. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, any other Commissioners? Commissioner Binneweg? 11 BINNEWEG: Well, I would think from a lay...l can visualize what you're talking about, but with 12 the slope of the land the apartments down the hill would be less imposing. You say the 13 elevation is going dawn toward the freeway, and when you build two story dawn low, then your 14 top story is all the people are seeing up higher, rather than seeing this thing up higher than 15 everyone else, as far as the topography of the land. 16 I can understand the people's concerns whose lots back up to the apartments because 17 that's quite an increase in density without much of a stepping down and buffering. Those 18 are...are they R-1 lots on the other side of the fence, or patio homes, R-1 lots? 19 LUNDEEN: My understanding... 20 BINNEWEG: Generally.... 21 LUNDEEN: Pardon? 22 LILLEY: On the other side of the fence? 23 BINNEWEG: Yeah. 24 LUNDEEN: Yeah, most of them are single story. 25 BINNEWEG: Yeah. -13- ! M 1 LUNDEEN: And I...the little section that you saw just a few minutes ago, that section, was an 2 actual measured section to show you the bulk of the house compared to the bulk of the 3 apartment building next to it, and they're very similar. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN; Mr.... 5 LUNDEEN: The other thing... 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Oh, OK. 7 LUNDEEN: Perhaps I can add one more thing. $ CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, go ahead. 9 LUNDEEN: The previous plan had a group of apartments in the middle and, I believe that, 1o when I looked up the Code on the height restrictions, there was 100 feet, so the alternative thing 11 was let's put something a little more in scale down...up the hill rather, than having all the units 12 piled up in the middle, up in a four story area... 13 BINNEWEG: But the... 14 LUNDEEN: I think this a much more residential kind of approach. 15 BINNEWEG: Well, if you design that with all your apartments in the middle then it's incumbent 16 on the people buying in mast recently to decide if they're going to live next door to 100 foot tall ~ 7 apartments... 18 LUNDEEN: Yeah. 19 BINNEWEG; ...rather than these people who are already here looking at this stuff going up 20 when...how far is that building away from the property line where you have that apartment, and 21 the walkway, and everything? 22 LUNDEEN: Twenty feet. 23 BINNEWEG: Twenty feet from these people's back yard? 24 LUNDEEN: Twenty feet from the stone retaining wall, which is about eight feet tall. 25 BINNEWEG: Which is behind them? -14- • i 1 LUNDEEN: Which is behind them and then we're down four feet from there. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: There is no eight foot retaining wall now. 3 LUNDEEN: There's the retaining wall now, and its existence, and that tree is the exact same 4 size in this particular existing area. That tree has already grown up and they're several of them 5 along there, and these would be the new trees on the far left. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. Ford, Commissioner Ford, I'm cony. 7 FORD: Mr. Lundeen? 8 LUNDEEN: Yes. 9 FORD: 1'd like to hear your arguments or your substantiation of, if the apartments were moved 1o diagonally across that lot, there's almost, as I look at it, an identical configuration, land 11 configuration, if they just were flopped aver to that, what would be the reason why, in your 12 opinion, you couldn't do that? 13 LUNDEEN: That area seems to be one of the areas of our panding. It could be moved down 14 the hill to that point, but it's just one of those subjective moves where in view of the total 15 complex, it looked like it was better to me up on the hill. 16 FORD: Thank you. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke, you had another point? 18 LUDTKE: I...one...Mr Lundeen? I...to clarify, those apartments on the east side of those 19 apartments an the homes facing side, when you up the stairs and you walk north, on those...on 20 that deck... 21 LUNDEEN: That's correct. 22 LUDTKE: ...is that to believe that the outer part of that deck is all enclosed...? 23 LUNDEEN: Yes sir. 24 LUDTKE: ...there's no opening at all...? Just... 25 LUNDEEN: There's just windows for about six feet up to the top, about four feet. LUDTKE: On the...on that catwalk, on the east side of that catwalk, there's a window above? -15- A ~ 1 LUNDEEN: There's a window above all the way across and varying intervals. 2 LUDTKE: Ah ha. 3 LUNDEEN: That's a solid wall from there, where the arrow's going... 4 LUDTKE: And that's just an entrance walkway, not into the apart...the doorway would be... 5 LUNDEEN: The doorway would be... 6 LUDTKE: ...to the left? 7 LUNDEEN: ...on the other side, on the left, from there. 8 LUDTKE: Is there any way you can look into those homes as if you were on that catwalk? 9 LUNDEEN: If you were seven feet tall. 1o LUDTKE: Standing there seven feet tall, or on a chair looking ... 11 LUNDEEN: Yeah... 12 LUDTKE: ... down. 13 LUNDEEN: ...you could do that. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 15 CAMUNEZ: Mh. 1B CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other Commissioners? 17" LILLEY: Mr. Chairman, if I may. We have provided, and I don't know if it's actually in the 18 packets or not, but our proposed layout of the apartments in that area, there are 24 units; there 19 are three buildings that make up these 24 two story units. So, the actual units that back up 20 against this property, there are four units; two, two, eight total, four on top, four on bottom. 21 So, you're looking at four, and potential of even five for one further down in the triangle 22 area, if I may, further down this area there's some apartments along this direction, four of 23 them...l mean eight of them, four and four; and along here it's four and four. 24 So, we're talking about eight, only four units actually. When you're saying apartments, 25 I'd like to know, maybe the concern of an apartment as apposed to a house. These...this PUD -16- °. -- 1 would allow for houses or very small lots...l mean, a fifty foot lot line...fifty foot lot with two town 2 homes side by side, two story, right there. 3 The same density could be put on a residential lot there, that we're proposing with the 4 apartments; even higher density. We're back...it...l'm...we're dealing with a taboo or the 5 intonations of apartments, whereas specifically we're only putting four units that would be able 6 to actually have an upstairs portion. 7 Four units, potentially five units that would even back up against this line, and I can 8 show...and if I can approach, I'd show this to you, and you can pass it around; I'd like to submit 9 it, if I could submit a copy, or however we could do this, but we aren't talking about 30, 40 units 10 all backing up that. 11 The configuration of this parcel allows for some units here, some units here, a central 12 location for a pool, and a couple of units here. So, we have...the apartments actually surround 13 the perimeter of this with some parking lots on the...some parking on the side, but they don't all 14 butt up against this property. I thought I'd clarify that... 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lilley. I...one of the comments I'd like to make, seems the 16 rest of the Commissioners were finished. Mrs. Boldt and Mr. Jenkins' concern, I don't think from 17 what I heard were primarily the apartments, I think it was people being able to look into their 18 yard. 19 And, what I understand, Mr. Lilley, is your saying is, if you have to...if we had to change 20 these, you could then put single family units there at the same level that their four foot fence is 21 now and they could definitely look right into their backyard and they would have to put up more 22 of a fence. Where if you put these in now, you're going to sink them down below the ground 23 and basically, all these people would see would be the buildings, but nobody looking into their 24 homes, basically. 25 LILLEY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, that is...there are so many more restrictions to be placed on the apartments put there. We have to go through the landscape architect, the -17- ~ ' 1 reviews that are required for the apartments, and the landscaping, and everything else, are so 2 much more stringent than a single family home. 3 If I were to put the single, you know, across that back lot line, if I were to put single 4 family homes along there, of course my configuration would change again, because the best 5 way to put them in there wouldn't be in the triangle piece. 6 We'd end up looking like what we have down here, lower, where we're using this portion ~ as a ponding area, I can put five or six single family homes along that same line back there, ar 8 50 foot wide lots with duplexes, and they can be two story duplexes and I don't have any 9 restrictions on any requirements for...whether they look in the back yard, whether there's a tree 1o back there, whether there's anything else back there. 11 It's...one of the stipulations staff has placed upon us is that these apartments when 12 submitting for permitting, have to be reviewed by the landscape architect. That's not required 13 normally in a situation like this, but because it is a PUD and it is requested by staff, that's what 14 we've agreed to. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, thank you Mr. Lilley. Any other Commissioner comments? If there 16 are none, I will accept a motion to hear this case, or to vote on this case. 17 FORD: Mr. Chairman, I would move approval of Case PUD-04-06. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 1s CAMU~VEZ: Second. 2D CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, I will call the roll. 21 Commissioner Binneweg? 22 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on discussion and recommendations. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford. 24 FORD: Aye, based on discussion, site visit, and recommendations. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? LUDTKE: Aye, under discussion. -18- 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 2 CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on discussion and site visit. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes Aye, based on discussion, side visits, and findings. 4 This case passes 5-0. Thank you very much. ~ OK, new business two, Case S-04-072. I will accept a motion to hear this case. 6 CAMUNEZ: I make a motion that we hear Case S-04-110. 7 LUDTKE: 110? 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, no. 9 CAMUNEZ: Oh. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Oh, hold on a second, before you make your motion. We have two cases, 11 what we need first, and this is Case S-04-072, it's a master plan and then we have Case 22579, 12 a request for multiple zone changes. So, I need first a motion to suspend the rules to hear both 13 these cases at once. 14 BINNEWEG: So moved. 1 ~ FORD: Second. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, I don't think we need to vote on that one, then I do need a motion to 17 hear these two cases together, so do you want to do it again? 18 CAMUNEZ: I make a motion that we hear Case S-04-072, and Case 22579. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 20 81NNEWEG: Second. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, is the applicant ready to present this case? 22 KYLE MOBERLY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, my name is Kyle Moberly, I'm an attorney and I 23 represent Roy Moore Land Company, LLC, the owner of the property and the applicant in this 24 case...or in both of these cases. I don't have a Power Point presentation to do first, so I think it 25 might be preferable to revert to the way that I'm used to these meetings being run where the City staff makes its presentation, goes through the overview, gives us a visual presentation of -19- t ~ • 1 what's...what we're proposing to do, and then I can embellish on that as far as what the...my 2 client has done with respect to this proposal, if you'd like, otherwise, I'm just going to be able to 3 give you an oral presentation. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. Mobley, the way we do it at the Planning and Zoning Commission, the 5 applicant presents its case, whether it is with Power Point presentations or just... 6 MOBERLY: OK. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...verbally, because remember what you're doing, we have all the 8 information from the staff, we know... 9 MOBERLY: OK. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...the information... 11 MOBERLY: OK. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: You've got to convince the citizens here... 13 MOBERLY: OK. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...so if you will give us some type of overview, we would appreciate it and 15 will help us make our decision. 16 MOBERLY: OK. The applicant is proposing to Master Plan the approximately 200 acres that is 1 ~' at the generally south of Highway 70, Bataan Memorial West, and east of Mesa Grande Drive 18 across the, essentially across what would be the street from Orate High School, and east of 19 Jornada South Subdivision. 20 This property has been in the Moore family for many years, several decades, and what 21 they are proposing to do is an effort to dispose of the land by selling a large chunk of this, 22 approximately 126 acres to a group of developers that includes Arlon Parish, who is a 23 successful and very experienced residential developer in the Las Cruces area. 24 The other remainder of the land, which is again approximately 70 acres, will be either 25 developed by Roy Moore Land Company or will openly be sold to someone else to develop; there's no intent at this time to do any present development, but as indicated in the packet that -20- ~ ~ 1 you have, the...we're also proposing to rezone all of the property, most of it is currently zoned 2 R-1 a, with some R-4 at the northern part of the property along Bataan Memorial East. 3 The proposal is to rezone approximately 50 acres from R-1 a to C-3, and that would be 4 the portion mostly in the northeast corner of the property. Then rezone a portion of the R-1 a 5 property to R-4 that is in the southeast corner. To rezone part of the R-1 a that is on the western 6 most edge of the property that is...abuts Jornada South Subdivision and it contains 7 approximately 17 acres. To rezone that EE, Single Family Equestrian; and also to rezone a 8 portion to just of the east of the 17 acres I just described to RE, Single Family Residential 9 Estates, and that's to provide a buffer from the zoning of the area to the west, Jornada South, 1o which is currently contains one acre minimum lots, if not slightly larger than that in some cases. 11 To provide a buffer between those lots and a higher density area, which as I indicated 12 before, the present zoning actually allows for a higher density area right up against the Jornada 13 South Subdivision, but in an effort to address concerns of the neighbors that were expressed in 14 meetings that my client and the developer conducted with the neighbors, they're trying to 15 address those concerns by providing this down-zoning buffer on the western side of the 16 property. 17 They're also proposing to rezone a part of the R-4 that is along Bataan Memorial East 18 from R-4 to C-3, it's approximately again 12 acres, over on the...along the north...along the 19 basically the north side of the property. And, then rezone a portion of the R-4 again, that's 20 along Bataan Memorial West...or East, I'm sorry, that is in the northwest corner of the property, 21 from R-4 to O-2. 22 These change...these...some of these re-zonings were in an effort to provide a mixed 23 use development that would not be solely R-1 Residential, Single Family Residential, as again, 24 basically, the present zoning would allow, except for the portion that runs along the northern 25 boundary of the property along Bataan Memorial East. -21- e ~ ~ 1 The...some of the changes are due to the zoning, I mean, to make a more appropriate 2 zoning far the property, to allow for commercial zoning property along the east, which would be, 3 essentially, adjacent to Orate High School, at the corner of Mesa Grande Drive and Bataan 4 Memorial East, which is appropriate for commercial development there. 5 Have a higher density residential next to that, to the west, and then again progressively 6 getting larger as we go west and ultimately abut Jornada South. 7 As I mentioned earlier, my client has had several meetings along with the developer to 8 address concerns of the neighbors to the west, who apparently are the only adjacent property 9 yards who have any concern regarding this, as mentioned in the packet. 10 The property to the east is Onate High School, to the south, I believe, it's the State Land 11 Office land, and then essentially to the north is the Highway 70. 12 The neighbors to the west, in Jornada South, have expressed concerns about the impact 13 on their neighborhood with regard, to aesthetically, as far as, again, development of a denser 14 neighborhood than their subdivision. I mean, that's being addressed, as I mentioned before, 15 with the buffer zone on the western edge of the property in question; and, also addressing 16 concerns, again, of neighbors as far as moving some of the building pad sites for the lots that 17 are adjacent to Jornada South to the eastern edge of those lots, along the western boundary of 18 the property. 19 Installing the lowest level downward focused street lights permitted by the City Code to 20 try to minimize the light pollution that the subdivision might create. 21 Attempting to provide a good size park within the sub...within the property, if the City will 22 accept it; providing for less multi-family zone property than what the City might otherwise had 23 preferred with a, again, a more mixed multi-use development. 24 They've also attempted to address concerns of the neighbors to the west with regard to 25 traffic impact by eliminating access to and from the proposed subdivision, which is called Mesa Grande Estates, through their subdivision, using the streets, Panorama and I forget what the -22- 1 name of the other...what? Real del Sur, to the west, so cutting off those so that they end up 2 being, essentially, I guess culd-de-sacs, or teed at the...on the Jornada South Subdivision, and 3 only...there's no vehicular access through there, but there would be pedestrian, and utility 4 access; through, again, reduce the impact of traffic in Jornada South. 