Loading...
09/28/2004~' ~ ~ • 1 REGULAR MEETING 2 OF THE 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 FOR THE 5 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 6 City Council Chambers 7 September 28, 2004 $ 6:00 pm 9 k 10 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 11 Bruce Buchman, Chair 12 Nancy Binneweg: Vice-Chair 13 Harry Sanchez 14 William Ludtke 15 Quentin Ford 16 17 STAFF PRESENT: 1$ Kirk Clifton, Planner 19 Brian Harper, Planner 20 Richard Jacquez, Legal 21 Robert Gonzalez, Fire bepartment 22 Vincent Banegas, Development & MPO Administrator 23 Carmen Alicia Lucero, Recording Secretary 24 25 CHAIR BUCE BUCHMAN: Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen, I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for September 28~". Thank you for coming, nice to see you all here. -1- r 1 We'll explain the ground rules and what's going on as we go through the meeting. I think there might be 2 same extra agendas on the back table, if you want an agenda to follow along. 3 On tonight's agenda we have one Final Site Plan, we have three Zone Changes, we have two 4 Master Plan changes, and one proposal for an Annexation. 5 The first thing we need to do though is to look at the minutes from the August 24tH meeting. 6 Commissioners you all got a copy of the minutes, are there any additions or corrections to the minutes of 7' August 24cn~ 8 Yes, Commissioner Binneweg? 9 NANCY BINNEWEG: On page five, line 21, it should be "apartments", not "departments." 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. That change, anything else? With that minor change then, I will accept a 11 motion to approve the minutes. 12 WILLIAM LUDTKE: Motion. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a... 14 BINNEWEG: Second. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. I'll call the roll, Commissioner Binneweg? 16 BINNEWEG: Aye. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 18 HARRY SANCHEZ: Aye. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 20 QUENTIN FORD: Abstain. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 22 LUDTKE: Aye. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes aye. 24 Make sure...check to make sure your things are on, your microphones are on. Is yours on, Mr. Ludtke? 25 OK. -2- 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: First thing we have on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, oops no, wait a minute, 2 wait a minute, wait a minute, before we do the consent, we have to...we've approved the minutes; we 3 have to approve the agenda, don't we? Yes, that's a good idea. No... 4 BINNEWEG: No, we have to revise it. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That's right; we have to through the Consent first. OK. It's been a busy day; PII 6 catch up here, eventually. The Consent Agenda allows us to pass items without any discussion. These 7 items have been reviewed by the staff, there have been no unfavorable input, everything on these cases $ meet our criteria as far as zoning goes, so as we go through these items, anybody who wants them heard 9 in their entirety, a Commission member, of a person from the audience, just raise your hand and we will 10 take this item off the Consent Agenda, if not, these items will be approved automatically when we 11 approve the agenda. 12 The first item on the Consent Agenda is PUD-04-05; this is a request far a Final Site Plan 13 approval of the Boulders 2 Planned Unit Development. The property is located along Sedona Hills 14 Parkway, immediately west of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard. The Final Site Plan is in compliance with the 15 approved Boulders 2 Concept Plan. Is there anybody in the audience that wants this item taken off the 16 Consent Agenda? OK. Commissioners? This item will stay on the Consent Agenda. 17 Item number two is Case 22581; this is a request for zoning conversion from R-3 Multiple 1$ Dwelling Medium Density to R-4 Multiple Dwelling and Limited Retail and Office-15 dwelling units per 19 acre. And, this is for the property located at 1900 N. Solano Drive, and 1990 N. Solano Drive. Is there 20 anybody in the audience that wants this item taken off the Consent Agenda, please raise your hand. 21 Seeing no one. Commissioners? OK. These two items then, will remain on the Consent Agenda and we 22 don't have any new items for the New Business, so at this time I will accept a motion to accept the 23 agenda. 24 FORD: Move. 25 BINNEWEG: Second. -3- ~ i 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, 1'II call the roll; Commissioner Binneweg? 2 BINNEWEG: Aye. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 4 SANCHEZ: Aye. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 6 FORD: Aye. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? $ LUDTKE: Aye. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes aye. 10 All right; New Business, now, the way New Business works is, we will have the applicant come forward to 11 the microphone and present the case, then we will have a member of staff present the findings, and the 12 information they have come up with. Then we will give the audience a chance to participate. Now, the 13 rules we have, some of you have been here before, if your group or Committee has a representative, that 14 person will be allowed 10 minutes at the microphone. If you do not have a representative, then anyone is 15 free to speak, you'll be allowed a maximum of three minutes per person. OK? So, the first case that we 16 have is Cas® 22578. It's a request for a zone change; it's submitted by D.V.I. for Rayco West 17 Investments II. Is the applicant ready? 1$ HAROLD DENTON: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Harold Denton, with D.V.I. D.V.I. is the 19 architect/plannersnd engineers for this project. We were selected by the developer (unintelligible) 20 Holdings, out of Glendale, California. Let's see, let me get on the Power Point, here. We're calling this 21 the Three Crosses Apartments. It's a piece of property that you've seen in the past, about 10 months 22 ago. I happened to be here on another project when this was brought in for review at that point. The 23 property is along Three Crosses Avenue, just off of Main Street, between Main Street and Alameda. 24 At that point it was zoned, I believe, C-3 under the old zoning; the applicant asked for, no, I'm 25 wrong, I'll back up. It was zoned R-3, under the old zoning. The applicant asked for new C-3, and that was granted with conditions. -4- fir, y 1 What the difference here, the major difference is that everything was speculative at that point, 2 there was no plan, nothing actually proposed to happen. At this point we're talking about an apartment 3 complex. You still have the C-3, as it was originally zoned, it would be appropriate for what's being used 4 here. 5 To give you an idea, under the old C-3 allowed the density of 30...20 units per acre, it was 20 6 units per acres under the old C-3. We're looking at density here of 16 units per acre; that's 120 units. 7 The project is being proposed as a Tax Credit Housing Project, I thought I might just read what 8 the State says on that. 9 "The Tax Credit Mousing Program provides an incentive of income tax credits to individuals or 10 organizations that develop affordable housing, through either new construction ar acquisition and 11 rehabilitation. The Tax Credit provides a dollar per dollar reduction in the developer's tax liability for a ten 12 year period. In order to receive a tax credit, the developer must set aside a number of units or occupancy 13 by households below 60% of the area medium income. The rents charged to these householders may 14 not exceed 30% of the median income; these units must remain affordable, for a minimum of 30 years." 15 The project...we were asked to prepare and submit this to be awarded; this is an award selection 16 kind of process, it's not just money that's there for anybody, they're just a certain number of them that are 17 selected and to be selected we need to provide a quality project, and that's what we're proposing to 1$ provide here. 19 It will be developed in two phases; and you can see the phase line, the blue line going through 20 here. This being Phase 1, 60 units, that would be proposed to be built next year in '05. The second 21 phase would be this area in here that would be built the following year; part of the reason that this 22 program is limited in size to 60 units per year. 23 24 The housing, as I mentioned earlier, would be a mixture of market rate housing and subsidized 25 housing; we're talking a mixed kind of use and that's what has been determined to work in this type of facility. -5- ~- r 1 To point out that there's a large open area, we're providing in here; there would be a club house 2 and a pool, recreation facilities, really quite a few amenities for even high end apartment complexes that 3 we've been involved with, they're built in the area. 4 Some of the...this is the preliminary plan of the one bedroom-type of buildings that would be built; 5 we're talking a living, dining area, kitchen, utility, bathroom, large bedroom, large closet area, outside 6 storage, decks on the upper floor, patios on the lower floors, individual entries into the units; two bedroom 7 units are similar, when I get there, that's it. OK, this is a two bedroom unit similar in configuration, except 8 that they're two bedrooms in here. And, I think a good looking elevation. 9 In fact, this is a two bedroom unit in here, and it's...l think I've got it out of order, I'm having 10 trouble with...this is a three bedroom unit which two bedroom down here, master bedroom back here, a 11 living area, dining room, kitchen, utility, washer and dryer, decks, a larger deck and larger patio. 12 They're really quality units, size wise there's a minimum in here and we do exceed the minimum 13 sizes that are required. The minimum sizes were 600, 800 square feet for the two bedroom, and 1050 14 square feet for the three bedrooms. We're considerably above those sizes in the project. Again, that's 15 partially so that they can win the approval and the award and proceed with it. 16 The project is located on the piece of property; it does have some flood...some back water flood 17 problems, and we have retained the services of Dave Church, very familiar with the situation there, and 18 we've done a preliminary flood analysis and there's no problem, we can handle it. That's part of the 19 reason, I'll point out here, that's part of the reason...actually, there is a flood channel that would be 20 provided through this area here, and all that means is that in a 100 year storm we would get 21 approximately a foot of water that would flow through that area and follow the existing flood channels. 22 One of the...one of the other questions that has been raised is traffic. And, again, we've taken a 23 preliminary look at this; under the current...and this is just to give you some idea, we've done some 24 numbers, we've talked to a City staff and worked with them, just as we did on the flood issues, and just to 25 give you some references and some ways of looking at this. The existing zoning, or the current zoning of C-3, if a shopping center was put in there, you could look at as many as 3,450 trips per day, a peak -6- ~ h 1 loading of 349 trips in (inaudible). Under the proposed R-4, two story, 16 units per acre zoning that we're 2 requesting, the estimated trips would be 790 trips per day, 79 peak load trips. 3 The adjacent intersections, and we're really talking here about Three Crosses and Main Street 4 intersection, currently has a peak hourly loading of somewhere around 900 trips. The current zoning 5 could affect that by adding another 175, what we're proposing would add approximately another 40 trips 6 which is a 4% increase. You know, we understand that that intersection currently operates at a low 7 service level, but the increase that we're proposing really want affect that service level. 8 Now, here's our proposal to do a full Traffic Impact Analysis, with the development of the project, 9 it just gives us a pretty good understanding where we're at, what we have to deal with. 10 I think that is (inaudible) but, it covers most of the bases. We're talking a quality project here, I 11 mean, everybody hates hearing low east housing, but it is a need that it has. We think this is an 12 appropriate place, it's an appropriate kind of street system, it's a collector we need to be on, we think 13 we're designing a good project, and we're going to, you know, to put even a better product together. 14 And as the, again, not the developer, but the designers and architects on this, we think that's 15 what the...what would work there and work pretty well. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Denton, we'll get back to you. Staff, are you ready? 17 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, one second. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Brian Harper with the 18 Community Development Department, this is Case 22578, a zone change request from C-3c, R-4 and it 19 is for a portion of the property, approximately 7.5 acres. 20 In the overhead here you can see the vicinity map and existing zoning. The property is currently 21 C-3c and was changed in November of 2003 by City Council. I have attached those conditions to a 22 handout that I provided, prior to the meeting, in case you'd like to see what those conditions are for that 23 commercial use. 24 For the proposed zoning, we'll leave a portion of the property, approximately 1.25 acre as the C- 25 3c, changing the, you know, just the remaining 7.5, roughly, to R-4, as the applicant said. -7- ~+ 1 Once again, this is the site plan that was also provided by the applicant, the open space areas 2 here, the entrance along Three Crosses, another entrance here, through the commercial development, 3 the proposed future commercial development, allowing for that secondary access. 4 There was some initial concerns with, by staff, of the location of this basketball court, just the use, 5 timing...times of day that might be used because of its proximity to the neighborhood to the southwest. 6 We've made some comments to that and we're going to try and work with the applicant to address that 7 issue, as far as times of use of the court. 