Loading...
08/24/2004r 1 REGULAR MEETING 2 OF THE 3 PLANNING AND zONING COMMISSION 4 FOR THE 5 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 6 City Council Chambers 7 August 24, 2004 8 6:00 pm 9 10 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 11 Bruce Buchman, Chair 12 Nancy Binneweg, Vice-Chair 13 Elizabeth Camunez, Secretary 14 Harry Sanchez 15 William Ludtke 16 Henry Young 17 STAFF PRESENT: 18 Vincent Banegas, Development and MPO Administrator 19 Lani Ruth McCarron, Planner 20 Kirk Clifton, Planner 21 Brian Harper, Planner 22 Tom Murphy, MPO Planner 23 Richard Jacquez, Legal Department 24 Robert Gonzalez, Fire Department 25 Carmen Alicia Lucero, Recording Secretary -1- 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to call to order the Planning and 2 Zoning Commission meeting for tonight, August 24tH. We have 13 cases on the Agenda tonight, so we 3 have a fairly long meeting. We've got one PUD change, five Zone Changes, two Preliminary Plats, two 4 Final Plats, one Master Plan Request, two Amendments, one to the 2001 Zoning Code, and one to the 5 Las Cruces Municipal Code. Before we get into the items, we've got to look at our minutes. Are there 6 any, Commissioners, any corrections, any additions, any changes to the minutes of July 27tn~ 7 No changes, I will accept a motion to accept the minutes. 8 BINNEWEG: So moved. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Second. 10 CAMUNEZ: I second it. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call the roll, Commissioner Binneweg? 12 BINNEWEG: Aye. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 14 $ANCWEZ: Aye. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford....oh, Commissioner Ludtke? 16 LUDTKE: Aye. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 18 CAMUNEZ: Aye. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes aye. All right. 20 Consent Agenda. Let me explain a little bit about the Consent Agenda; you can see the six items that are 21 on the Consent Agenda. Number four, (Case S-03-01 a) if anybody is here to hear case number four, that 22 is the request for Calico Drive and Century Lane; that has been postponed until the September 28tH 23 meeting. So that item will not be heard this evening. 24 The Consent Agenda allows us to pass items without any discussion. These are items that have been 25 before the staff, they found nothing unfavorable; nobody from the public has called to say anything unfavorable. So, we will pass them automatically upon the approval of the Consent Agenda. But, as we ~!^ T -2- .~ ~ ~ 1 go trough each item, anybody in the audience, anybody -- Commissioner, can remove an item from the 2 Consent Agenda, if they want to discuss it further. So, I'm going to go through these items, one at a time. 3 Case number one, ZCA-04-03, this is a request for various sections of the Las Cruces Zoning Code to be 4 amended. Is there anybody in the audience, who wants this taken off the Consent Agenda, please raise 5 your hand. Commissioners, any commissioners want this off the Agenda? OK, I'm going to take this off 6 the Agenda, so I'm taking Case ZCA-04-03 off the Consent Agenda, and it will become under New 7 Business, case number eight. 8 The next item on the Consent Agenda, is Case 22573, this is a request for a zoning conversion 9 for the Village Plaza at 110-170 West Picacho Avenue. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes this 10 item removed from the Consent Agenda? Commissioners? 11 All right, this item will stay on the Consent Agenda. 12 Number three, Case 22577, a request for a zoning conversion. This is for the properties located 13 on the northwest corner of the intersection of Del Rey Boulevard and Bataan Memorial West. Is there 14 anybody that wants further discussion on this, wants it removed from the Consent Agenda? 15 Commissioners? This case stays on the Consent. 16 Case number four was postponed. (Case S-03-014) 17 Case number five, S-04-083, this is a Final Plat Approval for Lenox Place Subdivision; this is at 18 the intersection of Blue Ridge Lane and Lenox Avenue. Is there anyone who wishes this removed from 19 the Consent Agenda? Please stand and state your name. 20 BARBARA BURNETT: My name is Barbara Burnett, and I just want to ask a question. (Away from the 21 microphone, inaudible.) 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: This will come off the Consent Agenda, yes, without any discussion at all. So you 23 want it off? 24 BARBARA BURNETT: (inaudible) 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Oh, OK, so then Case S-04-083 will become case number nine under New Business. -3- s. P 1 OK, and the last item is Case 5-04-085, this is a Preliminary Plat Approval for the property known as 2 Obispo Estates; it's east of Roadrunner Parkway along the extension of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard. Is 3 there anybody who wishes this item to be removed from the Consent Agenda? Commissioners? OK, so 4 this will stay on the Consent Agenda. 5 All right, so we're changing our Agenda to remove cases number one and five, they become case 6 eight and nine. Case number four is postponed. Is there a motion to approve the Agenda as changed? 7 Commissioner Young? 8 YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, before a motion is made, I would like to ask if we might take the second one that 9 was taken off by the lady and put it as case one, under New Business, so they don't have to wait so long. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: It doesn't make any difference to me, we've always moved them to the back, if it's 11 just one question, I guess we can make it case number one. So, we want to move, where did it ga? 12 Case S-04-083 to case number one; we can certainly do that, and then all the rest of the cases move 13 down one. OK. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as changed? 14 SANCHEZ: 5o moved. 15 BINNEWEG: Second. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call roll. 17 Commissioner Young? 18 YOUNG: Aye. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 20 BINNEWEG: Aye. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 22 SANCHEZ; Aye. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 24 LUbl'KE: Aye. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? CAMUNEZ: Aye. -4- Y 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes Aye. All right, so now we have an Agenda. 2 Now, let me talk just a minute about the Agenda and the ground rules. We appreciate everybody coming, 3 we want your input, it's your ideas or suggestions that could sway our vote. But we do ask this, if you 4 have a group of people and you have a representative, a spokesman, this spokesman will be allowed 10 5 minutes to present your case. If you have no spokesman, or if somebody else wishes to speak, you'll be 6 allowed three to four minutes for your case. But we da ask one thing that makes it easier for us, is 7 repetition; we don't need the same thing brought up time and time again. If we hear it once, that's fine, $ please don't keep bringing the same thing up. So, when you have a question, after the applicant presents 9 her case, and staff presents our side, we will turn to the audience and then give you a chance to speak 10 also. 11 All right, the first case under New Business is Case LMC-04-02, it's an amendment of Section 30...oh 12 that's right, we change it. Number five, right? 13 CAMUIVEZ: Mh hm. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Sorry about that. First case is 5-04-083, a request for a Final Plat Approval of 15 Lenox Place Subdivision. It's submitted by Western Land Surveying for DH Development LLC. Is the 16 applicant ready? 17 DAN LILLEY: Yes sir, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Dan Lilley, with Lilley Engineering Inc. I'm 1$ representing the developers. Essentially, this is a continuation of the development of the portion of the 19 Lenox Place, Phases I and II. Phase I originally had a parcel, basically, with this shape that you see in 20 front of you, the triangular shape that had future uses, kind of an odd enough shape that they were going 21 to put departments or something later on and zoning it, instead the developer wanted to just go ahead 22 and build it out with seven, six actual, six new lots. We added the seventh one at the corner of Blueridge 23 Court and Blueridge Lane. That lot right there, because we had to dedicate a little bit more right-of-way 24 so it had to be included. Basically, it's the development of two lots into seven. And, as far as, you know, 25 location, everybody is familiar with the intersection of Wighway 70 and the Interstate, and I talked to the -5- e" 1 applicant, I mean, to the person in the audience that has a questions, but I'd be glad to answer any more 2 questions anybody else has. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Thank you, Mr. Lilley. Staff? 4 LANI RUTH McCARSON: Chairman, Commissioners, let me just run through this really quick. As you 5 stated, this is the Final Plat Request of Lenox Place Subdivision, Replat No. 1. As Mr. Lilley indicated, 6 the subject property is located along Lenox Avenue, just east of Elks Drive. Currently, as Mr. Lilley 7 stated, the property contains two lots, one being Lot 3, located here along Blueridge Lane, and Lot 61 8 being this triangular piece. The applicant is requesting to develop seven lots in lieu of the two previously. 9 A couple of site photos of the property. As you can tell, the property is currently vacant. This top 10 one is facing east towards the interstate; you can see the two homes on the corner, already constructed. 11 Again, facing east from what was actually a paved road, which is the old Lenox Avenue that was 12 vacated with the previous plat, and this would be the proposed Blueridge Court that you see on your plats 13 now. And again, currently vacant property facing east on the top one, and facing north on the bottom 14 property. 15 I can answer any questions you might have; otherwise the DRC did recommend approval of the 16 plat with no conditions. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Ms. McCarson. At this time, I will turn it over to the audience and there 18 was a lady that had a question, would you please come to the microphone, state your name again for the 19 recorder, and state your question. 20 BARBARA BRUNETTE: My name is Barbara Brunette and my major question had been just how much 21 is this going to impact on our traffic? I don't know if you can tell but, if...it's much better than having the 22 apartment, but we have over 165 homes right now that only have two ways into the City. We go in either 23 through Scanlon and North Main, or we go in through Lenox and Elks. Now, we all know North Main and 24 Elks is one of the worst intersections in town. And, we have no way to get out, no lights whatsoever, so 25 we can't turn left and do the Jornada School traffic and the North Elks Traffic. We have traffic backed up almost all the way to the school, so it's hard to turn left in that direction; the lanes are crowded. And, the -6- C~ C~ 1 other direction we have Highway 70 and Scanlon, which is at Burger Time, and is almost impossible to 2 turn left to get into town. 3 And, my fear was that it was just going to pack us up even more. People now, with that Lowe's 4 across the street, I watch them all the time when I'm trying to turn left, they're coming down North Main, 5 they make a left hand turn not to be a person that is shopping at Lowe's, but to miss that major 5 intersection of Elks and North Main, and they cut through Lowe's and go across and catch Triviz. So, that 7 traffic is backed up all the way. 8 So, we have a beautiful neighborhood, we've had great neighbors move in, the homes are 9 beautiful, so I think that's great, but the traffic is outrageous in the morning. And people are doing U-turns 10 on North Main, and they're cutting through Walgreen's parking lot, just to turn left. So you can see our 11 dilemma. 12 That's just something I wanted to bring to everybody's attention. And, I didn't know how to do it; I 13 mentioned it several times, and so I just thought, "Man, we're going to add more homes." But, as long as 14 it's not apartment, and it's homes, I guess seven more houses, bringing it up to probably...we must have 15 170 homes there, and so you can figure at least one, probably two, maybe four, with teenagers, cars 16 living each house in the morning. It's a mess. 17 And, it's just an accident waiting to happen. So, somebody's going to be responsible for that, you 18 know, because it's been brought to your attention and I wanted to make sure everybody knew so that it 19 ever happened, and I came back and said, "well, OK, somebody was killed; what are we going to do 20 now?" So, that's all, but OK with your seven houses. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, thank you for your input; we have heard your concern about North Main many 22 times in the last year. You're fortunate we're only putting seven homes on that corner. In other areas, we 23 approve zoning for 150, 200 in another place. Until the City comes along and widens Elks, it's going to 24 continue to be a problem. The anticipa#ed traffic generated is roughly 70 trips per day from the seven 25 additional homes. So, it's going to have a small impact, but the Planning and Zoning Commission, our job is to see if this fits within the Zoning Code and yes, it does fit within the Zoning Code. We can -7- i 1 empathize with the traffic, but it's going to be a while before the City starts working on Elks. Anybody else 2 in the audience? Mr. Lilley, did you want tp add anything to that? 3 LILLEY: No, thank you. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Commissioners, any questions from Commissioners? OK, I will accept a 5 motion on this case. 6 SANCHEZ: I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve Case number 5-04-083 on the 7 recommendations from the DRC and site visit. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 9 BINNEWEG: Second. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, I'll call the roll. 11 Commissioner Young? 12 YOUNG: Aye, based on discussion. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 14 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on site visit and discussion. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 16 SANCHEZ: Aye, based as stated earlier, the DRC and site visi#, and discussion. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 18 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 20 CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on site visit, and discussion. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chairman votes Aye, based on site visit, discussion, and findings. Thank 22 you. 23 Next is case LCMC-04028, this is the amendment to Section 36.3 and Section 36. (paint), not point; 36 24 dash 3, and Section 36-82 of the Municipal Sign Code, presented by Tom Murphy, MPO Planner, Mr. 25 Murphy. -8- 1 TOM MURPHY: Thank you Mr. Chairman, this case is an amendment to two portions of the Municipal 2 Code; one Section 36-3, dealing with the definitions to the Sign Code and Section 36-82, which deals 3 primarily with bench signs, signs on Transit Benches. 4 In the definition Section, we're adding a definition of Public Areas to help clarify...to give clarity to 5 the amendments that we're doing to Section 36-82. 6 What we're doing with 36-82 is expanding that category to, not only include bus benches, but bus 7 shelters, landscape medians, trails, and perhaps arroyos. 8 The background of this is, staff has been directed to pursue and adopt a bus stop policy and one 9 of the measures that came about that was to include an incentive for businesses to take on adoption 10 provision of bus shelters for the City's Transit System. The picture here is a representation of what the 11 sign size could be on an existing bus shelter. 12 There's a policy that was passed by the Transit Advisory Board last Thursday that, if approved by 13 City Council, will govern the placement of these signs. The sign effects would be...the signs would be 14 done by the City; they would have a standardized design and be no larger than the allowances set forth in 15 the Sign Code. 16 Part of the attachments, and we provided different size regulations depending on whether it was 17 on a bench bus shelter, median, or on a park or trail; we had this before the Commission at the Work 18 Session last week, made some changes that the Transit Advisory Board did accept, as far as same of the 19 nomenclature...some of the names in the policy to clarify things. And with that, I'll answer any questions. 20 CMAIR BUCHMAN: All right. Is there anybody in the audience that has any questions on this 21 proposed Municipal Sign Code change? 22 Commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Ludtke? 23 LUDTKE: Mr. Murphy, under the procedure on the drafter policy, under Procedure, who...say I want to 24 sponsor one of these and I come and say, "Well my store is down here, I want you to move a bus stop 25 over here." Who decided if we're going to move one over there, or...? Do you know what I'm getting at? -9- i e 1 MURPHY: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Ludtke, that would take part as a... 2 LUDTKE: City Manager, or the... 3 MURPHY: It would be negotiation between yourself and the Transit section; with final say so by the City 4 Manager, But, I believe the Transit Section would be more than willing to work with people. 5 LUDTKE: Thank you. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Anybody else? I'll accept a motion on this. 7 LUDTKE: I make a motion. 8 CAMUNEZ: I make a motion. 9 LUDTKE: Go ahead. 10 CAMUNEZ: I make a motion that we approve Case LCMC-04-02. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 12 LUDTKE: Second. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call the roll. 14 Commissioner Young? 15 YOUNG: Aye, based on the discussion of this (inaudible) 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 17 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on the discussion we've had. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 19 SANCHEZ: Aye, based on discussion. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 21 LUDTKE: Aye, findings, discussion. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 23 CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on discussion. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes Aye, based on discussion. Thank you. 25 Next item on the Agenda is Case 22561. It's a request for a zone change from R-1 a, Single Family Medium Density to R-2, Medium Dwelling Low Density for property located at 395 La Colonia. The -10- 1 proposed zone change would allow a duplex to be located on the property. Submitted by Jeanette L. 2 Toensing. Is the applicant ready, please? 3 JEANETTE L.. TOENSING: My name is Jeanette L. Toensing... 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Could you please pull the microphone down a little bit? I apologize for the 5 pronunciation of the names. And, for anybody else tonight, I'm not good at pronouncing names, so I 6 apologize beforehand. 7 TOENSING: OK. Dear appointed members: My letter dated May 24, 2004, states all the problems I've 8 had with this property since my purchase from the Spedalri, and new ones keep popping up. It's been a 9 nightmare on Colonia Street. I paid Mr. Spedalri $72,500 cash for afour-plex I did not get. Mr. Spedalri 10 lived in the larger apartment for many years and rented out three smaller apartments. He stated the 11 property was zoned commercial, "grandfathered," new roof, new plumbing, new electrical wiring, that the 12 four-plex gave him a good income, and that his neighbors were wonderful. I never though a dying man 13 would lie to me. 14 Was surprised to hear objections from Mrs. Chavez and her signed petition, when she has an 15 apartment above her garage that she rents out. Did she ever apply for a zone change like I did? I think 16 not. One of her neighbors told us, Mr. Garcia and Ernest Nunez, who were helping me with my project 17 and are here with me tonight, that she would be the only one to give me trouble, and that she has an 18 apartment above her garage that she has rented, that he has rented from her in the past, so we do not 19 understand her objections. 20 She said her relatives own most of the neighborhood, if she wants to purchase 395 La Colonia, 21 I'd be more than happy to sell it to her. 22 She is a neighbor that told us all about the Spedalri; selling drugs and people coming in and out 23 of this property. 24 25 -11- ~ ~ 1 Mr. Spedalri, built over 1,000 square feet without any building permits, why didn't she and the 2 names on the petition call the police or Code Enforcement officers when all this illegal activity was 3 happening right under their noses. 4 I became a criminal the first time in my life when Code Enforcements cited me forjust repairing 5 one wall and adding two windows. 6 I had to tear down everything Mr. Spedalri built, illegally, which was 1,000 square feet; it filled 7 three open top dumpsters. 8 This has been a strain an my mind and my pocket book. It has cost me over $28,000 for all the 9 repairs. She also stated to me that the area was zoned Single Family, not zoned for afour-plex and I 10 should go to the City and check it out, which I did. 11 Then the City fathers said there were apartments all over that area, so I applied for the zone 12 change for a duplex. I've done everything by the book. 13 I enclose pictures of a few apartments in the area and my property on Colonia. 14 Mrs. Chavez's wards, "we in the neighborhood were afraid of the Spedalri, so we didn't report 15 them, however, since I'm only helpless woman and not to be afraid of, God help me. 16 Again, why am I being singled out by her and her petition, when she has her own apartment 17 above her garage? Here I am making the property look beautiful; new roof, new stucco, new air 18 conditioners, new carpe#, new tile, all cosmetic. Why does she, in her petition, shoot me down when I'm 19 making the property so much better with all these improvements? 