5 And, to provide additional access to and from Mesa Grande Estates using Bataan 6 Memorial East and re-zoning...the re-zoning will result in lower density than current zoning 7 would allow, which will help to reduce the traffic on that...along Bataan Memorial East, which of s course, would have some impact on the neighbors to the west. 9 And, frankly, the development will provide a tax base for future improvement to the roads 10 in the area that will help to upgrade the roads for al! of the neighbors. 11 I'd be happy to answer any questions that the Commissioners may have, after the 12 presentation. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Moberly, we appreciate your input. Staff, are you ready 14 for...make your presentation Mrs. McCarron. 15 McCARSON: Sure, Chairman, Commissioners, as you stated previously, these are Cases S- 16 04-072, and 22579, the Master Plan and Zoning Changes proposal for a project known as Mesa 17 Grande Estates. Thank you for suspending the rules, by the way, to hear these cases together, 18 I would just like to point out when it comes to the time for voting, we will need to un-suspend the 19 rules and vote on the items separately. 20 The vicinity map of the project is here, the property contains approximately 196 acres. 21 Currently it'r...primarily zoned R-1a and a small portion of the property along U.S. Highway 70 22 and the frontage road being zoned R-4. 23 As you can tell from the aerial photo, the property is currently vacant; it is immediately 24 west of the future extension of Mesa Grande Drive and Onate High School is located here. It is 25 immediately south of Highway 70 and the frontage road, and it is east of the existing Jornada -23- { ! i 1 South Subdivision, located here; the subdivision consisting primarily of larger lots, one acre 2 minimum and higher. 3 This is the proposed master plan for Mesa Grande Estates, as Mr. Moberly indicated, it 4 is a mixed use proposal containing non residential uses, both commercial and office, multi- 5 family, as well as a variety of single family lots, primarily maintain the R-1a zoning present on 6 the property, but also providing two other types of single family residential lot-types and housing 7 products. In total, a maximum of 391 single family lots being proposed. 8 This is the zoning layout that Mr. Moberly was leading to; the office zoning along the 9 U.S. Highway Frontage Road, along with the commercial zoning, along the Frontage Road, as 1 o well as Mesa Grande on the east side of the property, the multi-family zoning being on the 11 southeastern portion of the property. Again, the R-1a zoning in the middle of the property 12 existing and to be maintained. A strip of the EE, one acre minimum lot sizes and RE, half acre 13 minimum lot sizes being provided on the west side of the property. These, as my understanding 14 and Mr. Moberly indicated, that these would be provided as a buffer to the existing Jornada 15 South Subdivision, immediately to the west. 16 Additionally, no access, as Mr. Moberly indicated, would be provided through the 17 Jornada South Subdivision to the Mesa Grande Estates. This was not included in your packet 18 but it's provided for conceptual lot layout and road layout information. Although there is no 19 access, again proposed, via Jornada South Subdivision to the Mesa Grande Estates, this is 20 Panorama Drive located here where the arrow is and Real del Sur on the south side of the 21 subdivision. These roads will be blocked off to vehicular access that will be...will provide 22 pedestrian and utility access. There are three access points, Mesa Grande being on the right 23 side of the screen here, and there are three access points being proposed to connect with Mesa 24 Grande. 25 Emergency services did require it because Panorama Drive and Real del Sur being proposed to be stubbed out and not provide access. They do require additional secondary -24- e 1 access not through Mesa Grande Drive, but through another road. The only other alternative 2 being another access road to punch out to the U.S. Highway 70 Frontage Road. This access, 3 however, is controlled by New Mexico Department of Transportation and the developer at this 4 time does not have approval yet...approval of the TIA and approval of the access road to the 5 frontage road at this time. s As such, the DRC and staff recommendation are both recommending approval of the 7 Master Plan as well as the zone change. The proposal is supported by the Comprehensive 8 Plan in its mixed use concept and in providing a variety of housing products as well as other 9 policies in the Comprehensive Plan found in your packet. The DRC is recommending approval 10 of the Master Plan with the condition, however, that New Mexico DOT approval is granted for 11 the access to the frontage road. 12 There was a petition handed out, prior to the meeting, it should have been in your place, 13 this is from the Jornada South Subdivision. Other than many meetings with this subdivision, 14 and the representative, Ihave received no other comment regarding the subdivision, the Master 15 Plan and then zone changes. And, I can answer any questions you might have. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mrs. McCarson. As we have a petition, how many pages in 17 this petition? One, two, three, four, five, six, quite a few pages. Do you people have a 18 spokesman for your group that would like to talk first? Yes sir, would you please come forward? 19 Say, we'll give you 10 minutes to state your case. Name please? 20 BOB PENNINGTON: Bob Pennington, 4555 Panorama Drive. I'd like the neighbors that I'm 21 representing to raise their hands, please. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That looks like about 2/3 of the audience, thank you. 23 PENNINGTON: I'm more familiar with Macintosh than PC, so if I go backwards, please forgive 24 me. 25 Last month at your meeting, you approved the plan that Commissioner Binneweg pointed out could add as much as 30,000 to the population of the City. That is about two miles -25- 1 from this proposed development. We have higher density development going on to the north of 2 Jornada North, on the other side of Highway 70. We don't think that more high density is 3 justified on the south side. 4 What we would like to see for us, for the City, is award winning development design, a 5 creative approach that incorporates the environment. Not an approach that says housing's aver 6 there environment's over there, but incorporates the environment and open space, natural 7 features, existing topography, and scenic views. A development that conforms to the land 8 rather than making the land conform to development. We would like to see an innovative 9 design that continues Roy Moore's vision. 1 o Jornada South originally was an alternative energy subdivision. We would like to see a ~ 1 new vision for Mesa Grande Estates that is an alternative environment subdivision, a housing 12 environment mix, in which the neighborhood is the environment. 13 Roy Maare's original vision, you can see here, others...you have seen part of Jornada 14 South and the proposed subdivision. This shows Jornada North, Jornada South, and the 15 proposed area. You can see clearly that the roads that Mr. Moore has, built, and maintain 16 continue this vision of the north-south environment. 17 We...Mr. Moore told many of us for many years that he planned to make this area the 18 same as these areas. We would like to see him do that. We have a great deal of respect for 19 this vision, and we would like to see it executed. 20 Therefore, what you see on our request is a modification of the proposal with dead ends 21 on Panorama and Real del Sur, but EE zoning on parcels A, B, and C, which is what Roy Moore 22 told us that he was going to do far many years. We would like to see it utilize the existing roads, 23 which Roy Moore told us for many years he would do. 24 We would like to see O-2 zoning on all Parcels D, E, F and G. The July 2"d draft of the 25 Master Plan has C-3, but it says Office Park, for C-3; we would like it zoned O-2 to make sure it is office park and not something else. -26- 1 And Parcel G is requested to be zoned R-4. We have apartments nearby; we can see 2 them in the Sonoma Ranch Subdivision very clearly from Jornada South and from the proposed 3 subdivision. 4 We would like to maintain the existing topography and we would like to avoid light 5 trespassing. 6 The City of Las Cruces Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code offer ample 7 justification for our request. I am going to review some of that right now; I'm sure you're familiar 8 with it sa, what I'm going to show you from this point should be just a reminder. You should be 9 able to look at this and say, "Oh yeah, I remember seeing that." 1o The land use goal of the Las Cruces City Plan: Achieve an urban form which supports 11 and enhances our unique environment in a manner which provides a sense of community and 12 reflects a logical, efficient, aesthetic, and environmentally sound overall urban form. 1 ~ Policy: Shall be established to preserve neighborhoods. 