8 Here we have a general site plan, and the applicant did go over that as well, showing general 9 elevations. This is a general building plan, I believe the three bedroom units are on the right side, and 10 there'll be two two bedroom units on this side, this is just a general layout, there are obviously one 11 bedroom and two bedroom layouts as well. 12 Site photo of the property, this is from Three Crosses looking to the property. What you're seeing 13 in the top photo here is the old, I believe it was a Blake's Lotta Burger here, it is now vacant, and this 14 parcel...sitting at this parcel, the car looking out into the property, this is looking back towards Main 15 Street, and this is another shot here of the property, you can see it's vacant for the most part, it's standing 16 vacant. 17 On the overhead I provided an aerial with an outline of the property. Moving along the southwest 18 boundary, the west and southwest boundary here's the Las Cruces Outfall Channel. This is a ponding 19 retention facility here to the south, and I also show a site photo of that. This is Three Crosses here to the 20 north. This is the abandoned structure, which is now currently abandoned right here. And, there are 21 some...several mobile homes currently on the property, and I believe, renting space on the property. 22 Additional site photos, this is from the...this is from what I believe is the dead end section of 23 Hoagland, which is east of Alameda, looking from the ditch back towards the property, and I'm not sure 24 you can make it out. This is the actual...this is the abandoned or the vacant structure on the property 25 here. You can see this fenced off area is the ponding retention facility. And, this is a portion of the ditch; I'm standing on the western side of the ditch here. And, this is looking down the ditch from that same -8- e 1 location; it is roughly anywhere from 65 to 70 feet wide for right-of-way, not necessarily the ditch itself, but 2 the right-of-way itself. This Outfall Channel is on the MPO trail plan, as a proposed trail as well. Staff 3 has worked with the applicant on initial traffic numbers based on our Traffic Engineer's Analysis; No TIA 4 was required at this stage. Based on the projected trip generations, which the applicant provided, staff is 5 recommending approval based on the elements of the Comprehensive Plan. 6 Staff has received protest letters which are included in your original packet, and there was an 7 additional protest letter attached to the packet I handed out, prior to the meeting. 8 And, it should be mentioned that the Las Cruces Public School District did call us this afternoon, 9 probably right at 5:00 o'clock, I think it was, and they did make a comment that they have some concerns 10 about the schools in the area being crowded already and they have some concerns about additional 11 students in the area. I was asked to make that statement in behalf of the Public School District. That 12 concludes my presentation, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Harper. Before we get into the public part of this, I'd like to go over 14 the ground rules and make a couple of comments. As Mr. Harper mentioned, in our packet, we were 15 given 18 letters, and I hope some of you people are here, who wrote these letters. I went through these 1G letters, each one of them, and I kind of highlighted the main objection that was listed in there. Thirteen of 17 the letters had traffic objections, three had burglary, one had property value, and one had...didn't like the 18 idea their quiet neighborhood being apartment building being built in there. 19 Now, it's obvious that all you people are here to voice your feelings on this case, and we want 20 your input, however, with 75, 80 people here, we can't have everybody talking for two, three minutes at a 21 time. 22 So, here's the ground rules, well, let me ask this first, is there a spokesman for this group here? 23 UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS FROM THE AUDIENCE: There are two of us. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: There are two spokesmen? 25 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON FROM THE AUDIENCE: Yes. -9- ~. ~ ~ 1 SEVERAL PEOPLE TALKING FROM THE AUDIENCE: But not for all of us. No. Not all of us. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, but there is one...OK, here's what I'll do, I'll give one spokesman ten minutes, 3 the other spokesman will be allowed the three minutes that other people will have. 4 Now, please help us here. If the person in front of you has an objection of traffic, and you get up 5 and say the same thing, "I object to the increased traffic, and the congestion." That's not going to input 6 us, or help our input; we want original ideas from you. 7 So, please, limit the input to a new subject or a new idea, and that will help us considerably, so $ we're not here to all hours. But we do want any new ideas. Remember, we're here for your ideas; we 9 haven't got our decision made up yet. StafF says yes, maybe we'll say no. But, where does it go from 10 here? Our decision is only a recommendation to the City Council. So, give us as much as you can. 11 All right, so there is a spokesman, the gentleman in the back. When you come forward, come to 12 the microphone, please state your name, and so our recorder can get it, and we'll have it dawn pat. All 13 right, sir, will you please start out? 14 JAY WIER: My name is Jay Wier, I live at 220 Hoagland, I've lived there since 1959. I'd like to yield the 15 other five minutes of my talk to my other representative, if that's possible. 1fi CHAIR BUCHMAN: Certainly, Mr. Wier, yes. 17 WIER: For everyone's purposes, since they haven't seen what's in your pocket, I'd like to briefly go over 18 for the audience's purposes; the comments that I made; there was a consensus of other people too. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Certainly. 20 WIER: The C-3c zoning for property at 210 West Three Crosses Avenue, containing 8.378 acres, is 21 appropriate for the highest and best use thereon. To downsize this land, for multi-family apartments or 22 any number, will greatly increase the concentration of apartment or mobile home units now located at this 23 area of North Main and North Alameda. 24 The C-3c zoning was granted at the request of the present property owner, with approval of area 25 residents who agreed that this vacant land justified a higher zoning. The affected residents, which are -10- Y f C~ 1 most of us here, saw a need to do this, and we cooperated and put this C-3c zoning through, with the 2 owners consent, as a beneficial change from the past C-2, R-3 zoning. 3 As long time, some 45 year, residents of the affected home, we object to this opporkunistic 4 request to downzone this land with the result of our quality of life and property values will decrease. 5 Your serious consideration of our interest is essential. 6 Brian left this particular graphic up here, and it's going to be helpful to me to show you what we're 7 discussing in general. 8 The majority of us who are here tonight, thank you, worked previously on two different changes 9 here, and the one I just mentioned, of course, is the C-3c. 10 The reason we did this is because the land has been vacant for years, it upgraded the property. 11 Our request now is that it remains as G3c. The reason for that is this; the concentration that we've 12 counted of mobile homes and apartment units in this area is approximately 350. If you drive down Main 13 Street right now, behind Jack Keys, they're just putting in a project of 48 new units that will be similar to 14 what's there, that adds to that number that we've already talked about. 15 The next thing that we have to look at is, the majority of the development in this area corresponds 16 to C-3c, so our contention is, the best use far this land is to keep it in the zoning that it's in now. 17 Madeline? 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Weir. 19 MADELINE VALDEZ: Commissioners, I'm Madeline Valdez, and I've been a resident on Townsend 20 Terrace for 17 years, and I also am opposed to the zoning change on the request for property at 210 21 Three Crosses for many of the same reasons that you have already heard, including that we do feel 22 like...we fell like C-3c is an adequate application of this parcel of property, and if the owner needs to try a 23 little bit harder to put in some kind of land there that would enhance not only that area, but also 24 surrounding areas. We feel like they need to consider us in this too. 25 Other than this, I would like to point out that there's traffic congestion, we've already heard about that. Also, a loss of property value in the area is a detriment to the existing property owners, and an my -11- ~ r • 1 end of town on Townsend Terrace alone, over 40% of the residents are either second or third generation 2 family owners. 3 People like the area, they stay there. And, these people are...this is only one of the long 4 established communities in the North Alameda area. And, these are comprised of viable, voting, tax 5 paying, community members who have an investment in their neighborhoods. 6 And, I feel like the Zoning and Planning Commission and also City Council needs to protect these 7 long standing neighborhoods. Some of these people have been here 54 years, that's a long time. 8 There are other areas of interest that have concerned us, and one of them is the park area and 9 basket ball court that is proposed. And, our main concern with this is, we already have a park area 10 around the corner on Dona Ana Road, and we know that there is a lot of gang activity there; there is a lot 11 of drug dealings there. I'm a walker, sa I walk that canal, oh, four times a week, and I often see drug 12 paraphernalia and used cans of carburetor fluid, and stuff like this in the ditch. 13 So, we're not anxious to have another park area back to back with our neighborhood that would 14 possibly encourage more of this type of activity. 15 One thing that I would like to point out is that in the proposed application it did 1,200 additional 16 trips a day out of that apartment complex, and that's considerable a number of trips. 17 The application also, even though Mr. Denton showed us the elevation with two-story buildings, 18 the height of that structure isn't indicated in the application. So, I really would not like to see pass with 19 that left as an open blank check. 20 I would like to ask you to oppose this zoning request in order that, we who worked hard to have 21 and to maintain a quality life style, may continue tv live in a safe affordable environment. Thank you. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you very much. 23 VALDEZ: I also have a letter from a private individual that they asked me to read. Could I do that at this 24 time, or do you want me...? 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is this one of the letters that was in our packets? -12- • • 1 VALDEZ: No, sir, it's not. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is it a short or a long letter? 3 VALDEZ: It's a short one. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Go ahead. 5 VALDEZ: This letter is from Nelson Clayshulte, and he's in the audience, you want to raise your hand? 6 OK. He asked me to read it because he didn't feel comfortable to get up here and read it. It says: 7 Dear Sirs: 8 I have been a property owner directly north of the above referenced property, on Three Crosses 9 Avenue for more than 40 years. I am opposed to this zoning change request. My property is currently 10 zoned for R-3 Multi-dwelling Medium Density housing. I believe approving this request to R-4 Multi- 11 dwelling Wigh Density housing will decrease the potential value and will limit my ability to sell or to 12 develop my adjacent property. 13 Please oppose the zoning change request and maintain the current C-3c zoning status on this 14 parcel. Sincerely, N. Clayshulte, Jr. 15 Would you like this? 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, we would like a copy of that, please. 17 VALDEZ: May I approach? 1$ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, certainly. 19 VALDEZ: Thank you. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you for your input. OK. All right, now remember how much time you have. 21 First, the lady, one of these two ladies here. Come up to the microphone, state your name. 22 ANDREA FLE7CHER: My name is Andrea Fletcher and I live on Townsend Terrace. I'm also an 23 assistant principal at a school in the Las Cruces Public Schools, so I can have a different angle on this. 24 Looking at the numbers, if you have 120 units, and I kind of looked at the number of bedrooms 25 and figures out that conservatively we're looking at 156 kids in this complex. And, I know that Alameda Elementary where they would be zoned is now at capacity and literally has no room on the property to -13- 1 build. So, there would be a problem with schooling. Loma Heights, which is the next district aver, is also 2 at close to capacity and they would have to build; there is room to build, but it would be a hardship in that 3 area. 4 Also, you know, I realize that Las Cruces has a need for a low income housing and I would not be 5 opposed to that if we were not talking about high density. But, to me, when you have too many people in 6 a small area, you're talking about, you know, I see it with kids in our schools. It's not good for the 7 neighbors, but it's not good for the people who live there either. 8 You're talking about increased gang activity and just too many people and kids exposed to things, 9 that are not good for them. 10 We've also lived there for six years and we've seen incredible crime that comes along the alleys, 11 we've seen people having sex in the ditches, we've seen kids walking up and down with a gun, we've 12 seen kids sniffing inhalants, and graffiti, and all kinds of things. So, we're very concerned that putting 13 more people along this alleyway increases that avenue to the neighborhood. And, that's a problem, I 14 mean; we want this to be a safe place for all of the children in this area. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Thank you. 16 FLETCHER: Thank you. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, Ma'am? 18 TAMMY SMITH: My name is Tammy Smith, and I'm not speaking just for myself, because I'm 19 representing my neighborhood, which isn't directly adjacent to this, but which will be impacted. I live on 20 Highland Avenue, and that is the next parallel street over from Alameda, west that connects Hoagland 21 and McClure. 22 About a month ago, you may recall, I was here because you approved a planning request for...a 23 zoning request for McClure and for Valley Drive. That is going to impact our neighborhood just terribly. 