20 I did take pictures of the house before the repairs; but they didn't take, or didn't develop. Like I 21 said, a nightmare on Colonia. 22 A slum lord I'll never be. She even told me the lot next door to my property is hers. Well, I hope 23 the City Fathers makes her clean it up; so many weeds and old logs hanging around her property, it 24 would be better to put up a fence instead of those dirty old logs. 25 This is not my first time being land lady; I do know how to screen renters. I already have a nice young couple with two small children for which to rent the large apartments, and a single gentleman for -12- 1 the smaller apartments and they have all been screened. No wild parties, no noise after 10:00 p.m., no 2 smoking and no pets. These are the same renters I had to tell to move because of the tear down. This 3 brought tears to my eyes telling them that they had to move in such a short amount of time. 4 I plan on buying more income property in the future. And, at this time I will not believe anyone 5 and request an inspection on all the property that I purchase. 6 I sold my business and home in Ruidoso October 31St 2003, to make a new life and new home in 7 Picacho Hills, where I love Las Cruces, and New Mexico, and its people, and I plan on staying until I die. 8 Again, if Mrs. Chavez would like to purchase my property, I'd be more than happy to sell it to her. 9 Thank you for time and kind consideration. I'm very nervous; I'm not used to this, and thank you for 10 listening to me. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. 12 BRIAN HARPBR: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Brian Harper, Community Development. This is Case 13 22561; this is a request...a zone change request from R-1a to R-2. Property, as you can see on the 14 vicinity map, is located on La Colonic Avenue, just west of Alameda Boulevard, here. Property is 15 highlighted in blue. 16 There is a site plan on the overhead showing the proposed dwelling and the shaded portion is the 17 smaller...the proposed smaller apartment on this structure. 18 The subject property was formerly single family housing that was illegally converted into four 19 separate apartments by a previous land owner. 20 The current applicant is in the process of remodeling this unit, and is wishing to retain some multi- 21 family character by utilizing the unit as a duplex. 22 The applicant has removed 1,000 square feet from the house with a renovation permit pulled 23 through the City, and they're seeking to retain their remaining historical use of the smaller apartment. 24 A site photo here shows the home under construction. This is about a month ago; this is what it 25 looks like currently today. It has not been finaled out with an inspection yet, by the City, but the remodel is almost complete. Another site photo from across the street. -13- 1 Based an elements of the Comprehensive Plan, staff is recommending approval of this zone 2 change request. And, I'd be happy to answer any questions. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Harper. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on 4 this case? OK. Let's start over heron the right; the gentleman. OK. Please state your name in the 5 microphone please. 6 DENISE CHAVEZ: Hello to the Commissioners and audience. I'm Denise Chavez, and I live right across 7 the street. We have been very disconcerted by this property for a long time. When Rudy Spe,dalri owned 8 it, there were many complaints to the City, but we were never heard; nothing ever happened. Sa, there's 9 a history to this place, a sad history to a house that was neglected, abused, abandoned. 10 Lc Colonic Street, for those of you that don't know, it's one street long. There's about 18 people 11 that live on this street, 18 houses. We're very small one house personality neighborhood. It's a very 12 quiet street. In recent years, due to the flood renovations, the street has become narrower, so that's one 13 of our concerns; the vehicles parking out front. We're a very quiet neighborhood and like to keep it that 14 way. 15 After repeated calls to the City for years of unsanctioned zoning, I did speak to Ms. Toensing and 16 I understand her distress. She was lied to, but that is not the neighborhood's responsibility. I think her 17 law suit with Mr. Spedalri certainly is valuable and valid because he did lie to her and despite my warning 18 her that it was a one family home, she proceeded to get permission. Well, she didn't have permission 19 first, and then she started her four-plex, then she realized that she needed to do the duplex, that's when 20 she came to the City. 21 Basically, our neighborhood wants to retain its integrity. I will answer the fact that at one 22 point...there is like a studio garage apartment; it is not rented, I use it for my own use. I'm a writer, it's my 23 studio. It is not rented. There are no apartments on La Colonic Street, there are some at EI Mofino, quite 24 a few apartments, but we're cone-family-neighborhood of mostly older people who would like to retain 25 the integrity of our neighborhood, and I thank you for listening to me. -14- 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mrs. Chavez.. Next? 2 DAN SOLINSKY: Good evening, my name is baniel 5olinsky, and I live on La Colonic Street. I may be 3 person that Ms. Toensing thinks is a renter at 390 La Colonic. I'm Denis Chavez's husband; I'm the other 4 person going in and out of that house. We do not have that room rented; it's just a room, not an 5 apartment. 6 Also, about the lot next door, which we do own, I'm glad Ms. Toensing brought that up because it 7 was used during the construction. I figured about 10 to 12 feet onto the property, and you can see it 8 there, we also have a picture of this, of concrete that was mixed there without our permission. Usually, I 9 know it's customary to get a property owner's permission to do so. 10 Also, what else do I want to say? It is a one block street; I call it a one block street democracy. 11 And, on this street, we have had a petition going around, which we have signed and is here. And, the 12 majority of the people on this street do not want a zone change. In a sense, I have a solution here to the 13 problem which I think will make everybody happy. 14 We are all against the zoning change; however, and by the way, not everything that Mr. Spedalri 15 built was torn down. This is one of the main points. On the right hand side of the front elevation, there is 16 a door and a small kitchen that he added on, and this is till there and it's been upgraded, actually. It looks 17 fine, but it's not part of the original 1,000, it is part of the original 1,000 square feet that was also 18 supposed to be torn down. Anyway, the back part in no way constitutes 1,000 square feet; you would 19 have 1,000 square feet, if that extra addition on the right side of the house was torn down, but it is still 20 there and has been built upon, and fixed up. So, my solution to this is do not have the zone change, and 21 then Ms. Toensing can open up from the existing kitchen onto this new little kitchen on the side for the 22 duplex, and turn that into a breakfast room. The original kitchen is very small, I know the previous owners 23 and it's pretty small. So, she could open that up into a nice breakfast room or something and, you know, 24 just increase the rental value of the place as a single family dwelling. That would be my solutian to this. 25 Thank you far hearing me. -15- ~ ~ 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Solinsky. Anyone else? 2 HARPER: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I just want to put up the photos for reference. 