14 New neighborhoods: Ensure neighborhoods are design to create distinct areas for urban 15 residential living. We have such a distinct area. 16 Design criteria will include compatibility to the adjacent neighborhood in terms of 17 architectural design, height, density, and provision of landscaping. 18 For commercial uses: Further strip commercial development should be discouraged, 19 particularly in neighborhood areas, such as ours. 2U Commercial Business Zoning shall be categorized based an use intensity scale and 21 compatibility with its environment. 22 Far Office Uses, which we repress: Therefore establishing business, personal, and 23 professional services without generating large volumes of vehicular traffic. You will notice on 24 the proposal 17,000 trips per day generated. Those 17,000 trips will not be randomly distributed 25 aver 24 hours, but at particular times during the day. We would like to see office uses to -27- 4 ~ 1 eliminate large volumes of vehicular traffic, especially, considering we have Onate High School 2 right there. 3 The City of Las Cruces, the Comprehensive Plan says, is located within a unique scenic 4 environment. And, what you see here in the background is a view from Jornada South Road, 5 looking east over the proposed development area. You're seeing the eastern edge of Jornada 6 South and the proposed development area. 7 The Comprehensive Plan says two crucial relationships must be maintained and 8 enhanced; the urban fabric to its people, and the urban fabric to its natural surroundings. 9 In Growth Management: Those uses with lower intensities must be protected from 1 o adjacent uses with higher intensities in order to protect a desirable quality of life within the City. 11 Issues such as architectural scale, density, and other development related issues shall 12 be considered to insure land use make cumulatively supports and enhances the overall 13 character of the City. 14 The City shall take an active role, promoting a higher quality of life for its citizens. 15 Development design shall facilitate drainage, street, utility, and urban design capability 16 within/and adjacent to development projects. ~ 7 The Development Code and Las Cruces Comprehensive Plan are designed to prevent 18 overcrowding of land, avoid undue concentration of populations, encourage innovation in land 19 development, avoid inappropriate development, and ensure sensitivity to natural areas and 20 features, minimize adverse environmental impacts, ensure sensitivity to existing neighborhoods, 21 such as ours, and conserve the value of buildings and land. 22 We see in Planned Unit Development such as you just discussed on the previous item, 23 that it encourages a creative approach, permits innovative site design, provides the means to 24 preserve open space, natural features, topography, and scenic views; we would like to see this 25 extended to all development not just planned unit development and for Mesa Grande Estates in particular. -28- ~ k 1 The purpose of the Development Code is to provide for the protection and preservation 2 of natural resources, and promotion of natural beauty within the City; to ensure that proposed 3 development is suitable for a given parcel of land, based on its location and environmental 4 characteristic; to achieve an urban form, which supports and enhances our unique environment; 5 to encourage the most appropriate use of the land, to promote the health, safety and general 6 welfare of the community for the purpose of improving each citizen's quality of life. 7 We would like you to approve the modification we request before you approve the 8 Master Plan and zoning changes. I would be happy to answer any questions you have. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Pennington. Is there any...[Applause]. Is there any other 1o members of the community that wish to make a comment at this time? If so, we'll limit you to 11 two minutes at a time, please. Yes sir, please come to the microphone. 12 RICHARD STEVENS: I have visual aids, is that permissible? 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Pardon me? 14 STEVENS: Visual aids? 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Certainly, sure. 16 STEVENS: I'm Richard Stevens, and I live at 5325 South Jornada Road. This is my fence line 17 Bob shot the shot from. I just moved here three months ago from Los Angeles. The reason I 18 moved here is that I found this home in this place, on three acres, with views that are so 19 stunning that is to boggle the mind. Move to California or Phoenix and you'll see what I mean. 20 And, the thought of a density of 390 homes going on this alluvial desert, with swales and 21 arroyos that deliver the water safely, off the area of the City to that kind of density and 22 commercial lighting and so on, in front of your number one landmark, the incredible Organ 23 Mountains, which I now have 1,500 slides of. 24 And, it's a thing where I cannot believe that the City is going to put this kind of density 25 (inaudible speaking away from the microphone). I'd like to submit this. This is the kind of density you're talking about; the same density that is up on the end of Roadrunner. You cannot -29- 1 put 390 houses on 127 acres, plus 70, and not have this look, which is going to be a wall that 2 mars the view to this magnificent valley. 3 And, what we have presently is this, which is a natural treasure, your mountain valley, 4 unobstructed by lights or any other kind of building, and I think for this City, they should consider ~ it being one of their great landmarks for tourism and for future people coming here, like with the 6 XPlane program, we're going to want three acres and fine desert homes, as Mr. Pennington has 7 described, in this area. And, they will pay a lot of money, if it isn't obstructed by an LA...east LA 8 density, correct? Per unit. 9 And, then, my final point, is where is the water coming from? 10 [Applause] 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Stevens. If you'd like to lay those out on the table here, 12 they'll do more there than they will back in your seat. Is there anyone else? Yes sir? 13 JIM STYTSON: Hi, my name is Jim Stytson, with the Southwest Environmental Center. We 14 have approximately 400 members in Las Cruces. And, I'm...l've only recently become aware of 15 the specifics of this development, so I'll defer to that to that community on the remarks they 16 have made. 17 But, I do want to express my concern about the trends that I see this development as 18 continuing. I'm an aficionado of the western United States, in general, and Dora Ana County is 19 one of the few metropolitan counties in the Rocky Mountain west that has a mountain range that 20 has not experienced build-out to the very foot of those mountains. 21 If you go up and down the west Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, you know, Montana, this kind 22 of development that we are seeing and...along Highway 70 right now, is just rampant. 23 And, the pace of development that I've seen just in the last year and a half that I've lived 24 in Dona Ana County, it concerns me very deeply. 25 -30- 1 It's perhaps not coincidentally that we actually have an art exhibit in the Southwest 2 Environmental Center right now called Precious Desert that actually looks at the impacts of this 3 kind of development that's happening right now in Las Cruces. 4 And, I'm very concerned that we're losing our desert very rapidly, we're losing that 5 connection to the Organ Mountains, and we're losing what makes Las Cruces unique. 6 And, for that reason, I would urge the City to really look very carefully at whether this 7 plan...this development truly conforms to our long range plan for what we want our City to 8 become, and whether this meets the goals that Mr. Pennington pointed out about protecting our 9 natural environment, because if those words are to have any substance of meaning, they have 10 to actually apply to each specific development, and I'm not sure that this parkicular development 11 meets those criteria at all, because it would just continue the loss of our natural surroundings 12 that is already happening very, very rapidly. 13 So, that is our concern about this development, it takes us further on an unsustainable 14 course; we've got to start putting the breaks on somewhere. And, that's all I have to say. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Stytson. 16 [Applause] 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other members of the audience? Yes, Ma'am? 18 JANE MASON: My name is Jane Mason and I am a resident of Jornada South, I live on Feliz 19 Real, which is the street that's going to butt up against this. 20 The one thing that I want to say before...is in the drawings that you saw, with the 21 proposed housing, two conflicting things that I've noticed here tonight. One, Mr. Moore's 22 attorney mentioned that there been multiple meetings with the community; there has been one, 23 held at Onate High. During that meeting, I particularly expressed a concern for the 24 neighborhood park, some of what you're seeing along Roadrunner, even though it's more dense 25 than we want. -31- ~. A • • ~ You do have a few neighborhood parks established. Mr. Moore's attorney stated that 2 the...there'll...that the developer is looking in to that, but if you go back to the plan that you 3 showed, there is nv park shown there. 