24 My street...we... live on McClure and I spoke with someone this past week who lives an Second Street, 25 who is already being impacted by people using that as a through street to get over to Picacho, because when they go out on Valley, they can't turn left. -14- r 1 The reason I'm giving you a little bit of this background is I think one of the problems in the City is 2 we're not looking at the overall picture of what this massive development is doing to us. Now, I told that 3 from document...agenda, do you know that what's going to be approved on here and counting our 4 McClure development, are 3,761 dwelling, and I have some questions, do you all consider the water 5 supplies, do you all consider our close to be stressed sewage system, our waste water system. How 6 much longer can we continue to approve such tremendously high densities of dwelling, but...? 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mrs. Smith, as we said last time, now, remember, we're only concerned at this 8 hearing on zoning. That's all that's relevant. 1 understand your concern, but we have to keep this to 9 what's on the agenda with the zoning. 10 SMITH: But, if I had written you a letter, I would have used these things as reason for you to give serious 11 thought to the decisions that are made. Now, could I ask a question, please? I need to know something 12 about this overhead here. Where's the out? OK, this is Three Crosses here, right? 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, Ma'am. 14 SMITH: Now, it was mentioned that access to the property, oops, sorry, I went back. I don't want to fool 15 around with this, so you'd...it was mentioned that access to the property will be not only from Three 16 Crosses, but through a Commercial. Could you explain that because I want a comment on it, but I would 17 like somebody to explain...l don't see another road coming in there? 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: The only access through and from the property will be on Three Crosses. 19 SMITH; OK. Then let me ask you something. Do any of you live in that area, at all? The reason I'm 20 asking you is there was a comment made that this is a low traffic intersection. Although 1 don't live right 21 there, I go through that section many, many times a month, and I will tell you that right now, I some times 22 have to wait for three lights before I can get through. 23 And, I wish that you would come out there at a traffic busy time of the day. You cannot imagine 24 the congestion and the traffic. And, what is bothering me a bit is that this is for low income housing and 25 once again, they're being put into a very undesirable location for housing that higher class housing would never accept. And, that bothers me terribly. -15- 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thanks you Mrs. Smith. There was a gentleman in the back. 2 [Clapping in the background] 3 MICHAEL DONALD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'd like to start off by thank you for doing a 4 #hankless job. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Your name, please, sir. 6 DONALD: Michael Donald, I live at 190 Townsend Terrace. And, I'd like to give you a little insight of 7 where people are coming from. First week in July, this summer, we had a gang fight on our front door 8 step, this happened at, like, 12:30 at night, we're all asleep, next thing we know there's banging going on 9 around, and one of the individuals involved in this was trying to get help as they were severely 10 outnumbered, and they were heading to one of my neighbor's houses who's almost 80 years old, single 11 lady, she's not in good health, and they're headed to her front door step. I happen to come out at that 12 time and in a drill sergeant type of manner got the young gentleman's attention, he came back down, and 13 got his name, found out what was going on; he was cut up and bloody, it wasn't a nice thing to have to 14 wake up to in the middle of the night. I think this is the type of situation that we're going to be faced with, 15 given this type of housing. I'd also like to make another comment, that the money that is received from 16 this housing project is more than likely going out of State. I, for one, do not like that. I'm against it. And, 17 as a closing comment, I'd like to ask you, now, how would you feel if it was going on in your back yard? 18 It's going on in my backyard and we're being surrounded by it. Thank you very much. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you sir. 20 [Clapping in the background] 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, the gentleman in the back. 22 GARRY VESIGE: Yes, my name is Garry Vesige; I live at 1950 Namus Avenue, that's in the Highland 23 Project, right off south of Hoagland west of Alameda. You already approved one project dawn there, 24 that's the one on McClure, which is going to impact our neighborhood, and now this other project will 25 greatly affect us due to the fact that we already have within a half a mile of the project where I live, and I've lived there for 23 years. -16- ~ { 1 I have five mobile home parks already, which are already high density, low income projects. I 2 need you to...l wish you would consider that. Also, across the street from the Circle K there, I would 3 swear there was a police outpost over there, because they're there 90% of the time. We have a lot of 4 crime there and I'm one that's against any more affordable projects or high density projects in that area at 5 this time; it's going to affect us all. 6 And, also with the two projects, my wife is a school teacher and she can't be here tonight, she 7 says it will greatly affect Mayfield and both of the grade schools in the area. Thank you. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Visage. Yes, sir, over here. 9 LEONARD CRENA: My name is Leonard Crena, I live at 2380 Rosedale Drive, not in the immediate 10 area, but our area will also be affected by high density housing in that location. 11 We've just been through some hearings, the Metropolitan Planning Commission, concerned 12 about traffic density in that area already. The intersection of Main Street and Three Crosses was the only 13 one mentioned in the traffic study. Is all the traffic going to go in one direction? 1 don't think so. Go down 14 the street to Alameda and Three Crosses; go down a little further to Alameda and Hoagland, that goes 15 directly to Mayfield High School. That is already a very congested traffic area, which came to the 16 attention of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission far planning new arterial roads through there. Is 17 this going to be...is this construction going to be postponed until the traffic situation is alleviated? Or are 18 we going to make the traffic situation worse there before the transportation is fixed up? 19 One other concern would be drainage. Part of the Planning Commission's plans were to put a 20 traffic corridor down the existing Outfall Channel, now that's been mentioned earlier. That's a drainage 21 channel. From studies or...something was said about the potential flooding in that area. During the 22 recent storms we had, I don't think they were hundred years storms, maybe they were. That Outfall 23 Channel was almost overflowing its banks. One plan is to partly fill in that with a roadway. Where is all 24 this water going to go, as we try to improve traffic conditions to accommodate the extra high density 25 housing situations? Thank you for giving me this time. -17- ~ ~ 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you sir. There was a lady in back, yes Ma'am. 2 JUDITH HANSON: Good evening, my name is Judith Hanson, and I live at 1925 emus Avenue. I'm a 3 relative newcomer to Las Cruces; I've only lived here nine years, but I've seen the rapid changes, excuse 4 me, I've got a bit of a throat problem, I've seen the rapid changes and growth in the community and I am 5 really concerned about the loss of integrity and cultural configuration of the town. We're ripping things up. 6 What about this old community? It should be preserved. Thank you. 7 [Clapping in the background] 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Anybody else? OK, but let me give some highlights; I see some more hands. 9 Now, this is what I've written down so far, we've had people talking property values, protection, no 10 adequate parking, high buildings, crime, traffic, gang fights, type of housing, money going out of State, 11 mobile home parks, traffic study before the house goes in, and cultural configuration. 50, we've gat some 12 good ideas here, please let keep it the same way with any more ideas. So, somebody had...yes sir, in 13 the back, the gentleman in the back? 14 JOHN TOWNSBND: My name is John Townsend; I live at 2004 North Alameda, lived there since 1949. I 15 have some questions for you. Is this project is approved and it comes to reality, and property values go 16 down, will the tax assessor lower our taxes? You just got through saying that the only access to that 17 property will be from Three Crosses; if something happens, and interdicts that access, to fire and 18 emergency vehicles, those people are trapped and they will die. 19 Third thing is, is this thing being brought up before the Flood Commission? And, I believe it's a 20 matter of law that it has to be, and I didn't see anything in there that entered it. 21 Thank you very much. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Townsend. 23 [Clapping in the background] 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Anybody else? Speak now, or forever hold your peace. Yes, Ma'am? 25 MELISSA DURAN: Hi, my name is Melissa Duran, and I live on 210 Townsend Terrace. And, I'm the person they've broken into my home three times, and have taken, I mean, I cannot leave anything in my -18- r • 1 backyard because my children...l've got three boys, they have no bikes, because they take everything. 2 They've taken my lawnmower twice, I mean, it's really, really bad as it is. And, I can see that this 3 problems is just going to get worse and I'm...actually if this is approved, I am going to sell my house, I am 4 not going to stay there, because, you know, I'm a single mom, and I just cannot handle any more activity 5 in my backyard. Thanks. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. 7 [Clapping in the background] 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Now, one more time, when we close this to public discussion, that means the 9 discussion at his point on, will just be strictly between the Commissioners and the staff, and the 10 developer. So, anybody else? Mrs. Smith, unless you have something new that has not been discussed 11 before. Come to the microphone please. Has this been discussed before? 12 SMITH: No. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, hearing Mrs. Smith. 14 SMITH: A question was asked, and I wonder if you would be sa kind to answer it. Has this been brought 15 before the Flood Commission? 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: The Flood Commission is not part of the Zoning Request. If there is a...OK, you've 17 got an answer coming up right here, go ahead. 18 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, I can answer that question. The Dofia Ana Floor Commission is not a 19 reviewing agency for the City of Las Cruces. Any flooding issues within the corporate boundaries of the 20 City of Las Cruces are reviewed by the Public Works staff; it's within theirjurisdiction. The Flood 21 Commission does review projects outside the City boundaries, yes. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, while you're here, I have a question I was going to bring up later. Is this 23 property within the flood plain? 24 HARPER: I defer that to the applicant's engineer. I believe there might be a portion of it in the flood 25 plain, but I will defer that to the applicant to answer that question. -19- w • 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, thank you. OK, now hold on, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, step 2 down. I'm still leaving open the floor to the public, yeah. OK. We've had some real good input; we've 3 appreciated, if there's anybody thinking in the back of your minds that there's something else you want to 4 bring up, please do it, it's going to be a tough one tonight. Anybody else? OK, at this time, it's close to 5 the public. The first thing we'll do here is we'll turn it to the Commissioners, and the Commissioners will 6 ask individual questions. Who wants to start? I can see Commissioner Binneweg is ready. 7 BINNEWEG: I have a question for Mr. Denton. What sort of exterior fencing do you propose along the 8 ditch, if any? Because I noticed an apartment complex down the street on Madrid, and they have chain 9 link with three rows of barbed wire on top of it. Well, it looked good to me. 10 DENTON: Good questions. If I might point here a little bit, there's already an existing stone fence that 11 runs along this property line, six foot high. There is not a fence along here. As mentioned earlier, we 12 have a 65 to 70 foot buffer with a lot of trees and vegetation, and actually the ditch is elevated about four 13 to five feet above the elevation of the site in this area. 14 Along here, we have an existing barbed wire fence that surrounds the City's ponding facility, right 15 here. It would be our proposal to take that barbed wire and put up a stone fence along there. Along here 16 we have the pickup ditch that runs into the pond off of Three Crosses, and that's open for discussion 17 because on the other side of the ditch we have about an eight foot bank over here. And, one thing that 18 we're considering is seeing if we can work with the City and landscape that bank and leave it open there 19 because it makes it a nice and wider guarded area. ff not, it will be fenced. 20 Does that answer... 21 BINNEWEG: So, what kind of fence along the ditch, nothing? 22 DENTON: We're not really proposing anything along the ditch. We could, but it is part of the City trail 23 system that's being proposed... 24 BINNEWEG: Well, I mean... 25 DENTON...we have a 70 foot buffer here, and a 100 foot buffer for additional through her, so we're 150 feet back. I guess if you consider...) guess this is going to be filled with felons, then maybe we need to -20- ~ M • 1 fence them in, but f don't see it that way. I think that, I mean, we're talking families in here, and 2 individuals, and... 3 81NNEWEG: But there's a lot of open space far mischief there. 