3 CAMUNEZ: Thank you. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, come forward please, state your name. 5 MARY DUNN: My name is Mary Bunn; I've lived on La Colonic Street for over 33 years. We do not have 6 any apartments on that block right now. I'm sorry Mrs. Toensing was such a poor business woman that 7 she didn't have someone check into Mr. Spedalri. We've had difficulty with the gentleman all the time. 8 We've called the animal control, and numerous zoning times. They were trying to build a kind of a 9 covered patio thing on the front and we called zoning and got that stopped. So, to say that we didn't try to 10 move on it is incorrect. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Yes sir? 12 JIM MEELY: Commissioners, my name is Jim Meely, I also have lived on ha Colonic for more than 30 13 years. I have several concerns about this. It seems that all of the things that I'm hearing not all of them 14 all exactly right. Like, how many feet had to be removed and so on and so forth. 15 It's seems to me that anyone who is willing to pay $73,000 cash for a place, really aught to have 16 hired a lawyer or a real estate company to look into this or at least have looked into the zoning 17 themselves before entering into this. Before I get back to that I have one other concern; this is hop 18 scotching, there is a single family dwelling immediately to the east of this house, then there's this one that 19 we want to make you know, duplex. So, we're skipping from rural...from residential one, to residential 20 two, then we're going to go back to residential one. 21 There's been so many problems in this town with zones and all the adjustments that have been 22 made, it seems to me that we aught to stay with what we've got. If you have all residential property on a 23 street, you can't skip one or two R-1 houses, put in a different one, if you follow what I'm getting up there. 24 It just leads to the next one, somebody coming in and saying, "Oh, I'm going to put a big apartment house 25 in here. And, that's fine, because we already have R-2 next door." -16- 1 As was mentioned, the street is mare narrow now. I have another concern that, I don't know 2 whether you can tell it from these pictures or not, but I think the City has some sort of law that only a 3 certain percentage have a front lawn, ar whatever, can be paved. There is no way that two drive-ways 4 can be put into this without violating that law. So, I'd like that to be kept in consideration as well. Where 5 are these cars are going to park on the street which right now is...if there's a car on both sides of that 6 street, it is in effect a one way street any more. 7 I am also concerned about why the order of these things took place. She asked for remodeling, 8 she went ahead and started turning it into afour-plex, I think. Then she comes back and says, "Well I've 9 already started it, I want to continue with this, because I'm just this poor woman who doesn't know what 10 she's doing" and so on and so forth. And, the thing that concerns me is, even after this was put dawn and 11 shelved last time, the construction continued to go on this place. It didn't stop, it continued to go on. 12 Now, I just like to know what is going on. Is it one of these cases of "it's more easy to get 13 forgiveness than permission?" 14 I think all these things need to be taken into consideration with this and I certainly appreciate you 15 listening. Thank you. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Meely. Just one thing I'll bring up to one of your comments that the 17 "hopscotch" concept. According to the Las Cruces Zoning Cade, residential neighbors do have the 18 option, if approved, to have duplexes in them. So, that can be done. Now, we've brought up, we've 19 heard on the narrow streets, we've heard about the City not listening, you want to retain your integrity, the 20 parking in the front, is there anybody that has something new to add to this particular discussion? 21 This is something new to add to it? 22 SOLINSKY: (Inaudible -away from the microphone) 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Oh, OK. 24 SOLINSKY: I just wanted to elaborate a little bit on Mr. Meeley's comment about the remodel permit. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Well, OK, we'd...OK, go ahead, make it very brief. -17- ~ ~ 1 SOLINSKY: It was $4,000, the sign is still in the window, so if you're getting into $28,000 and up and all 2 that„ it sounds like end-play, you know, you get the remodel permit and then you build on more stuff. You 3 know, it's...l don't know how legal that is, or if that's a common thing, but I just thought I'd point that out. 4 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Thank you, OK. Anybody else wants to speak in this case? OK, I think the 6 first thing we'll da, Ms. Toensing, was there anything? I'll give you a chance to come back. You've heard 7 these situations; do you wish to briefly answer any of them? Come forward please. 8 TOENSING: I just caught Mrs. Chavez in a lie. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Could you pull that around a little bit mare? 10 TOENSING: I'm short. I just caught Mrs. Chavez in a lie; she told me about Mrs. 5pedalrilidary after I 11 purchased the property. I was naive, I believed a dying me, who isn't dead yet, but he lied to me. And, 12 then nobody reported it. She says they reported numerous times. She told me they never reported him 13 for the fear for they were selling drugs and they would do harm to them, so that's a lie right there. And, 14 the next door neighbor did rent that apartment from her. There's a next door neighbor and he came to 15 me and said the place looked beautiful, it was not complaints. He said it made this place look so pretty, 16 so beautiful, and that he had rented from her, and he came over and told me that. He didn't even want 17 me to mention his name for fear of her. 18 Let's see, and it was afour-plex, I never did make it into afour-plex, I bought it as a four-plex for 19 income. I was naive; I've learned a lot. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 21 TOENSING: And, there's a lot of...lot of lies. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, thank you. 23 TOENSING: Thank you. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Staff, any other comments? 25 HARPER: Mr, Chairman, just to clear up the permitting issue; there was a demolition permit pulled on this property, prior to the renovation permit being pulled. The number Ms. Toensing maybe referring to -18- 1 may include that demolition work that was done on the property as well, and that was checked with our 2 permitting staff prior to the meeting. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, thank you. At this time, I'm going to close it to discussion; the audience, and 4 turn it over to the Commissioners now. Commissioners, questions of anybody. Commissioner Young. 