4 And, so, before any approval, I think a realistic drawing of what, you know, support 5 everything that's been said here already, but if they do development, what you saw as a s drawing, shows no park in it. OK? 7 What you heard from Mr. Moore's attorney says there will be a park, that they're 8 addressing the concerns and the issues, but where...of the residents...but we are not seeing 9 that in the plans. 10 And, that also I think needs to be taken into consideration before any approval of 11 anything there. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. 13 [Applause] 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other members of the community wish to say anything? This is your 15 last change, if you have something more, because we will close it. OK. Thank you very much 16 for your input, we appreciate it. ~ 7 Commissioners? Commissioner Binneweg? 18 BINNEWEG: I serve on this Board to try and give my input, mediate...) moved up to Boise, 19 Idaho, for 2 % years, just...and I moved back just a year ago. And, the citizens up there had on 20 the ballot a motion that directed the City to start trading, horse trading, buying property, because 21 that's the only way you can stop development. And, they did that to stop the 22 development...theirfoothi)ls and it passed unanimously. 23 And, they made a decision, aS a community, to start buying, because if you don't own it, 24 you can't da anything about it. 25 And, so, as I sit here, I have wandered for the last eight, nine years, I've been on this Board, why there's never been a group of citizens that have gotten together and said, "There's -32- a A 1 no water, we're all in this together, we have to get going on a plan," because developers won't 2 do it, the City's not going to do it without a hell of a lot of pressure from citizens. 3 But the citizens...everybody comes here and then we...what can we do? All we can do 4 is look at what's recommended by the, you know, DRC and all the development and all that, and ~ say, "Well, there's no one who tells us legally we can do anything to stop it." 6 So, that's why we look like we're all in the developers back pockets, but the fact is, 7 there's nothing in place to stop it. You can't stop people from developing land that they own. 8 So, that's why I've always wondered why there's, you know, nothing further. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Very good point, thank you, Commissioner. 10 BINNEWEG: Thank you. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Anybody else, any other Commissioners? 12 CAMUNEZ: I have something. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes? 14 CAMUNEZ: With this development, what concerns me now is the traffic, there's Or'iate 15 High...our Highway 70 is really not constructed to handle that much traffic, I don't think. So, my 1s concern in the future, when this does happen, how is the City going to handle that much traffic? 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Any other Commissioners? 18 LUDTKE: Was this layout...did we see this before? I don't remember ever seen it. 19 BINNEWEG: Mh hm. I haven't... 20 CAMUNEZ: I haven't seen it. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, this is a new one. z2 LUDTKE: Is this cast in stone? See this...see all these homes, in these Tots? 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Hold on a second, let Mrs. McPearson...McCarson answer...that's four... 24 McCARSON: It's only been a year and a half, but that's OK. I think, Commissioner Ludtke, if 25 you're asking about the conceptual lot layout, this is not cast in stone. I mean, none of these documents are, that's why they're here tonight. The next...the proposed Master Plan, I mean, -33- 1 the Master Plan is a conceptual subdivision tool. A conceptual land use tool, and at the Master 2 Plan stage is where you let, you know, depending on what your vote is, what happens tonight, is 3 where you would lay out the establishment of the land uses and then the zoning is what follows 4 that. 5 That's why you'll see both the cases on the agenda together, so, I mean, they're 6 conceptual at this point, yes, but once you start approving the Master Plan and the zoning, 7 these items start becoming more set in stone. 8 The next items that you'll see are the preliminary plats for each subdivision, each phase 9 of the subdivision that comes in and then things are getting very set in stone; you're dealing with 10 drainage studies that have been studied to the T and you're dealing with final plats that will set it 1 ~ all in stone, and will be filed, and set the documents. 12 So, the further you go, and to answer your question, these are not set in stone; this 13 conceptual layout was provided as a conceptual tool to demonstrate the road network, the fact 14 that Panorama and Real del Sur, at this point, are proposed to not extend into Mesa Grande 15 Estates. The fact that there is an access road proposed to the frontage road, not yet approved 16 by DOT, but again, just conceptual at this point, until something happens this evening, further 17 down the road at City Council, who will approve, not the Master Plan, unless that document is ~ 8 appealed, if you approve it tonight, but they will approve, the City Council will have to approve 19 the zoning for final approval. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. While you're there, what happens if tonight we deny this, or 21 take no action on it, and the fact that the land is currently zoned R-1 a; what happens if we deny 22 it? 23 McCARSON: The fact, Chairman Buchman, Commissioners, the fact that the land already 24 holds zoning, it's zoned R-4, and R-1a...the R-4 land, let me get back to the drawing that 25 shows...one more...) mean, there are properties...you can see that that land is actually comprised of four pieces of property. -34- ti ,. ~ The part of the land that's currently zoned R-4, there could be building permits pulled 2 tomorrow to start beginning construction on apartments on the portion of the property that is 3 zoned R-4. The part of the property that's zoned R-1 a, it is required to be Master Planned, 4 according to the City Subdivision Code, if the subdivision contains more than 40 lots, it's over a 5 certain size, and it's doing certain things, it is required to comply with the City's Master Planning 6 process, so, on the remainder of the portion of the land that's under R-1a, it is required, more 7 than likely, depending on what the developer's plans are, that that property be Master Planned. 8 But, if you deny the documents, if you deny the Master Plan tonight, and this is just for 9 the public, for veryone's information, if you deny the Master Plan tonight in order to have that 1 o case proceed on to the City Council, it would have to be appealed to the City Council. There is 11 a fee to do that and there's a time frame to do that in. 12 If the zoning...if you recommend denial of the zoning aspect of the case, that goes to the 13 City Council no matter what. You are only a recommending body on the zoning, and whether 14 you recommend denial or approval, that case does go to City Council at a future date, probably, 15 where are we? October, probably December or January. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you very much. My comment, and I agree completely with 17 Commissioner Binneweg, we're going to see growth, we're going to see houses built, we're 18 going to see 900 here, and 300 there, until somebody in this community stops it. 19 And, the only way we're going to stop it is overbuild, or we're going to build up to the 20 Organs, up through the Organs, as long as it is zoned, as long it does not conflict. 21 Now, I appreciate the time that Mr. Pennington put into his presentation, but you've got 22 to remember what we're looking at. Urban Design Element in our findings says: "Support a 23 policy of mixed land uses as discussed in the Land Use Element." Are we leap-frogging from 24 one type to another? No, this is completely within the Land Use Element. 25 Housing Element: To the extent possible, extent possible, preserve and protect the City's various neighborhoods by minimizing internal and external impacts, which may detract -35- 1 from neighborhood's ability to offer a safe, safe, and aesthetically pleasing environment. What's 2 aesthetically pleasing to you, might not be aesthetically pleasing to your neighbor or to the 3 developer. But remember, the developer owns this land, and has the right to develop it. 4 We do appreciate your input, now my question...excuse me, but you've got to 5 remember, we closed this now, we've got your input, we got to make our decision, we make our B vote. 7 Commissioners, do any of you wish to add any of these elements that have been 8 presented by petition or discuss any more? Go ahead Commissioner Ford. 9 FORD: I would just like to ask Ms. McCarson one question. Has the concept of roads, or the 10 need for additional roads, have been considered? You talk about the blocking of the road, to 11 me it's just absolutely impossible that you can block off an area and limit any access to it. And 12 as I believe that current area has only one access, doesn't it? Therefore, they're limiting 13 themselves to any potential for movement in and out of that, particularly in the case of an 14 emergency. 