4 DENTON: Well, we're talking of developing that open space. We're talking, you know, parks and 5 recreational kind of use, and not public parks, but, you know, private, owned by the development, that 6 type of thing. 7 BINNEWEG: And, so, these trails that you have...there's two trails that lead right up to the ditch, that's to 13 integrate your project with the... 9 DENTON: With the ditch? With the pedestrian, bicycle system there, that would be the proposal. Part of 10 this award system, and I can read you what, you know, it's all in that, but part of it...one of the key things 11 is site planning and open space, and recreational facilities and that type of facility. 12 BINNEWEG: That's all right. Well, I will admit that Mr. Denton developed a big project behind where I 13 live, and it was a huge improvement; it kept me from having to take my pick up truck and help move the 14 indigent people who were camping there all the time, and lighting fires and I had a lot of business going 15 on back there that impacted me, being robbed and everything. And, now that I have an apartment 16 complex behind me, it's very well managed, so part of what it's at issue here is the management of this 17 project once it's built. Because if there's strong management, then you're...it's not going to degrade to a 18 mobile home park, you know, a 30, 40 year old mobile home park with that type of population, though... 19 DENTON: Can I make a comment on density, `because it kind of relates to what you're talking about? 20 BINNEWEG: Mh hm. 21 DENTON: There was a comment earlier made about, I think it was probably this piece of property in 22 here, which is, you know, being zoned R-3, Medium Density. Medium Density R-3, under the current 23 zoning, is 15 units per acre; we're proposing 16. R-4 is this open-ended zoning, or thing, that can go 20, 24 25, 30; 16 is basically Medium Density, so we're all twa story and lots of open spaces, not packed. Casa 25 Banderas is 21, so, see the ratio? -21- 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Anybody else? Commissioner Sanchez. 2 SANCHEZ: I do. It's unfortunate for some, but great for others that Las Cruces is growing. And, even 3 though I'm a great proponent of making sure that a lot of these vacant areas, within the City, are filled, 4 and utilized properly to keep the sanity of the City, by the same token I feel a lot...l feel there's a lot of 5 discontent in the room for such project in this area. Now, and the underlying thing that I kind of hear 6 through a lot of the comments in the letters that I read is mere fact that it is being slotted for low income 7 tax credit-type housing. 8 Now, if it was high rise condos or studio apartments where it would bring in another type of 9 element, would that be an issue, which a lot of you are nodding your head, and that's good to hear. 10 That's good to hear, because, you know, I feel that we need to keep it fair and concise through our growth 11 and our management through the City and not differentiate between what neighborhood does the lower 12 income housing go into and which one it doesn't and what type of projects go into such neighborhoods. 13 So, trying to make sure that the low income housing ain't an issue. I do understand that. 14 The other quick issue that I just kind of wanted to bring out is that traffic is a problem in this area, 15 I mean, it doesn't take a traffic engineer to drive through there at certain hours and have to stand there. 16 And, looking aver the ordinance that the City built when they did the Ordinance on Council Bill 04- 17 037, hey did have in there that zoning is conditioned upon a traffic impact analysis. 1$ Now, you did throw some numbers on there, it's referring to a zoning as such. Now, if we can 19 piggy-back and you, Mr. Denton, you kind of commented that that will be provided in the future. 20 DENTON: Well, the zoning was approved, based on the owner then providing a traffic impact analysis... 21 SANCHEZ: True. 22 DENTON: ...before development. We've done a preliminary traffic analysis, we worked with Dan 23 Soriano, we have a letter from Dan. And, we do intend to provide a full traffic impact analysis. So, we're 24 not...we're going to be submitting for the approval of the, you know, the apartment project. And, in fact, 25 we are going to be submitting to divide off that commercial property; and we'll provide that before we do that. -22- ~ Y. 1 SANCHEZ: And, I think that is important because it's a major issue in the audience tonight that traffic is 2 addressed. And, I think, on my mind, until a traffic impact analysis is somewhat more clarified, then I will 3 have to kind of base my decision on such. 4 The other question that I have for you, Mr. Denton, as there more, most developers want to make 5 sure they can utilize their land as effectively to get more bank For their buck; is there any type of back up 6 plan as a developer, the owner you're representing, of maybe working within the residence to maybe 7 building something that would kind of be a win-win situation, not only for the residents, but for the 8 developer himself. And, probably designing some other type of housing project in the area, or 9 commercial building, is that possible, or is there a backup plan as such? 10 DENTON: To be very honest and open, I'm not the developer, but I would doubt that. They have the 11 property under contract. I think that if they're turned down, they're gone, probably. And, so you'll still 12 have the infill piece of property sitting there. And, this is in the City's infill limits... 13 SANCHEZ: Yes. 14 DENTON: ...and looks to be a very appropriate kind of thing. I know there's a lot of...well, it's part of the 15 Comp Plan, the kind of thing that the Comp Plan, you know... 16 SANCHEZ: Encourages, yes, I heard that... 17 DENTON: ...you know, infill development, low cast, a mix of housing types. I understand the, you know, 18 "not in my backyard" kind of concern. I've got the same thing in my backyard, you know, concerns are of 19 the same sort. But, if you look at the site, and if you look at the trailer houses that are probably at a 20 density higher than what's being proposed here, and the strip commercial, and the strip commercial, and 21 the ponding, and this was trailer houses, but it's a vacant piece of property right now, and then the large 22 buffer down through here. I understand the concerns, but I dan't think you're going to find a better piece 23 of property unless you go outside the City limits for this type of thing. Thank you. 24 SANCHEZ: Thank you. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? -23- 1 FORD: I've got three, maybe small questions. There's been two area bartered about, I think seven point 2 something acres and eight point something. What is the actual acreage of this, and explain the 3 dichotomy here. 4 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ford, the actual property itself is eight point, roughly, 8.75 5 acres. That's an estimation, I don't have the exact...l mean, I have it in the file, I'm sorry, but the actual fi commercial lot itself is proposed to be 1.25 acres, and the remaining acreage would be roughly 7 7 acres, is the proposed R-4 development. 8 FORD: Is the density predicated on which one of those two? 9 HARPER: It's dedicated on the 7.5 acres. 10 FORD: OK. Would you have that other overhead view you had of the... 11 HARPER: The aerial? 12 FORD: Aerial. What's the property ownership of the bounding property on the east side of that, between 13 that and the (inaudible)? The reason I ask that is, I think it would be absolutely ridiculous to have a piece 14 of property with aver (inaudible). And, have you given any consideration at all to finding a second access, 15 entry point? 16 DENTON: Could (...there was discussion earlier, see if I can find that other...there was discussion about 17 one access, two accesses, access through this property. What we're proposing is that this be the access 18 to the property, right here. That gives, actually, that gives control, you know, the single access, kind of 19 like a gated community, or something that helps provide control. But, for safety purposed, for fire 20 purposes, for that type of thing, we're proposing a secondary access here, and a 30 foot easement that 21 would go to the street through the commercial property. This will be gated, and access will be provided to 22 the fire department, and the police and those services. So, we have one access, but we have emergency 23 secondary access; kind of the best of bath worlds. 24 FORD: Third question, back to the aerial again. What is the plan, the time schedule you have for the 25 existing occupancy and building that are on that property? -24- r y • 1 DENTON: Well, if you look at this aerial, all of this, the units that are here are gone. So, these remain. I 2 don't have a time schedule, but the schedule for the project is we need to make a submittal by the first of 3 the year, basically. Then, there'll be several months of approval, and so forth. And, it will probably be 4 mid-year to late year before construction could start, and so in that time frame, once they know they have 5 a project that's working, I suppose those trailers, those sites will be vacated. So, we're looking at a better 6 part of a year. 7 FORD: I guess that question, one statement you made, you said that there's the lower, kind of the lower 8 center building there is gone... 9 DENTON: There's a building here... 10 FORD: It's been a fast removal, because it was there at 3:30 this afternoon. 11 DENTON: No, that building is there, but I think it's just the vacant garage building of some sort. Sir, I 12 don't think there is anybody living in it, sir I don't think so. 13 FORD: That's all, thank you. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Commissioner Ludtke? 15 LUDTKE: You know, one questions, I was here a year ago in July and we granted you a C-3... 16 DENTON: Sir, not me. I'm not the proponent; and actually, the proponent of this is not the one that 17 requested it. 18 LUDTKE: Well, there was a request... 19 DENTON: By the current landowner, yes. 20 LUDTKE: For a C-3. 21 DENTON: Correct. 22 LUDTKE: And, at that time there were concerns about several things that I haven't heard mentioned 23 tonight, in good faith...and I have... 24 DENTON: There were conditions put on that, yes. 25 LUDTKE: ...and I haven't heard those mentioned tonight. And, now you want me to believe that this is the best use for this land to have faith. -25- • 1 DENTON: Are you talking about the restrictions on use? 2 LUDTKE: Well, what about utilities? What about the potential problems with utilities in that area? 3 DENTON: We've looked into that, we don't...there's no utility problems, that we're aware of. 4 LUDTKE: No? Well, the staff had, I'll quote it right here: "...may be necessary far developer to provide 5 larger offsite water lines in order to provide necessary fire flow depending an eventual use. In addition, 6 existing sewer lines may not be deep enough to service all the property. These issues would and will be 7 addressed through the building permit construction process, however, the staff wanted to advise the $ applicant and the Commission that these issues do exist and will need to be addressed before the 9 property can be developed." 10 DENTON: OK, in dealing with the flood... 11 LUDTKE: Do you remember that? You weren't the applicant? 12 DENTON: No, I wasn't the applicant. I was sitting in the audience, but I don't remember every bit of it; I 13 was probably looking at something else. 14 LUDTKE: And then another question... 15 DENTON: But we... 16 LUDTKE: ...about the...another thing...a question is about the study on the traffic... 17 DENTON: Mh hm. 18 LUDTKE: OK? There was...it was made in here that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), be turned in with 19 any development or construction plans in the future for this property... 20 DENTON: I've said it will be run... 21 LUDTKE: ...but right before this meeting comes. 22 DENTON: It will be turned in... 23 LUDTKE: During this phase... 24 DENTON: It will be turned in before any development plans for the property. Go back to the water and 25 sewer, if I can; and dealing with the FEMA studies and everything, we will be raising the site, there is no problem with the sewer. If we have to do outside water, that's what will have to be done, and that would -26- • 1 be done. So, we have not done construction documents, we have not done the development documents, 2 all we...at this time done are current drawings, FEMA...preliminary FEMA studies and preliminary traffic 3 analysis. 4 LUDTKE: And I understand that... 5 DENTON: Yes. 6 LUDTKE: ...but that was when we changed it to a C-3, many of these members were not here, I was at 7 that time. I was one of the voters on that issue... 8 DENTON: Mh hm. 9 LUDTKE: ...and, so, now we're wanting a different zoning... 10 DENTON: We basically want to go back to what it was. 11 LUDTKE: Well, it's different that what it is... 12 DENTON: But that's what it is... 13 LUDTKE: ...right now... 14 DENTON: Yeah. Sir.., 15 LUDTKE: ...you would agree. 16 DENTON: But it is different than.... 17 LUDTKE: The worse case scenarios that the staff said for this property would be, say, like a Wal Mart- 18 type of use, because of the traffic impact. Now, when you're putting in that many apartments in there and 19 that many people making that many trips, you might just have a mini Wal Mart there. 20 DENTON: No sir, I don't believe so, I don't know if 1 can...nah that's all right. We... 21 [Clapping in the background] 22 DENTON: (Inaudible) 23 LUDTKE: I'll tell you, I've been on the Board for a while now and most cases, developers...we come 24 away from these meetings very pleased because developers have issues and taxpayers have issues, but 25 they come together at this meeting and they work it out and they leave happy, everybody leaves happy. -27- ~. 1 DENTON: Correct. 2 LUDTKE: It's awin-win far everyone, and I believe that's what these meetings should be about, and 3 these approvals should be about, but when I'm faced with the issues that aren't resolved, then there's roll 4 with the hold there. 