5 YOUNG: Nvt a question, but I wanted to make an observation in point. Really, we've gotten off the 6 subject of the case before us tonight. We've had a history lesson from both sides, most of that history is 7 not even germane to the case at hand and on behalf of the entire City and public, we need to recognize 8 that fact and look at the facts that we have before us as well as the findings that have been presented 9 and judge basically on that, because most of the discussion that we've heard is not even germane to the 10 case. Having said that, if this, which obviously it does, or staff wouldn't have recommended the approval; 11 it meets all of those standards, I see no problem. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Commissioner Binneweg? 13 BINNEWEG: I have a question of staff. Our site plan shows Lots 58, 57, 56. Is this that the old lot 14 configuration where they have three lots with 25 foot wide frontages, where you can have actually a tri- 15 plex in here? 16 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Binneweg, it is true; those are old...older subdivision lots from 17 some of the older subdivisions in town, and technically speaking, those are three separate lots. I'm not 18 sure, under new standards, if you could...it might be difficult to get a structure on them, but yes, 19 technically those are three separate lots that have buildable capability on them. 20 BINNEWEG: And, for the record, I've owned and lived in a duplex among single-family homes. It's not a 21 rare occurrence, and especially in this part of town. I looked at the area map that says all R-1 a, and 22 knowing this area fairly well, I can pick out three or four lots just that I know, that have "grandmother" 23 units, second units, and it's fairly common. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, Commissioner Sanchez? 25 -19- ~ ~ 1 SANCHEZ: I would just like to, for the record, disclose that I da know Ms. Chavez. She has visited my 2 aunt and a friend of hers and stuff for the family, but I'm still able to discuss this in a fair and impartial 3 manner. 4 I can see both points of view. I really have to, as a realtor, have to make the comment to Ms. 5 Toensing, that "buyer beware," you know. And, it's unfortunate that she went into the situation, but the 6 avenue approach to that would probably be to go after Mr. Spedalri. Again, that would be up to you and 7 taking it up with an attorney, as such. 8 Now, as far as the home owners that have lived there in this area, I can also empathize with them 9 and say, "Hey, you know, you want to keep integrity of your neighborhood, and it means a lot to you." But 10 what I kind of gathered in between both different sides is that, it seems that the Spedalri have been there 11 for quite a while and there was a lot of illegal activity going on at one time. 12 It was a four-plex now...it's now looking at a duplex, so you're...you've decreased by Ms. 13 Toensing coming in. It's not afour-plex anymore; it's a duplex, so it takes away the number and the 14 activity in the area. 15 Looking at the photos, too, I would definitely be totally against this case, if there was no 16 improvements made to such, and you were requesting a zone change to keep it as a four-plex as such, 17 but looking at the photos and being somewhat familiar with the neighborhood, I think it's a plus to the 18 overall make up of the neighborhood and the community, and if it was more than a duplex, I'd probably 19 vote against it. 20 But, again, as Commissioner Young says, the planning and review staff has looked at it intensely, 21 and it looks like it meets all of the requirements that are called for and therefore, I would have to side in 22 moving forward with this. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, Commissioner Camuriez? 24 CAMUNEZ: I have a question of staff. Just east of this structure here, isn't there two commercials, just 25 east of it? Two commercial establishments? There's a... -20- • • 1 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, let me go to the vicinity map. To the east of this...not 2 immediately east of the property itself, there are some commercially zoned properties along what is 3 Alameda Boulevard here, crossing Main... 4 CAMUNEZ: Mh hm. 5 HARPER: ...they are not immediately adjacent, but they are to the east, yes, along Alameda. 6 GAMUNEZ: That's why I say, if Commercial is that close by, and 1 don't see where this zone change to 7 R-2 would make a lot of difference. And, I've gat to agree with Commissioner Sanchez that the woman 8 has improved the property and it probably has given more value to the property. I saw what was there 9 before, and I see what's there now. And, there's been a tremendous improvement. 50, I don't see where 10 it would deter anything in the neighborhood. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I have one final question, Mr. Harper. One of the things that were brought up was 12 concerning percent of pavement in the front. I don't think we have anything like that. I can see the 13 concern of some of the citizens. The street is narrow, has been made narrow. But, with the work being 14 done, wouldn't there be parking in front of this duplex; they can put as many cars and many parking 15 places in front of this duplex as they want to, can't they Mr. Harper? 16 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, are you referring to an the property or on the street? 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yeah, on the property, yes, on the property. 18 HARPER: I believe our Zoning Code calls for a maximum of/x of the allowable space in the front can be 19 actually paved over with surfacing. I think they do have the requirement to...they're not supposed to 20 block the sidewalk either, so I think there is some limit to, you know, how many cars they can probably 21 actually get in the front driveway, but of course, on street parking...off street, I'm sorry, on street parking 22 is allowed as well. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Any other staff questions? All right, at this time I will accept a motion on this 24 case. 25 CAMUNEZ: I make a motion that Case 22561 be changed from R-1 to R-2. -21- 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 2 BINNEWEG: Second. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call the roll. 4 Commissioner Young? 5 YOUNG: Aye, based on findings, and discussion. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 7 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on site visit, findings, and discussion. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 9 SANCHEZ: Aye, based on findings, and discussion. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 11 LUDTKE: No, discussions. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? L` 13 CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on site visit, discussion, and findings. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes Aye based on site visit...discussion, and findings, and site 15 visits. So that means one, two, three, four, five to one; this case does pass, thank you. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Before we go any further, Mr. Clifton, suspend, do you mean like postpone these? 17 No? 18 KIRK CLIFTON: Mr. Chairman, I was just referring to hearing them together; items... 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Oh, you want to hear them all together? One at a time? OK. The next item to be 20 heard is Case 22570. This is a request for zone change for the property located at 406 Roundtree Place, 21 submitted by James and Drinda L. Wright. Is the applicant ready? 22 JIM WRIGHT: Yes sir, Commissioner, Chairman...Commissioners and Chairman... 