15 McCARSON: Right, Chairman Buchman, Commissioner Ford, you're talking about the one 16 access point into the Jornada South Subdivision? 17 FORD: Yes. 18 McCARSON: Right. When the developer originally came to us an Mesa Grande Estates, and 19 they weren't included in your packet, but the very first versions of the proposal included 20 Panorama and Real del Sur being connected, you know, within the neighborhood, and then 21 eventually connecting to Mesa Grande Drive. 22 The City's traffic engineer, I suppose, was pleased to see the inner-connectivity of the 23 neighborhoods as us planners were happy to see that inter-connectivity of the neighborhoods, 24 emergency services, you better bet believe was very pleased to see that, you know, there were 25 a lot of us that were happy to see that. -36- 1 When the developer started meeting with the neighborhood, it was my understanding, 2 that came up as a concern of the neighborhood and so, before the applicant and their 3 consultant closed off those roads, Panorama and Real del Sur, he met with the City's traffic 4 engineer, emergency services, you know, all of the people that wanted to see those roads open, 5 and we all agreed that, yes, well, it wasn't ideal, but they could be closed, if...let me get to the 6 next drawing, if, this...where's my arrow, if this road punching out to the U.S. Highway Frontage 7 Road was approved. The emergency services will not approve the document having these two 8 roads closed, Reaf de Sur and Panorama, without this being approved...this access road being 9 there; it's just not going to happen. 10 I agree with you that having the one access point into Jornada South is exactly what this 11 would have been without the access road punching through to the Frontage Road. So, again, 12 not ideal; emergency services was willing to live, I suppose, with the way Jornada South wanted 13 that to be, but was not willing to live with this without a secondary access, which again, is not 14 approved through DOT at this time. 15 FORD: Thank you. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other Commissioner's comments. I'll repeat... 17 LUDTKE: Is there...? 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Go ahead Commissioner Ludtke. 19 LUDTKE: You know, if this hasn't been approved, I don't see the value of pressing for that 20 road to be punched through to the Frontage, if that's not the design. Why go through the trouble 21 of doing that if you're not going to design it. If the design changes... 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: With the design they have. The only way we can get the approval to close 23 those two is to punch through. 24 LUDTKE: They don't have a design, they're getting zoning and then it's all open to... 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: True. -37- 1 LUDTKE: ...conjecture. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: True. But to stay within that general concept, I think it's what they're 3 saying. 4 McCARSON: Right, Chairman Buchman, Commissioner Ludtke, I can understand what you're 5 saying. This is a conceptual tool, this is a conceptual lot layout, but I think it's paramount in 6 some of the subdivisions, in the City's mind, that if Panorama and Real del Sur are going to be 7 cut off and stubbed out, there has to be...there has to be another access out other than Mesa $ Grande. Otherwise, there's really no point in continuing the conversation; in our opinion. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, I'll go back to my question before; is there any Commissioner that 1o wants to add any of these suggested changes to the motions...to the cases? 11 BINNEWEG: The one submitted by the... 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. 13 81NNEWEG: ...homeowners group? 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I think, number one is pretty much answered already, those roads will be 15 closed. Number two, they're asking us to change the zoning. Utilize your... 16 LUDTKE: Can I... 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Pardon me? 18 LUDTKE: Can I ask one question? 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Certainly, yes. 20 LUDTKE: Are all those roads are going to be closed? I'm still not convinced that that's a 21 concept. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: True. But remember, our job... 23 LUDTKE: Can't we come back later...? 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And, then we deny it, yes. 25 LUDTKE: Vote on it now, and then it's flipped and then we've got to deny it all over again... CHAIR BUCHMAN: True. -3$- 4 r 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: True. 2 LUDTKE: ...but if we go ahead and put that in, to begin with, right here and now... 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: But our job is to kind of take concepts and run with them, the best we can 4 see it. 5 LUDTKE: Fine, then we can put this plan in the concept. fi McCARS~N: Right. If this helps, Chairman Buchman, Commissioner Ludtke, the Mesa 7 Grande concept at this point, via the Conceptual Lot Layout, is that Panorama and Real del Sur $ will not extend through the subdivision. That is their concept affiliated with the proposed Master 9 Plan, already. I mean, if you want to put that on as a condition of the Master Plan, that's already 1o in there, but you... 11 LUDTKE: I'm...l'm...l guess I'm just reflecting back on what I've seen go up here in previous 12 meetings, where developers have come back... 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mh hm.... 14 LUDTKE: ...they have, that is, and then it's happened again... 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. 16 LUDTKE: ...over and over 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: but as a... 18 LUDTKE: But if we want this to stop, we can just say right here now, that's it. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Or we tell the developer as they come back, you're not going to change it 20 time, and time, and time again. You better go with your original plan. And, I think that... 21 LUDTKE: If I tell them that they have to go get access from that frontage road coming in... 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. 23 LUDTKE: ...then, they going to have to go get that, I don't care... 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That's right. 25 McCARSpN: Wait, that...just so you know, the TIA was completed recently and that paperwork is at New Mexico DOT office, currently under review. I would anticipate hearing an -39- 1 ~ ~ 1 answer on that, I believe she's said early next week, or next week some time. So, that's in 2 process, I have no indication one way or the other if that's going to be approved at this time. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And if we approve it, it's going to be approved with this condition, to the 4 Master Plan. 5 LUDTKE: For that access road? 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Right. 7 LUDTKE: Not for the dead end, on that...on what you're... 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, yes, on the condition, yes. 9 LUDTKE: Yes. 1o CHAIR BUCHMAN: And, I'd like to make a point too, just as far as the audience. In my two 11 years plus, I've never seen anybody give as good a presentation as has been done tonight; 12 however, you're asking us to make changes and that's why we're discussing this because these 13 changes are really important, but I don't feel they can be accomplished. I think that the 14 developer in allowing the zoning EE and ER, are taking care of items number 2; the 15 development... 16 BINNEWEG: Except... 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...utilize the existing roads, I think the developer has a right to pick the 18 roads to fit his buildings... 19 BINNEWEG: Mr. Chairman... 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...in his development...yes? 21 BINNEWEG: I have a question. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Shoot. 23 BINNEWEG: On item number two, you neglected to see that Parcel C, they want that to be EE, 24 and Parcel C is zoned 1a, which is 25 acres per unit...25 units per acre, which is that core right 25 there, and so they haven't extended that EE zoning... -ao- ~ ~ 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN; No, they've extended it a ways... 2 BINNEWEG; ...A and B, they've extended it... 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...yes, I understand 4 BINNEWEG: ...but not to C... 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...yes, Parcels D, E, F, and G, O-2 is opposed to C-3, and... 6 BINNEWEG: R-4... 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...that's right, so, again, do any of you want to include any of this; we need $ a motion and a second, if not, than I will accept a motion on the...well, no, we're going to have 9 to separate it here, let's go...anybody want to add anything? Commissioner Ford, you're...? 1 o FORD: I was just going to say don't get carried away too far because first, you're going to have 11 to remove the condition and bring these back on the table. We're considering the two together 12 now... 