5 DENTON: Well, I'm not a developer, I'm a consultant on this, but I am representing the owner, the 6 developer of it. And, it is our intention to answer all of the questions we were talking about. But, you 7 can't answer everything before you know that you have something to work with. And, everything takes a 13 process, and you have to go through it, as I am sure you're aware of that. 9 But, the intention of these preliminary numbers was to show that...to show what we were looking 10 at. What we're basically saying is the current zoning right now, that you approved, could basically allow 11 another 3,500 trips per day, or peak loading of 350, basically. What we're proposing, would only...the 12 apartment portion of it, let me paint out that what the numbers up here are based on the 7.5 acres, not the 13 full thing, but would reduce it to basically this number and this peak loading, and so it truthfully is a much 14 better situation, as far as the traffic impacts, not broken down to each intersection, it's not broken...this is 15 broken down to each intersection in that the 79 you see up there, where my arrow go? that's 79 is the 16 peak hour loading and you'll see we're saying basically half of that would go this way; that may not, when 17 we get into it, we'll analyze that more exactly, but it's going to be close to that. And, so that is the impact 18 on each of those two intersections. Traffic Impact Analysis would actually go further than that, look at 19 each lane, and all that type of thing too. But, we realize... 20 LUDTKE: Yeah, we... 21 DENTON: ...but we realize that the Main Street and Three Crosses in#ersection works at a low level of 22 service and is going to continue to work in a low level of service until something happens in that way. 23 OK. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I know it's not my turn yet... 25 LUDTKE: That's all right. -28- a 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...may I interrupt for a minute? 2 LUDTKE: Go ahead. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. Denton, in relation to the maximum trips from the request for the zone change 4 back in July, and that was the only meeting in 2003 that I missed, I'm sorry 1 missed it now, but at that 5 meeting there was a list of items that were not to be constructed so there would be no Wal Mart, there 6 would be nothing that large, it was kept at more neighborly....neighbor-friendly type of buildings. So, I 7 think that your figure of 3,400 might be a little bit high, but it's possible. The other questions I'd have is 8 our proposal that we have, shows the proposed trips per day to be 12,000, what caused...or 1,200, thank 9 you. What caused you to downgrade it to 790? 10 DENTON: Why don't I let Mat Kenney who is a PE with our firm, and who did this... 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Good. 12 DENTON: ...address that. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: QK. 14 DENTON: Basically, I can kind of (inaudible) 15 MAT KENNEY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Mat Kenney; I'm an engineer with Denton 16 Ventures. I worked with Dan Soriano this morning at looking at the traffic in the area and the choice that I 17 have up there of shopping center, is allowing for a mixed use of restaurants, retail establishments that are 18 still allowed within the C-3 Conditional Zoning that was approved last July. There are...l'm trying to look 19 through the uses of this...) was trying to see if there was adrive-in bank, possibly or a fast food drive 20 through restaurant in the allowed uses, at the spur of the moment I'm not....in this rush I'm not...) see 21 bank, but it does say no drive-through on the thing...within commercial uses, you have a wide range and 22 the range that I looked at was...for a shopping center was 42 trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor 23 area. The range, if you look in the Institute Transportation Engineer's Manual, on trip generation, the 24 range for commercial-type uses is anywhere from 20 to 200 traffic trips per 1,000 square feet, so without 25 knowing exactly what is going in there, I'm trying to estimate something reasonable. -29- 1 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, we can understand that, why did you change it from the 1,200 to the 900, or 3 790? (guess that would be my main question. 4 KENNEY: The common use for single family residential is 10...well, ITE has an average of 9.5, we 5 commonly round that up to 10 for a house. Now, when I went back this morning and looked at an 6 apartment complex, the ITE actually has 6.5 traffic trips for a low rise apartment. When we start...when I 7 had the discussion, I was trying to see what, realistically, we're going to get out of the site and I went in 8 the manual and I got a little bit better information. I'm not sure where in the process the 10 was used, 9 because that is a standard number for residential...because it's an easy number, especially in a meeting 10 like this to use 10 to get a quick and dirty number, but when you actually look at a low rise apartment 11 complex, you're going to get 6.5 traffic trips per apartment. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you sir. Yes, Commissioner Binneweg? 13 BINNEWEG: 1 have a question for Mr. Denton. You speak of the low income housing, what percentage 14 of the units will be rented to...l mean, you must be working with percentages, because everything else is 15 market rate? 16 DENTON: I asked that very same question and didn't get an answer, today. But, today, basically, what I 17 was told is they want to keep the subsidized housing numbers as low as they can and they're looking in 18 the 20, 30% kind of range. I suppose it could go to 40%, I mean, he was...the developer was going back 19 and forth with some of those. At one point they were...their hope, truthfully, what they told me 30 days 20 ago when we first started looking at same of this, was that they would like to have no subsidized units, 21 they'd like to have it all market rate, but they're not sure that the State would allow that. Now, with the 22 granting of these tax incentives, they're going to want some of these to be at subsidized rates, and so, 23 that's the best answer I can give you today. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner...any other Commissioners? OK. My turn. Mr. Denton, this is in a 25 flood plain. -30- 1 DENTON: This is in a flood plain; it's in a backwater flood plain, a depth of less than a foot. We have 2 done...we have worked with...like I said earlier, they hired Dave Church who was with the City for many 3 years, in Hydrology, Dave has run some preliminary (inaudible) studies on this. He's worked with Ebler, 4 and basically, it is going to be removed from the flood plain, from the 100 year flood plain... 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Thank you. 6 DENTON: ...the Flaod water flood plain.... 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, thank you sir. $ DENTON: ...that's the reason for the ponding area.... 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 10 DENTON: ...all along the ditch. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I have a couple of comments kind of to towards the citizens you spoke before, and 12 I'd like to talk a little bit about crime, gangs, and burglary, things of that nature. Commissioner Sanchez, 13 correct me if I'm wrong on this, in my profession, we want to ensure dwellings that have other dwellings 14 around them. We do not feel it's safe to have three or four homes and then a large open area. My 15 contentions is you will be safe...my contention is you will be safer with this developed to some extent 16 because now there'll be other people there to look after your interests when somebody tries to walk in 17 your backyard to take your bicycle. 18 The problem with gangs, we're still going to have that, no matter where we go. But, I really 19 believe that your crime will lessen from my experience in my profession, your crime will lessen by having 20 some development. 21 Any comment on that, Commissioner Sanchez? 22 SANCHEZ: Well, I mean, crime is unpredictable any where, and I mean, you can argue both sides 23 more population in the neighborhood brings in neighboring and more of a criminal element, but you're 24 point of what I'm guessing at is that in a rural community you have a house that's separated by an acre, 25 there's less visual neighborhood, but then again, the argument to that is people know each other very well -31- r 1 and they're still able to watch each other, so I...to really be able to say it's true or not, I don't think it would 2 be out of (inaudible) for me to say something... 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right. The other comment, somebody brought up the fact that we, I think it was 4 Mrs. Smith, do we know how many trips per day, if you would stay around here, we have two more 5 hearing that are going to bring in an additional, off Del Rey, there's going to be 1,245 home projected, 6 that would project 14 to 18,000 trips per day. There had been homes on Elks, the northern par of Elks 7 that are contributing tremendously. 8 I made a point of last Friday, the 24t", at 4:25, to be in that area to do my site visit. And, I was in 9 that area for about 20 minutes, when I left that area, I went up on Three Crosses, tried to go north on 10 Main, to go home, you can't do it, it's terrible, it's horrendous. I understand where you're coming from. 11 [Applause in the background] 12 But, that's not our concern, that's only part of it. We have to take many things into consideration. 13 Now, when I got home, let me tell the rest of my story. I live across the mall; when (gat home, on 14 Telshor, there was traffic backed up from Lohman three blocks back and I couldn't turn on my street 15 because traffic was backed up. Where do we stop the growth? Where do we stop the cultural 16 configuration? When do we tell a developer, no, you cannot build anymore? 17 One last thing and then I'll shut up. Our job, as a Commission, is to look at the findings, the 18 guides that the City gives us. Now, f'm going to tell you how the City came up with their findings, and why 19 they recommend approval. 20 Land Use Element: An assortment of lot sizes should be provided for single family resident 21 development to promote a variety of life styles within the community. Sounds good. 22 Goal 1, Objection 3 Affordable housing throughout the City should be retained where feasible. 23 That makes sense. 24 Infill, Goal 1, Object 8: Encourage the development of vacant land within the urban area of the 25 City. And then Growth Management, Goal 1, Object 1: The City should discourage "leap-frog growth." -32- 1 As Mr. Denton said, if we don't approve this land, they will build in the County. Do you want your 2 land to sit vacant? Or do you want it to be built on? That"s one of the questions that we have to look at 3 now. 4 Object 2, under Growth: Criteria shall...criteria such as existing land use distribution in their 5 integration within adjacent areas should be considered when determining proposal applications, so, we 6 have to look at the integration, the mixture of land. 7 Urban Design Element, Residential and Commercial development should preserve regional, 8 desert, southwest image rooted in a variety of architectural styles. That's a tough one. 9 But we like to see, and I think these site plans were good. 10 Let me look at my notes. Mobile homes, OK, that's about all I had. But, I have to agree with what 11 you say, but where do we stop? When do we say, no more growth? If we turn one down, when do we 12 turn the next one down? Do we want the City to grow or do we want it to stay...we all want it to stay 13 small, but we don't want this in my backyard. I understand where you're coming from. 14 Commissioners, any other questions? Yes. 15 81NNEWEG: I have one comment that this proposal had 80 one bedroom units. You can't fit much riff 16 Taff in a one bedroom unit... 17 [Audience protesting] 18 ...no, I'm not kidding, when you get into people who want to rent places like that, there are a lot of people 19 my age and older....l'm a landlord and there's a huge population of single people moving to this area who 20 need a little place far themselves. Now, we can go and suppose that it's going to be all full of crappy 21 neighbors we never want to live next to, but there's a huge population of us, who are getting tired of living 22 in big houses and want a small apartment. 23 So, you have 80 one bedroom units, you have 24 two bedroom units, now that's starting to get 24 house maids and stuff. There's only 16 three bedroom units, which is where you get into a lot of, you 25 know, big families and tenants that I don't know very well. But, my point is, with 80.,.the majority of the units being one bedroom units, that's fairly low key. -33- ~ j 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And then my last comment would be from the minutes of July 22"d, 2003, the 2 applicant, who at that time was a Mr. Halts. "Thank you Commissioners and Chairman, my name is 3 Michael Tell, not Hall, Tell; the reason why we proceed to a zone change on this property is that this 4 property has been kind of an anomaly in that there is a split zoning." 5 They had trouble selling it before because of the split zoning, and now you want to come in with 6 another zoning change so you can sell it again under a different configuration. 7 At this time, I would ask for a motion on this case, if there are no other Commissioner's 8 comments? 9 FORD: Mr. Chair, I would move approval of this request. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 11 BINNEWEG: Second. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Before we vote I want to mention one thing. We approve in a positive, that is 13 required by Robert's Rules of Order. When it comes his turn to vote, he can vote against it. That's the 14 way we have to propose this. OK, so there has been a motion. I will call the roll. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 16 BINNEWEG: Aye. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Based on? 18 BINNEWEG: Oh, based on site visit, findings, and discussion. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 20 SANCHEZ: NO. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Based on? 22 SANCHEZ: Based on my concern for the traffic in that area, and the overall sense of... 23 [Applause in the background] 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 25 FORD: NO, based on site visit... -34- 1 [Applause in the background] 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 3 LUDTKE: NO, based on.... 4 [Applause in the background] 5 LUDTKE: ...my decision is based upon the concerns of the public in that area, and my concerns for the 6 public in that area. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes NO based on discussion alsa. This case fails. 8 [Applause in the background] 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you for giving us your input. 10 Next on the agenda, Case S-04-0$4. This is a request for a Master Plan approval for Parkhill 11 Estates. It is presented by...it is submitted by Blackham, Roman, Gunaji, and Associates, Incorporated, 12 for Sandhill Properties I, LLC. 13 OK. We'll take a three for four minute break. 14 [Intermission] 15 OK. Let's get the meeting back in order again, please. Will you please take your seats? We have two 16 more items. Will you please take your seats now? Ma'am? Is the applicant ready to present Case 5-04- 17 0$4? 18 LESS BLACKHAM: My name is Less Blackham, I represent the firm Blackham, Roman, Gunaji, 19 Incorporated. We're the one who's working on the project and doing the application. I'd like to offer 20 myself for any questions that might come up of a technical nature. I'd like to turn the time aver to the City 21 staff to make the presentation, so there's no repeats in what we say. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right. Staff? 23 KIRK CLIFTCIN: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, this is a request for Master Plan approval for 24 Parkhill Estates. Just as a reminder to the Commission, a Master Plan is a conceptual planning 25 document that essentially sets up the rules of the development for the developer to further go into the preliminary and zoning of the property. -35- 1 The property location is one half mile east of Del Rey Boulevard directly east of the recently 2 approved Sandhill Center Heights Master Plan, which, I believe, was approved by this Commission about 3 two or three months ago. 4 The property size is 248.64 t acres and the developer is proposing 904 single family lots with up 5 to a maximum of 1245 multi-family dwelling units or apartments. 6 The current zoning of the property is H, Holding, and A-1 Flood Control District. I should mention 7 to the Commission that next month more than likely you will be seeing a zone change request to R-1 a, R- 8 1 b, R-4, and C-3. So, that would be pending next month. Staff has not issue; in fact, we would prefer the 9 Master Plan proceeds as zone change request in all cases. 10 The City map indicates the property is directly adjacent to the western side of the future 11 Rinconada Boulevard, east of Del Rey Boulevard. Proposed Engler Road, which is a principal arterial 12 similar to Lohman Avenue, will run along the northern boundary of Sandhill Center Heights and then 13 traverse, or I'm sorry, here, and traverse the property, connect up here, essentially bisecting the property. 14 The future Raadrunner Parkway extends north through Eddie Binns' property and the Sandhill 15 Properties bisecting the two developments. Sv, this development will gain eventual access from Engler, 16 Raadrunner, and Rinconada. 17 The aerial photo of the subject property, largely vacant in the area, still what you see platted to 18 the south is essentially what's been developed. Last month you guys heard an amendment to the Master 19 Plan, for Rinconada Ranches, and a Preliminary Plan as well located east of the project off Rinconada 20 Boulevard. 21 I apologize for the clarity of the overhead slide here, but I'll touch on each parcel. The 22 developer's proposing approximately 191 acres of Single Family Residential, 31 acres of Multi-Family 23 Residential, and 25 acres of High Intensity Commercial Land Uses within the Master Planned area. 24 I will start on the north and work my way down. Parcel H is proposed to be R-4, Parcel G is 25 proposed to be C-3, as well as Parcel I, Parcel A proposed Single Family Residential, C, E, F, D, and B -36- i i 1 as well. Engler Road will provide access, Roadrunner Parkway here, so you will have a major note of 2 Commercial use at this intersection between the two principal arterials. 3 The DRC has recommended approval, but far the record, I will like to state that the property is 4 currently pending action by the State of New Mexico Regulatory Commission to determine the service 5 area of the northern half of the subject property between Moongate Water and Dana Ana Mutual 6 Domestic. That's just a point of information, it should have no bearing on the approval action of the 7 Master Plan. Thank you very much. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Clifton. Anybody in the audience that has any questions on this 9 case? Hearing no one, I will close the...to the audience participation. Commissioners? Commissioner 10 Ludtke? 11 LUDTKE: Staff, the Roadrunner, one of our past cases here, recently the intersection, remember, it 12 didn't hit right at that north south property line? Yeah. Is this Roadrunner going to hit there and go 13 through those two properties? You know what I mean? 14 CLIFTON: Yes... 15 LUDTKE: We just had a problem with Mr. Picket's... 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: The area to the...yeah, right there where it's... 17 LUDTKE: ...where we had it, yeah. No, but I'm talking about the westerly boundary line, right there. 18 Roadrunner comes up there, right? 19 CLIFTON: Yes, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Ludtke, as drawn up and proposed, Roadrunner Parkway will 20 split the property line essentially. You'll have 60 feet of right-of-way on the east side and 60 feet of right- 21 of-way on the west side. When Mr. Binns decides to plat this area out, we will ensure...the City will 22 ensure that that right-of-way lines up on either side of the property. And, the Master Plan, in fact reflects 23 that. 24 LUDTKE: So the Master Plan jogs over a couple of degrees to the east onto Parcel D, B, Boy. 25 -37- r ~ 1 CLIFTON: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, I'll have to defer to Mr. Blackham, I'm not familiar 2 with what was approved with Sandhill Center Heights, and how that dimension was ascertained, but 3 regardless... 4 LUDTKE: Mh hm. 5 CLIFTON: ...the principal arterial will be there, whether it startles the property line or not. The same 6 developer owns each side, so from the City's perspective... 7 LUDTKE: It probably... 8 CLIFTON: ...it really doesn't matter. 9 LUDTKE: Oh, OK. 10 CLIFTON: OK. 11 LUDTKE: Thank you. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Any other Commissioners? 13 FORD: Mr. Chairman,... 14 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, excuse me, I want to answer that question. Mr. Clifton was going to defer to 15 the applicant, but I don't believe Mr. Clifton was present at a meeting we did have with the applicant 16 about, I want to say two weeks ago, and we did discuss that alignment issue and currently their alignment 17 is a little squed to the west for Roadrunner, but based on the platting of this new property, and the 18 additional plats we will see on Sandhill Center Heights, that alignment will be shifted to meet the center 19 line, as we discussed. So, we already have addressed that issue. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Mr. Ford? 21 FORD: I was just going to ask, I believe we already approved the Master Plan for two or three plats of 22 this developer in here, haven't we? 23 CLIFTON: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Ford, as Mr. Harper and I just previously stated, Sandhill Center 24 Heights was approved within this area, and several years back Sandhill Center was approved as a 25 Commercial type of element along Del Rey. -38- . ~ ~ 1 FORD: So, this is basically just a continuation of sort of what we looked at before, isn't it? 2 CLIFTON: Well, I wouldn't necessarily call it a continuation; I would just say that it's the same developer 3 that's tying both projects together. 4 FORD: Yeah. 5 CLIFTON: It's separate projects. 6 FORD: Yeah. 7 LUDTKE: That was Phase I and Phase II of... $ FORD: No. 9 LUDTKE: It's not a Phase I, Phase II, Phase III thing? 10 CLIFTON: No. 11 LUDTKE: That was down there. 12 CLIFTON: No, this is a full, a totally separate application. 13 LUDTKE: Yeah. 14 CLIFTON: Different phasing schedule, access to this obviously is contingent upon Engler Road getting 15 built in this development, and that will take some time. Like I said, this is a five year document, so there 1 B is some time. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other Commissioners? Commissioner Binneweg? 18 BINNEWEG: I just want to point out an obvious thing where we have a success by local residents over 19 seven acres of residential and absolutely nobody in the audience for 280 acres of residential, which with 20 it's adjoining neighbors will be probably in the neighborhood of eventually 30,000 people out there, adding 21 to the City's policy of brinkmanship as far as water, and everything else, but my personal philosophy is 22 you might as well add 30,000 mare people because then when this southern part of the state doesn't 23 have any water, we have such a huge city, that all the other surrounding cities have to come here to get 24 water, because we'll have it, ha! 25 LUDTKE: I am one of the residents, right there... -39- r y 1 BINNEWEG: Yeah. 2 LUDTKE: ...Settlers Den... 3 BINNEWEG: Yeah, but you're... 4 LUDTKE: ...that's why I have to ... 5 BINNEWEG: ...everything's going north from you. 6 FORD: Mr. Chairman, I move approval of this Case S-Q4-048. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 8 SANCHEZ: I second. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I will call the roll. 10 Commissioner Binneweg: Aye. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Based on? 12 81NNEWEG: Oh, based on findings and discussion 13 CHAIR 6UCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 14 SANCHEZ: Aye, based on DRC recommendations and discussion 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 16 FORD: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 18 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes Aye, based on discussion and findings. 20 The next three items were going...OK, Commissioner....l mean, not Commissioner, Mr. Clifton, I'm sorry. 21 CLIFTON: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I won't speak to the merits of the next case, 22 however, just as a point of information, and as a reminder to the Planning and Zoning Commission on the 23 procedural aspects of an annexation request, any property owner outside the City limits, adjacent to the 24 City limits, may make a request to the City of Las Cruces to annex their property whether it's a half acre in 25 size or 2,000 acres in size. -40- 1 Procedurally, if you recall, although you're hearing a Master Plan as a part of an annexation 2 request, in this situation the Planning and Zoning Commission does not have final action authority. On 3 the annexation plat, Master Plan and initial Zoning Request, it will be forwarded to the City of Las Cruces 4 City Council as a recommendation as with any other zoning case you all would hear before you. 5 Typically, we would have you suspend the rules and hear all three cases, the Annexation, Master Plat, 6 and Zoning case as one case, then when you're ready for approval, unsuspend the rules, act on each 7 item separately. 8 The whole premise is that this is a ball of development going as one application even though it's 9 three separate actions, and it will be forwarded to City Council as one development application but be 10 acted upon them as well and three separate as... resolution and two ordinances. 11 LUDTKE: So, do we have to make a motion to suspend the rules and... 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, we need a motion... 13 LUDTKE: I make a motion to suspend the rules and hear case S-04-091, S-04-092, and 22585 in their 14 entirety. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Is there a second? 16 BINNEWEG: Second. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call the roll, Commissioner Binneweg? 18 BINNEWEG: Aye. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 20 SANCHFZ: Aye. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 22 FORD: Aye. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 24 LUDTKE: Aye. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: The Chair votes Aye. Is the applicant ready to present all three of these at once? -41- _, _ 1 TED SCANLON: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Ted Scanlon, I 2 represent the applicant on this proposed Annexation, Master Plan, and initial Zoning Request. 3 This is a 39 acre parcel of land that is...lies on both sides of Jornada Road, immediately north of 4 the recently approved Dos Suenos Annexation. 5 The development is very, very similar to the Dos Suenos Estates application in as much as the 6 development plans for it and the engineering and other considerations with respects to the application, so 7 let me....we're proposing two zoning districts and they are 1 B and C-2. 8 This is an overall site plan, this is U.S. Highway 70 right in here, Jornada Road goes right up 9 through there and the Dos Suenos annexation is...lies within about 140 acres in this area right in here, 10 and then the 39 acres that is the subject of the application this evening, lies immediately north of that. 11 So, it's a logical continuation, logical extension of the City limits, a logical extension of the utilities system; 12 everything will be tied together and the developer's proposal is to develop in accordance with the design 13 standards and all of the requirements of the City Subdivision Cade and the Development Standards 14 contained within Zoning Ordinance and all the other applicable codes in effect. 15 This is a little bit zoomed in version...part of the property lies on the west side of Jornada Road 16 and the balance of it lies in this strip between Jornada Road and Mesa Grande. 17 The developer is proposing to provide all the necessary improvements and so forth similarly to 18 the way that Dos Suenos Estates was done. 19 There's a... 20 FORD: Is Engler Road in there? 21 SCANLON: Aerial photo, I'll show you on this photograph right here. Engler Road runs right through the 22 middle of Dos Suenos Estates... 23 FORD: OK. 24 SCANLON: ...and you can see this light strip right here, this is where City built a sewer line within the 25 Engler Road right-of-way a couple of years ago, and the Engler Road overlies that sewer line. -42- ~ ~ 1 This is Mesa Grande over here, Jornada Road, this is State land aver in this area and then further 2 west of that is Sonoma Ranch Boulevard and the Las Colinas area. 3 This is a representation of the Annexation Plat that's required for the annexation process. It 4 shows the two tracts, larger track on the east side of Jornada Road and the smaller track on the west 5 side. 6 This is a copy of the Development Master Plan that shows that the roads will be tied together 7 between Mesa Grande and Jornada, and then access to this track will be by new City streets off of 8 Jornada Road. 9 This is the initial zoning map; we're proposing R-1 b zoning for this parcel west of Jornada Road 10 as well as all of this up to a strip along the arterial roadway, which is the subject to the commercial zoning 11 request. Once again this is all R-1b here with the strip along Mesa Grande Drive for C-2. 12 And the DRC recommendation for the Annexation Plat was of approval with no conditions, for the 13 Master Plan approval with no conditions, and the initial Zoning request approval with no conditions. 14 I'd be happy to answer any questions I could. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Scanlon. Staff? 16 HARPER: Mr Chairman, thank you. Bear with me, I'm going to use the same presentation. Case 5-04- 17 091, S-04-02, and 22585, these are requests for annexation. This includes the Annexation Plat and 18 Master Plan and initial zoning request. There's approximately 39 acres, land to be used into the 19 corporate limits of the City of Las Cruces. It is located west of Mesa Grande Drive along Jornada Road. 20 Let's take this zoomed in version here; you can see here the property is just on the narth...this is Dos 21 Suenos Estates here, as Mr. Scanlon pointed out, this is the portion in yellow to be annexed. 22 An aerial photograph showing surrounding properties, road networks, see once again in yellow. 23 The Annexation Plat showing the property boundaries to be brought under the corporate limits. 24 The Master Plan, as Mr. Scanlon noted, important to note the road network lay outs here showing 25 access to the property and to the commercial property along Mesa Grande as well, and the residential housing here. -43- .-. -~.. 1 The applicant is requesting the initial zoning to be R-1 b, which is the highest density allowed 2 under single family residential within the City, and same C-2 properties along Mesa Grande Drive and the 3 extension of the internal roadways here. 4 Staff is in support of the DRC recommendation as Mr. Scanlon noted was approval with no 5 conditions for all three applications. 6 If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that has any questions about these 8 cases? Yes sir, please came to the microphone and state your name. 9 JOIE HERNANDE2: Chairman, Honorable members, staff, I... 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: t=xcuse me, name please? 11 HERNANDfrZ: Joe Hernandez. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. 13 HERNANDEZ: I have a candition...kind of a conditional objection to this, in depending what answers I 14 get. I'm interested more in the wet portion up there, that's identified...that Mr. Scanlon has identified as 15 the west part of this project. 16 I'm the property owner there, between Settle Mountain Road and Joseph H. Lane, which is 17 approximately five acres of land. 18 I've dealt with ETZ, had that property there far aver 23 years for the purpose of leaving something 19 for my children as they grow up; and I've just held on to that land and suffered with ETZ and everything 20 else that's been thrown at me. 21 one of the things that was agreed upon, and this is what I'm hopefully that you'll support me on 22 was, the property owner immediately south, on the other side of the Joseph H. Lane, or where the blue is, 23 but immediately on the sauth boundary, which is approximately 20 acres, was a Mrs. Dolores Crebbs; 24 she's had that property out there far 40 years or whatever. 25 One of the agreements that was made between myself and other property owners on down Joseph H. Lane, and it was approved by the ETZ many years back, and I don't have my paper work with -44- ~ ~ 1 me, was that she was allowed to sell land, the bottom 10 acres, at one acre at a time with the provision 2 that that road, Joseph H. Lane, was eventually was going to be a 50 foot right of way. All the property 3 owners there, including myself since back when, 23 years ago or more, have been trying to give and 4 dedicate this road, as a County road, to the County in the past; we just gave up, 1 personally just gave up, 5 `cause their answer was that they weren't accepting any more roads because of the maintenance and 6 upkeep since then. So, we have personally, all of us the property owners there, have maintained that 7 road, until a day like this one, that would come eventually, and be incorporated into the City limits. But it $ is through the property owners, through agreements, we've dedicated that road to be a 50 foot 9 lane...road. 10 Now, my question is with this development; normally it's a habit of these additions, these home 11 additions, or maybe it's part of the Code. You know, they normally throw out rock walls around their 12 additions. They throw out rock walls to surround all these additions that they make and some I've seen, 13 normally no less than six foot walls. In other areas I've seen them higher and I've seen them collapse all 14 over Las Cruces. I'm a born and raised citizen here in Las Cruces, and I can tell you that that land out 15 there was for free at one time, `cause nothing grows out there, nobody wanted it. There's many people 16 that were displaced, believe it or not, going back a little bit in history through the Downtown Revitalization 17 that there was for many years back, the downtown thing, I forget what it's called or labeled.... 18 SANCHEZ: Urban Renewal. 19 HERNANDEZ: Urban Renewal, thank you Commissioner, thank you. the Urban Renewal thing where a 20 lot of people were displaced from their home and they went out there and bought a lot of land, where the 21 R-1 b, the longest strip, it's going to be backed into, and I'm not speaking for them; I'm just giving you a 22 little bit of history, and they went up there and bought thousand dollar an acre land in order to live, and 23 many live out there. 24 As a side line, I don't know where this Los Enamorados thing came up, I don't know, people that 25 know Spanish, I tell you out there it's nothing, it's less than enamorados out there. It's a real wild place, graffiti all over the place, that kind of stuff. -45- • } 1 I pity the homeowners that are going to buy in there, I really do, `cause nothing grows and 2 eventually we're not worried about the, you know, the persons that might live in there because nature will 3 take over and sell and move out, `cause they'll want threes, they'll want grass, they'll want things like that; 4 they don't have that out there. 5 I've tried far 23 years and all I can grow is a river-type of tree out there. And, what I did is I went 6 out and dug pits with a back hoe and then move the dirt around and then came back and hired a trucker 7 to go there and give me some good soil, and I had a tree for five years. And, then it would die. So, we're 8 not worried about that much. 9 If you go up there to Jornada North Subdivision that was started by Mr. Moore, who was in the 10 ETZ Board at the time, that I'm talking about, you'll see that most of those houses are for sale already. 11 They keep turning over constantly. So, that's not my worry. 12 My worry here this street, that it should be maintained and kept that 50 foot, and Mrs. Crebbs 13 agreed that she would give...it's already a 35 footer, a 30 foot street; and when she was given permission 14 to sell land, she agreed to provide the other amount of land on the south boundary, because on the north 15 boundary of the street you already have the infrastructure; you have Moongate Water, telephone, 16 telephone pole lines, electricity lines, big poles, and...When we had that meeting, we had a Mr. Bushee, 17 from the Electric Company go down there and he said that it was just too expensive to move those poles, 18 so then she decided...the ETZ gave her permission to sell, if she provided more land. 19 Now, the agreement was, those people that she sold to, she was supposed to have advised them 20 that they still owed 25 mare feet in that property, or whatever it was. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: If I may interrupt, I'm a little bit confused; what street exactly are you talking about? 22 HERNANDEZ: On the west side, sir, how do you use this pointer here? Could I get the... 23 SANCHEZ: Joseph H. Lane. 24 HERNANDEZ: ...the other, the enlarged? 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. -46- • 1 HERNANDEZ: If I could get that enlarged...no, not that one, the other... 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I think that blue one is probably the largest we've got, isn't it? 3 HERNANDEZ: Yes, that's better. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Oh, I see it there now. So, your contention is who is going to maintain that road? 5 HERNANDEZ: No, my contention is that it should still remain as per the agreement, that it should be a fi 50 foot road for future development. It can't be...it can't remain one of those 30 foot roads like here 7 downtown where traffic can't even park or go through the streets... 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. And, that's your main question. 9 HERNANDEZ: That's my main question. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, OK... 11 HENRNADEZ: And then if they're going to fence this with a rock wall, we don't' want to be boxed in by a 12 rock wall right across the street. What's the height of the wall they're going to be building for this 13 addition? 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Those are questions we'll ask Mr. Scanlon. Anything else, sir? 15 HERNANDEZ: Not at the moment sir. 1fi CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, thank you. 17 HERNANDEZ: See what answers I get first. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. This one right here. 19 BINNEWEG: This lane? 20 SCANLON: Mr. Chairman, and Commissioners, in doing our property research to respect to this 21 annexation request, it was determined that Joseph H. Lane is actually a private road and utility easement, 22 it's a private covenant between the land owners that live along here, and live further down. 23 There was not title encumbrance or any other mention of any additional easement along within 24 this property at the time that Mr. Philippou, my client, purchased it. So, if there is an agreement to 25 reserving additional easement along that roadway, we were not made aware of it at the time that we got title insurance and purchased the property. -47- r , 1 I would say that if in fact Mr. Hernandez is willing to do so, and perhaps the other owners along 2 that street are willing to do so, if there's an existing 30, I believe it is a 30 or 35 foot wide easement, and 3 then, as I've stated, it is a private easement it's not under County maintenance at the current time at all, if 4 they were willing to dedicate that as right-of-way, within that area, we would certainly be willing to 5 cooperate and dedicate additional right-of-way and build a street on it, and reconfigure our subdivision 6 plats so that could become a paved street, be utilized at least along the frontage of our property. 7 As of right now, though, the condition of that easement is as a private roadway easement, fully 8 within the property north of the land that Mr. Philippou owns. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, I would ask staff if they have anything more to add to that, as to the owner ship 10 or the right-of-way. 11 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, I think the issue Mr. Scanlon brought up is correct. It is a private road and a 12 utility easement on Mr. Hernandez's property and they...Mr. Scanlon's indicated there is no easement on 13 the property currently when Mr. Philippou bought it. I'm not sure if there is or isn't; that's Mr. Scanlon's 14 contention, but { do know that the County will not accept road for maintenances right away without 15 improvements on them, so the improvements will probably have to be there before the County would 16 accept it. The road itself is not part of this annexation request, and is not inside the boundary of this land 17 at all. 18 If Mr. Scanlon and his client are willing to work with Mr. Hernandez, we're all for that. gut, we 19 can't comment on whether the road would actually be accepted for maintenance or not. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN; OK. Does that make sense to you, Mr. Hernandez? That really is, as he said, we 21 cannot comment an that, but Mr. Scanlon has said he will be willing work with you under the conditions. 22 HERNANDEZ: That'll be fine; I'm willing to sit down and discuss it with him, however, like I stated, the 23 reason that it still remains in a private status, that road is, because the County will not accept it and we 24 have tried it. We can't force them to do that, but it is, in the contract that we made, dedicated to the 25 County; I wish 1 would have brought a copy to you, or if I can bring it later. CHAIR BUCHMAN: Well, it's a situation that, if it's in the County... -413- 1 HERNANDEZ: Right... 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...it's outside ourjurisdiction, we have no control over it at all. All we can say is, if 3 the developer will work with you to do something, it's to your advantage, we can't tell him, we can't do 4 anything, because it's not within the zoning area that we're hearing here tonight. We'd like to help you, 5 but I don't think we can. Any comments from other Commissioners? Hold on just a minute, let me see, 6 go ahead, Commissioner Ford. 7 FORD: Just as a point of information. To what does that Joseph Lane connect? You said it had access $ to something, it doesn't go to Jornada, does it? 9 HERNANDEZ: Yes, it does sir. It goes west from Jornada to McGuffy Road, which is further on down... 10 CHAIR 6UCHMAN: To the west? 11 HERNANDEZ: To the west; it only goes to the west, it doesn't go east of Jornada. And, then there's 12 other issues, but like you've already said, there's other issues of flooding, and running water, and haw the 13 County, and now the City are probably change existing water outlets that come in from the desert, down 14 in through there; there's a lot of issues that should be settled, but my main issue is that street. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 16 HERNANDEZ: And, that's what I would like to have that. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, thank you Mr. Hernandez. 1$ HERNANDEZ: Could I at least have the Commission respect the agreements, as a kind of resident, now 19 that you guys are getting close to annexation. 20 FORD: Now, I don't mean this to be argumentative, or anything, but it's a road...a grated road now, is it 21 just tracks down through the grounds? 22 HERNANDEZ: No, sir, it's a grated road, and it's used daily by numerous people, even people from out 23 of that neighborhood that live up further that cross through the...it's a grated road that we have 24 maintained, and the school bus also goes through there. In fact, I have given permission to the school 25 district to use part of those five acres as a pick up point to get the children and stuff off Jornada Road where people use it as a race track... -49- 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 2 HERNANDEZ: ...and for the safety of the children, I let them use my property as a bus stop. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I think, did Mr. Philippou...did you want to say something too? 4 PHILIP PHILLIPPOU: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Philip Philippou; I am the president for 5 Katerina, Inc., the owner of the property. We bought the approximately seven acres west of Jornada 6 Road from Mrs. Crebbs. We have no idea about any agreements that were made in the past. It was not 7 part of our package. There is no easement on our lot. However, we'd be mare than happy to sit dawn $ with Mr. Hernandez. If Mr. Hernandez wants to dedicate, maybe part of the property that he says the 9 street is one, the 35 feet to the City, and we would be more than happy to include it in our annexation and 10 stuff, you know, and it agrees with that and it becomes part of the deal. 11 Now, however, we have no control over this; it's a private piece of property that these neighbors 12 chose to make some kind of an arrangement, whether it be verbal or in writing that we don't know 13 anything about, and I don't believe we are part of, if we are, I'd me more than happy to look at whatever 14 documents Mr. Hernandez has because we don't have it. 15 Now, but we would be willing to annex that piece of property into our property and make it into a 16 street if Mr. Hernandez would agree to that, and his neighbors. I mean, again, this is an issue between all 17 of those neighbors that we don't know anything about. 1$ CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. I think under the circumstances, that's very fair and the fact, like I said, we 19 don't have to consider and do not have the right to consider that land. Commissioner Ludtke? 20 LUDTKE: The bounds for this annexation, where does that line go for the City property, for the north 21 south, does it go to the center of that lane or does the lane exist? 22 PHILLIPPQU: No, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, if we are outside that property there 23 is no easement within our property, that we know of, unless there is something that is not of record, then 24 so nobody found. 25 LUDTKE: Or, annexation to the City? -50- r 1 PHILLIPPOU: With the outside these lanes. 2 LUDTKE: Goes down the end of your property line right there... 3 PHILLIPPOU: Yes. 4 LUDTKE: ...does it go in there? 5 PHILLIPPOU: It does not go in there. 6 LUDTKE: Stops right there? 7 PHLLIPPOU: That's right. 8 LUDTKE: It's not even the City's so we have to take that into the City. J 9 PHILLIPPOU: Well, again, 1 would be more than happy to sit dawn with Mr. Hernandez and talk 10 whatever it's necessary. Right now we have no idea, you know, it is not part of our property set up. We 11 don't know what else to say. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Thank you, 1 think we'lI...OK, Mr. Sanchez? 13 SANCHEZ: Yeah, I just may reiterate what Commissioner Ludtke had mentioned earlier. I think the 14 purpose of this meeting, and I have to commend the developer and also Mr. Hernandez, to hopefully 15 trying to work out issues like these, and I commend you both and hopefully you guys can come to an 16 agreement, but yes, it's somewhat a little bit outside our scope, but it's something that we can foresee, 17 and I hope with City staff, you can probably work something out so, again, it would be a win-win situation 18 for both parties. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. Ludtke? Commissioner Ludtke? 20 LUDTKE: Oh... 21 HERNANDE~: One mare comment. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Hold on a second. Go ahead. 23 LUDTKE: Perkaining to this issue? 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, you can bring anything else up. 25 LUDTKE: OK, I'm on a different issue. CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, go ahead. -51- 1 LUDTKE: Do you want to finish this issue? 2 HERNANDEZ: Just one more comment. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, one more short comment. I understand what the agreement has been so far. 4 HERNANDEZ: It's for Mr. Philippou or Mr. Scanlon here. I don't know what the County did with the 5 meetings, the minutes of the meetings that we had way back then, but they were a governing board, the 6 ETZ Commission Board, and when Mrs. Crebbs made this agreement with us, everything was recorded 7 and they had a secretary making minutes, and that's, you know... 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And it would make good sense that it was recorded, but it's outside of his property 9 line. See, his property just goes right to the edge of the road, it doesn't take into the road, I think that's 10 what they're saying. 11 HERNANDEZ: But the point is... 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, staff, will you clarify a little bit please? 13 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, I think what Mr. Hernandez is saying is that there was a meeting at some point, 14 of the ETZ, maybe there was an issue discussed and an agreement reached and about providing access 15 on both properties, but in fact, if the property to the south never had an actual document filed with the 16 Court House indicating that easement existed, then those agreements that were reached at the ETZ 17 level, are really kind of a mute point. The actual easement had to be of record, and it it's not of record, it 18 was not found by a title search when Mr. Philippou had his title insurance, and had that taken care of, 19 then the easement does not exist. I mean, it has to be filed at the Court House to exist, even though 2Q there might have been agreements beforehand. 21 CHAIR BUGHMAN: OK. Kind of tough Mr. Hernandez, I know where you're standing, but, like I said, 22 until you can find that it exists, it's not something that we have to... 23 HERNANDEZ: We'll deal with it, we'll work out something.... 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Good, very goad.... 25 HERNANDEZ: ...and then, if need be, then I can do some.... -52- Y y • 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...there you go. 2 HERNANDEZ: ...research some papers... 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: If you find something, bring it back to staff. 4 HERNANDEZ: Thank you. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Mr. Ludtke, you had something else on your mind. 6 LUDTKE: Staff, you know, part of the country I come from, would...if...there's...south of this proposed 7 annexation that's...it would be south there by Joseph Lane? OK, south of there there's those 8 properties...what I'm getting at is we had like, if you're sided on three sides, you're locked there, you'd 9 have to go in...into the City. That's not true out here, huh? 10 HARPER: Mr. Chair, Commissioner... 11 LUDTKE: ...there's one thing out here in New Mexico, it's a different...see those properties on Northgate 12 down there, how they're boxed in? 13 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ludtke, I am aware...yes, I understand your comment and 14 concern, and no, they are not required to be pulled into the City as part of this proposal. They can come 15 into the City, they can petition themselves to come into the City, and if a property owner who does 16 petition, has more than 51 % of the land ownership, they can pull in adjacent properties as well, if in fact 17 the City would like to pull people against their will, so to speak. So, there's an ability for that, but its all 18 based on petition only. 19 LUDTKE: Mh. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, thank you. Any other Commissioners? OK, in that case, I will accept a motion. 21 FORD: How do we approve them? 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr... 23 FORD ...S-04-091, which is the Annexation ? 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Oh, that's right, that's right... 25 HARPER: Mr. Chair, you have to unsuspend the rules. -53- C~ 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: We have to unsuspend the rules now and vote on them one at a time. 2 FORD: All right. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: It doesn't take a motion to unsuspend the rules, we just pass it as unsuspended. 4 FORD: Bang your gavel. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: 1 bang my gavel and unsuspend it, OK. So, the first case is... 6 FORD: 5-04-091. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...and Mr. Ford has made an...Commissioner Ford has made a motion, is there a 8 second? 9 SANCHEZ: I second. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And, I'll call the roll, Commissioner Binnewerg? 11 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on findings, and discussion. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 13 SANCHEZ: Aye, based on findings, and discussion 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford?. 15 FORD: Aye, based on site visit, finding, and discussion. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 17 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: The Chair votes Aye, based on finding, and discussion. OK, the next case, I'll hear 19 a motion on that. Keep it up Mr. Ford, you're doing good work. 20 FORD: I would move that Case S-04-092 be approved. 21 81NNEWEG: Second. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call the roll, Commissioner Binneweg? 23 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 25 SANCHEZ: Aye, based on findings. -54- _ .--_. 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 2 FORD: Aye, finding, and discussion 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 4 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And, the Chair votes Aye, based on findings and discussion.\ 6 FORD: Mr. Chairman, I move that Case 22585 be approved. 7 BINNEWEG: Second. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call the roll. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call the roll, Commissioner Binneweg? 10 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on findings, and discussion. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 12 SANCHEZ: Aye, based on findings, and discussion. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford? 14 FORD: Aye, based on finding, and discussion 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 16 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And, the Chair votes Aye, finding, and discussion also. Thank you very much. Is 18 there any other business to be brought before the Board at this time? OK. You can't go home yet, 19 because I have something I want to bring up. No. 20 I'm a little bit uncomfortable because every once in a while and somebody is not going to be here, they 21 call me. Commissioner Camu~iez called me; she's got strep throat from being and yelling in Wawaii all the 22 time. Should we have a central person that we call at staff? 23 BINNEWEG: Staff called me. 24 SANCHEZ: Staff called me. 25 LUDTKE: Staff called. -55- 1 ~ t 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Staff called? OK, don't call me anymore. That's all I can say. 2 HARPER: Mr. Chairman? 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That's it. 4 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, if I might, real quick; we do try and call before every meeting to make sure 5 that... 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 7 HARPER: ...there will be attendance, and who will not be attending... 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Right. 9 HARPfcR: ...but if you, in fact, know you are not going to attend, we would appreciate, and you can call 10 Carmen Lucero directly and let her know and she'll let staff know about that. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 12 FORD: What is you number now? I called today and I got... 13 HARPER: Sure, I'll give you the...l'll give you Carmen's direct number. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Ail right. 15 FORD: That's all I need. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN; All right. 17 HAPER: 528-3043. Right, Carmen? That's not the direct line, but that's the line to our section, and 18 Carmen answers that phone. 19 CARMEN LUCERO: If you want to call me directly, it's 3277. 20 HARPER: Yes, 528-3277. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And, after hours? 22 LUDTKE: Hey! 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Are there any staff comments this evening? 24 HARPER: No, Mr. Chairman. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And... -56- ~ y K 1 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, one second. Just for the record, we are losing a valuable staff member in Kirk 2 Clifton, who no longer will be working for the City of Las Cruces, so, thank him for his years of service 3 please. 4 COMMISSION: Oh, no. [Clapping] 5 SANCHEZ: How many years of service do you have, Kirk? 6 HARPER: Twelve years, Kirk? 7 LUDTKE: How long? 8 HARPER: Twelve glorious years. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Well, good luck, Kirk 10 BINNEWEG: The previous applicant...he's going to be saying... 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: 1 know, I know. We get to have fun later on. 12 BINNEWEG: I know. 13 LUDTKE: Ah. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: When he comes before us. 15 BINNEWEG: I know. 16 HARPER; Just wait `till he comes to my office for something. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I will accept a motion at 8:10. 18 BINNEWEG: So moved. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: We're adjourned. Thank you. 20 21 Adjourned at 8:10 p.m. 22 23 24 AIR 25 -57-