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That's right. 14 FORD: We cannot consider... 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. OK, at this time, shall we remove the discussion of two...of one and 16 go separate them, and vote independently on this... 17 BINNEWEG: Discuss independently? 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. 19 BINNEWEG: Yeah. 20 FORD: I would so move. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 22 BINNEWEG: Second. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Good. All right, so the first case: I will accept a motion on Case S-04-072. 24 FORD: Mr. Chairman, 1 would move that Case 5-04-072 be approved. 25 [Audience rumbling] -41- ~ ~ 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? Remember now, I heard your comment; we have to 2 approve it in the positive to vote on it. You can approve...you can motion to approve it and then 3 vote against it. 4 BINNEWEG: OK, I'll second it. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That's the way we do it in Robert's Rules. 6 BINNEWEG: I second. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. $ LUDTKE: Question. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And there's a question, go ahead. 1o LUDTKE: Is that with any conditions on that Master Plan you're...you're talking about the 11 Master Plan...(unintelligible)? 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, and it's including the condition that is on there now, that the NMDOT, 13 New Mexico Department of Transportation approval is granted for that access. So, that 14 condition... 15 FORD: I really don't care to do that, but... 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK... 17 FORD: ...would feel more comfortable... 18 LUDTKE: That's what I heard, if he doesn't... 19 FORD: ...it doesn't make any difference, it's going to be approved very shortly anyway, so...a 2b moot point. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, so you made the motion, do you want it with or without it? 22 FORD: It's part of my motion. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: You made it as part of your motion. 24 FORD: All right. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg, are you seconding it with that in there as part of the motion too? -42- 1 BINNEWEG: Yes. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. I will then call the roll. 3 Commissioner Binneweg? 4 BINNEWEG: I vote MO on this case... 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: On what grounds? 6 BINNEWEG: ...on the grounds that I feel that this plan is in serious conflict with the existing 7 neighbors. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Commissioner Ford? 9 FORD: I vote Yes, based on discussion, and site visit. 1o CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 11 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camur'iez? 13 CAMUIVEZ: I vote NO on that, I feel it needs more discussion and findings, 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: The Chair votes Yes, based on discussion, and findings here this evening, 15 and that it agrees with out plans. This passes 3-2. Thank you very much. 16 Now, we'll take Case Number 22579, which is the request for the zone change, yes? 17 McCARSON: Chairman, Commissioners, just to complicate things a little bit further, there is a 18 condition that staff would like to place last minute on the zone change for the EE and the RE; 19 we would like a condition to be placed on both of those that the keeping of animals is prohibited, 2D the keeping of large and raising of large and small animals, like horses and goats and things like 21 that as prohibited, in those areas. 22 FORD: I'm sorry, but isn't that absolutely contrary to the concept of that particular zoning? 23 That's the whole point that we studied many times, we've discussed to have those... 24 McCARSON: Right, Chairman Buchman and Commissioner Ford, in this case the whole point 25 of the EE and RE zoning was to provide a buffer, an area buffer, of the one acre and % acre step down. I don't think it was the developer's intention at all to allow animals. I don't believe -43- 4. ~ ~ ~ the Jornada South Subdivision will allow the keeping of animals, and I'm sure they would be 2 against that. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN; Is there any Commissioner that wishes to add that condition to the case? 4 FORD: Let me make the motion that I would move approval of Case 22579, without condition. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 6 CAMUNEZ: I second it. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I will call the roll, and this has been a motion without the conditions. 8 Commissioner Binneweg? 9 BINNEWEG: NO, I vote NO on it. 1o CHAIR BUCHMAN: And on what base...? 11 BINNEWEG: Based on the fact that this plan...the plan the developers showed us was not 12 something that we looked at before, as far as all the zone changing, and their layout, and all ~ ~ that. I feel it's incomplete plan. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Commissioner Ford? 15 FORD: I vote Yes, based on discussion and site visit. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? ~ 7 LUDTKE: (inaudible)...this is your voting, yes, for the zoning, like EE... ~$ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, that's correct. ~ ~ LUDTKE: ...that would allow... 2U CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mh hm. ~~ LUDTKE: ...like... 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mh hm. 23 LUDTKE: ..livestock and... 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Na... 25 BINNEWEG: No, the whole... CHAIR BUCHMAN: No... -44- f ~ ~ ~ BINNEWEG: ...the whole thing. 2 LUDTKE: But, 1 mean, are we...you're asking for a restriction on there..? 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: The restriction was not put on there. 4 LUDTKE: I vote Aye. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Based on? 6 LUDTKE: Findings. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Commissioner Camunez? $ CAMUNEZ: I vote NO, same reason Commissioner Binneweg. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: The Chair votes NO, based on the fact that I don't agree with the zoning 10 changes that it is comprehensive for this plan. So, in this case the zoning change as to...the 11 zoning change was denied. Thank you very much for your time this evening. 12 AUDIENCE: There is some confusion. It is confusing. I'm confused. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: The Master Plan was approved. OK? The zoning was denied. So, 14 they're going to have to come back with some zoning changes to us? ~ 5 UNINTELLIGIBLE, SEVERAL PEOPLE TALKING AT THE SAME TIME. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Oh, it's all been...l'm sorry. 17 LUDTKE: It's over. ~$ McCARSON: Just, again, for clarification, the Master Plan was approved. In order to have this 19 case proceed to City Council, it would need to be appealed. Again, there is a fee and there is a 20 time involved in doing that, if you can contact staff, at a later date to get that information, for the 21 public's information. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. 23 McCARSON: The zoning, as you stated, was denied by a vote of 3-2. As I stated previously, 24 all zoning action is only recommendation of this body to the City Council here, who will hear the 25 case at a later date for final action. There will be notices soon sent out of those hearing and things, again, probably in December of January. -45- ~. 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you very much. OK, we're now going to move on to Case 22584 2 that was removed from the Consent Agenda and is become New Business Number 4. 3 FORD: Mr. Chair, do you need a motion to break up? 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, let's take a quick two minute recess... 5 FORD: OK. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...while the audience... 7 [Recess was called; Commissioners and audience talking among themselves regarding the 8 appeal of the case to City Council.] 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right, naw. 10 FORD: Naw, I move consideration of Case 22584. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 12 BINNEWEG: Second. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, is the applicant far Case 22584, request far multiple change, the 14 extension of Roadrunner Parkway, present? 15 LUDTKE: That lady brought it up? 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, Ma'am? 1T LUDTKE: She was confused. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: You were the one that pulled this case off the Consent Agenda. 19 STEVENS: Correct.. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: You don't wish to hear it? 21 STEVENS: Sure. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, no, no, it's OK, you don't have to hear it. 23 STEVENS: (Speaking away from the microphone, inaudible) 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, because, we'd be interested to know why it was pulled, OK. Go 25 ahead sir. -46- 1 ARLON PARISH: My Name is Arlon Parish and I'd be glad to give you a little presentation, but 2 I might like to ask her what her question is, that way it might be something... 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That would be fine, by us. 4 PARISH: Will you come up and ask the question...(inaudible) 5 STEVENS: (speaking away from the microphone) There's too much...there's too much 6 building in this area. There's no water, there's nothing. I just want you to tell me...(inaudible) 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 8 STEVENS: (Speaking away from the microphone inaudible) ...what about this state? 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right, if... 10 STEVENS: (Inaudible) 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Would you please... 12 STEVENS: Excuse me! When you said... 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Whoa. Excuse me, Ma'am, if you want to speak, would you please come 14 to the microphone, state your name, and state your situation; that would make it a lot easier for 15 everybody present. Thank you. 16 STEVENS: My name is Harriet Cat Stevens, and I'm totally, completely wondering why you 17 want just to keep building, and building, and building this city until there's nothing left of it. It's a 18 beautiful and wonderful place to live. There are homes to rent everywhere, what is built up at 19 that upper Mesa runs down, all the water runs everywhere. It rains, you put your foot in where 20 you build...water out of the sand still comes. Where is all this...what are we going to do, what 21 are we going to have left? 22 Don't you want to leave the city of Las Cruces as beautiful as it is now? You want to 23 build here...how many homes? Another 80 homes here; how many homes are in this 24 development now that you want to put in, between Rinconada and Roadrunner, how many more 25 homes? CHAIR BUCHMAN: Nine hundred and... -47- .. - ~ • ~ STEVENS: Nine hundred homes... 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...four. 3 STEVENS: ...and there's 400 two miles up. People aren't going to come here; they want to 4 come here far the beauty, not for a naked city... 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And, Mrs. Steve... s STEVENS: Stevens. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...Stevens, there are going to be probably another three to five thousand 8 built north of that area... 9 STEVENS: That's... 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...and this... 11 STEVENS: Why do you keep saying they have to be that way? You're a Planning Committee, 12 you get to plan! It's all been done way over...they come in and say, "Oh yes, go ahead, do it;" 13 Because there's nobody to stop you! 14 You just keep building, and building, and building! 15 There won't be any beauty left here! 16 Don't you care what happens to this city? Don't you? You must not. 17 You can't even pay any attention to the whole...to the whole neighborhood that came in 18 from Jornada South, you didn't pay any attention to it, at all! 19 You ignored everything we had to say! We...when you hear from your own city chapters 20 that say don't do this, and don't do that; build within the environment, and you're not! You're 21 lasing the environment! That's what's happening to this city; we're losing it! 22 We have no water as it is! In Alamogordo they can't even build because they won't 23 allow any, because they don't have any water! They don't know where it's coming from! 24 And, here, you don't even think twice about recommending [pounding on the podium} 25 build, build, build, build, build! CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there anything else Mrs. Stevens? -48- y , ~ STEVENS: No, that's it. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you very much. 3 STEVENS: You're welcome! 4 PARISH: Do you want me to say something? I mean, I have nothing to say that would answer 5 that... This town is going to grow, we right now, have fewer buildings for rent and for sale than 6 we've ever had before than in the past... 7 STEVENS: (Inaudible, speaking away from the microphone) 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Excuse me, you give the gentleman...we gave you your due, now please 9 give everybody else their due, or we will have to ask you to leave, thank you. 10 PARISH: If it's not built, they will come anyway. And, I'm telling you, that we need to 11 accommodate those who are coming, if we don't, there'll be...they'll go around us and they'll do 72 things that we don't want them to do. And, so I have nothing really to say about the project; 13 it's...the Master Plan was approved last month. It's been well designed; we have all the utilities, 14 and all the access that has been modified and adjusted to fit the environment. If you have any 15 questions, I'd be glad to answer them... 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. 17 PARISH: ...but I think we're OK. ~$ CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Staff, any additional comments? 19 McCARSON: Chairman, Commissioners, I can go through this proposal, if you'd like, but I 20 don't have any other comments. As Mr. Parish stated, the...l think it was called the Parkhill 21 Estates Master Plan, or the Sandhill Estates; we're going back and forth on the names, but the 22 Master Plan was approved at the Commission's last hearing. 23 As far as Mrs. Stevens comments, I mean, I would like to think that that's why there's a 24 Community Development Department, and that's why there's a Public Works Department, and 25 the Utilities Department. It's our job to make sure that growth is occurring in an orderly fashion -49- 1 and that there is water; and that's what the Utilities Department is there far, and that Public 2 Works is looking out for roads, and drainage, and things like that. 3 Other than that, I have no further comment, unless you want me to go through the 4 proposal on Parkhill. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I don't think it's necessary; do the Commissioners want to go through the 6 complete proposal. 7 BINNEWEG: Mh hm. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No. Any comments or questions by the Commissioners? 9 FORD: I would move approval of Case 22584 without conditions. 1o CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 11 CAMUNEZ: Second it. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 13 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on discussions, and the findings in the packet. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 15 FORD: Yes, based on discussions, findings, and site visit. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 17 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 19 CAMUNEZ: Aye, findings. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And, the Chair votes Aye, based on discussion, and findings. Thank you 21 very much. Is there any other new business to be brought to the Board? Any staff comments? 22 Any Commissioner comments? 23 LUDTKE: I'll tell you, I feel for this lady because I... 24 LUDTKE: Well...nothing we can do about that. I tell you, I tell you, I just have a hard time... I 25 feel for this lady because, I... CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yeah. -50- w ~~ ~ 1 LUDTKE: ...I feel the same way, I mean, I moved here because it's beautiful... 2 CAMUNEZ: Yeah, me too. 3 LUDTKE: ...but it's just one side of me, the other side knows a lot of other people are going to 4 be moving here. This is the second largest city in the state of this State, twice the size of the 5 state I moved from. With one and a half, maybe two million people; and it's only going to grow, 6 and grow, and grow. And, if Las Cruces is going to maintain its superiority, just like any 7 superpower does in the world, and be second place in this State, the Lord knows he won't 8 overtake Albuquerque, but Rio Rancho is pressing us very hard for second place in this State, 9 and if we want our just due in here, we need to wake up and accept growth and manage it the 10 way it's best for our citizens. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Key ward; and that's kind of my job, I feel that let's manage it the correct 12 way. 13 LUDTKE: Although, I have doubts when I drive to look at sites, and I don't see...l see City 1~ awns this, but I don't see the City infrastructure that's there. Where I grew up, the City had to 15 put the infrastructure there before they go and say, "give me the bonding power to bon'ow more 16 money." 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mh hm. 18 FORD: I suspect Ms. Camunez and my family; about 300 years ago felt exactly the same way, 19 so I'll have to go along with what... 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, I'll be wanting to bet you the people who replace us in 30 years, are 21 going to be feeling the same way. Where do we stop? When do we buy it out? 22 LUDTKE: It's the Indians, we took it from. 23 24 FORD: We don't want it back. 28 LUDTKE: Casino...(inaudible) CHAIR BUCHMAN: Wait, sit dawn, is there a motion to adjourn? -51- b *. ~' 1 FQRD: I move to adjourn. All in favor just leave. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: at 7:46. 3 4 5 CHAIR 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -52-