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: State your name please. 24 WRIGHT: My name is Jim Wright. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. -22- ~ ~ 1 WRIGHT: My wife and I purchased this property about a year and a half ago to move my fund raising 2 business from the current location into town. The site was larger than what we needed for the business 3 so we looked at it as a passibility to develop other businesses who are looking for relatively inexpensive 4 location and buildings. 5 We have approval to build two buildings with 6,000 square feet a piece and the plan also is to 6 build an additional two buildings of this size. The buildings are under construction right now. 7 I went to the staff to discuss the zoning; it was C-2, I knew there was a proposal to make it C-3 8 because of rezoning changes and I had no problem with that, but I also thought there might be some M 9 uses that would be appropriate for this property. It's off of Valley and Amador; it's not a high visibility or 10 high traffic location. So, some of those types of businesses and manufacturing zoning would be 11 appropriate there. 12 They suggested I da this overlapping zoning request for the C-3 and M-2. Now, the M-2 has 13 some kinds of properties in it, or businesses in it that I really don't think would be appropriate there that 14 are either a lot of noise, smells, things like that. I met with the staff and we eliminated those as possible 15 uses far the property, we basically left in those types of activities that would be still viable at that location. 16 And, I really don't know what else to try and tell you about this; it's just trying to the decent 17 utilization out of this property without causing any kind of hardship on the neighbors...in the 18 neighborhood. Thank you. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Thank you Mr. Wright. Staff? 20 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this is Case 22570, a request for a zone change from G2 to a 21 C-3, M-2 Conditional Overlapping Zone. 22 On the vicinity map, you can see this is Roundtree off of West Amador here, this is Valley Drive. 23 There are some...if you're familiar with the area, there's some residential homes here, this, I believe, the 24 Salvation Army location is right in this area here. 25 The applicant is seeking...the property is currently zoned C-2, Commercial Medium Intensity; part of this request is to bring the property into compliance with the 2001 Zoning Code, that was the first -23- ~ ~ 1 portion of it, into the C-3. Additionally, the applicant was seeking additional uses so; they were looking for 2 the M-2 uses as well. 3 There are currently two separate buildings, one almost near completion and one currently under 4 construction on the property. You can see from the site plan here, these are the buildings in question. 5 This one is just starting construction, I believe, and this one is almost nearly completed. If you...there's 6 the site photos, pardon me, there's the almost completed structure; this is the one just started, these are 7 the residential units back here. 8 Through conversation with Mr. Wright, staff has come up with same uses, and this was at Mr. 9 Wright's request initially. We came up with some prohibited uses; we thought in the M-2 that Mr. Wright 10 and staff, felt might be detrimental to the surrounding properties or noxious in some way, shape or form. 11 So we sat down and came up with this list together. We won't go through this line by line; it's also 12 included in your packet for you to look at. 13 Based on elements of the Comp Plan and our review of this proposal, staff is recommending 14 approval of this zone change request, at this time. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Harper. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak 16 concerning this case? All right, I'll close that part to the public. Commissioners, any questions or 17 comments? 18 SANCHEZ: If I may...? 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, Commissioner Sanchez? 20 SANCHEZ: Any input from the public, from the residents posing any questions about moving forward 21 with this? 22 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Sanchez, pardon me, I should have said that, and I apologize. 23 There were some phone calls from residents, specifically the residents directly to the north, in the 24 residential units. Those residential homes are currently zoned C-2, but we did get same concerns about 25 that, and, mostly involved some of the uses that might occur and if there was going to be any buffering, and yes, of course, there will be buffering. The applicant has provided that per their site plan for their -24- ~ • 1 construction, and they have met the requirements of the Zoning Code for adequate buffering between 2 those residential housing units and this property. 3 Like I said, most of the calls and concerns were about what was going to be going on there, 4 exactly use wise, and that's why we tried to narrow down some of those uses with that prohibited use list. 5 SANCHE~: And the applicant is willing to comply with those limitations an uses? 6 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Sanchez, absolutely, and he was the one, the applicant was the 7 one who actually brought several of those prohibited uses #o us before we even sat down to go over it. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, thank you. Commissioner Ludtke? 9 LUDTKE: Can you tell me, under manufacturing and related land uses, scratched is Body Shops and 10 Vehicle Painting Establishments, on page 4-3-19, which is the last page on there. OK, Manufacturing and 11 related land uses? 12 HARPER: OK. 13 LUDTKE: Scratched out is body shops and vehicle painting establishment... 14 HARPER: Garrett. 15 LUDTKE ...and then, allowable is, vehicle repair; auto, truck, heavy equipment, motorcycle, boat, 16 recreational vehicles, what's the difference? Why aren't they both scratched out? 17 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ludtke, I think staff's perspective was that any vehicle repair; 18 most of the uses, if not all the uses that will occur here, will happen, for the most part, in doors. I think the 19 concern with the body shop, with the painting, especially, was the chance there might be some movement 20 of the paint, or some type of chemical off the property, you know, during the painting process, potentially, 21 if #here was an open garage or something like that. We understand that most of this, if not all the activity 22 will be occurring indoors in some way, shape, or form. 23 LUDTKE: So we don't care if they run a body shop to repair vehicles, we only care if they're painting? 24 HARPER: I'm not sure we really saw it as a body shop per se, but I see your point; I'm not sure if the 25 applicant would be willing to strike that as well or visit that with staff. -25- 1 WRIGHT: (Away from the microphone, inaudible) ...we can eliminate the body shop because of the 2 vapors...(inaudible.} 3 LUDTKE: Thank you. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: My comment would be, on this case, you've given us a recommendation that the 5 land uses stricken in Exhibit A not be allowed under the M zoning. I think I'd like to see that changed to, 6 "the land uses that were on the slide, stricken." Because you listed everything there; if this gets attached 7 to it, we've got some that are dark, some that are light; I think we might see some confusion down the 8 road. 9 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, I will happily draw up a new list, including everything on the slide, including the 10 amendment we just made. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the body shop? OK. So, under the recommendations to adopt the 12 amendment that you added. 13 HARPER: Correct. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Any other discussion from the Commission? I'll accept a motion on this case. 15 BINNEWEG: Mr. Chair, I move that we approve Case 22570. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 17 CAMUNEZ: I second it. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call the roll. 19 Commissioner Young? 20 YOUNG: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 22 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on site visit, findings, and discussion... 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 24 SANCHEZ: Aye, based on findings, and discussion. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? LUDTKE: Is that motion to accept with the list...? -26- ~ ~ 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: With the list attached. 2 LUDTKE: Is that included in the motion? 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. 4 LUDTKE: OK. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And, Mr. Ludtke, how da you vote? 6 LUDTKE: Finding, yes. Aye. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Commissioner Camunez? 8 CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on site visit, discussion, and findings. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes Aye based on site visit, discussion, and findings also. 10 Thank you. 11 I received a note from Mr. Clifton that he would like to combine case four, five and six, which all 12 involves items submitted by Zia Engineering and Environmental Consultants, and hear them together. Is 13 there any question from the Commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Young? 14 YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move that we suspend the rules and hear all three cases together and vote on 15 them separately. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is that satisfactory with everybody else? In that case, we'll hear all three together, 17 but we will vote on them individually. OK, so we'll stark out; the first case is 5-04-073; it's a Master Plan 18 Approval, the second case is 22562, a zone change for that Master Plan, and then the third is the request 19 for Preliminary Plat, starting in that subdivision (S-04-081_) Is the applicant ready, please? 20 JACK PICKEL: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Jack Picket, president of Alameda Land 21 and Development Corporation. Thank you for hearing our cases this evening. 22 I think the last time I was before you and Chairman Young was the Chairman, I promised I was 23 retiring from this business but, as we've learned together over the last 20 years, plans change. And, we 24 are proposing our second amendment to the Master Plan north of Highway 70 for the property that we've 25 been working on since 1984. -27- ~ ~ 1 The fist one was to bring into...the first change was to bring it under conformance with the new 2 Comprehensive Plan, and the new Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance. 3 This second change is primarily affecting the lower half of the plan, and two of the three villages, 4 Rinconada Central and Rinconada Sur. There are no changes to Rinconada Norte. The changes have 5 been requested due to changed market conditions and as we gat into evaluating the land for actual 6 development, we readdressed one issue that had been difficult wi#h the neighborhood, Las Colinas, 7 during our last work with you on this. And, at that time, we had an apartment designation adjacent to their 8 southwest corner and they were...we agreed to the density not tv exceed 20 units per acre. And, they 9 were, for the mast part, satisfied with that, but as our engineers have recommended we are requesting 10 moving that apartment land away from that neighborhood all together and basically putting in the same 11 type density of residential development adjacent to them that they live in already. 12 We are maintaining the concept of having villages clustered around a commercial area and so, 13 therefore, we moved some of the commercial areas as well. And, the land topography works better for 14 actual plotting of lots under these conditions. That's generally...this is all coming forward from the original 15 Las Alamedas Master Plan that covered 2,833 acres originally adopted by the City in 1985 and 16 implemented ever since. 17 And, again, this is just a partian of it north of Highway 70 totaling 508 acres more or less. Any 18 further technical questions, Eddie Martinez is here from Zia Engineering and, of course, Kirk will have his 19 presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have of me. Thank you. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Pickle. Mr. Clifton? 21 KIRK CLIFTON: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I won't go too much into the 22 history of the proposal, I believe Mr. Pickle addressed quite a bit of that information for you, but if you do 23 have questions, I'd be more than happy to answer those for you. 24 As I requested earlier, I had requested to the Chair that we suspend the rules for these three 25 cases; essentially because they are all tied together, including the Preliminary Plat. I just asked the Commission to act separately on each item, once we're concluded, and you're prepared to take nation. -28- 1 The property is generally located north of U.S. Highway 70, north of the Sandhill Village 2 Development and west of Las Colinas. The area...the affected Master Plan and zone change is 3 approximately 133.12 acres, the original Master Plan was 508'/2 acres ±, and also included in this Master 4 Plan Amendment; they are proposing to include additional acreage, between 10 and 20 acres, so that has 5 increased the size of the Master Planned area, therefore, that's another reason the Master Plan is being 6 amended. 7 The existing zoning of the whole area affected by these changes includes A-1, ~P, R-1 a, R-1 b, 8 R-4c, and C-2, and as a point of information, these were rezoned under the 2001 Zoning Code, I believe 9 some of the first test cases under that Code. 10 The A-1 zoning district was just an oversight, so that's just a clean up; that's proposed to chahge 11 to FC. 12 The vicinity map, indicates the Master Planned area highlighted in green all the way to the north. 13 The area that is impacted by these changes is highlighted in red, including the yellow portion. So, 14 essentially, this area remains unchanged. And, the Preliminary Plat is within this area here, near the 15 southwest earner of Las Colinas. 16 existing zoning, if you would like, I can go through the existing zoning on this map, I believe 17 included this map in your packet. 18 Aerial photo, predominately built out to the east of this project, again, this is one of our 1999 19 aerial photos that we have to work off of. 20 And, Sandhill Village to the south is developing out currently, and the road Rinconada Boulevard 21 will terminate at this point and in the future, we hope to have a crossing over it fairly soon. 22 The Master Plan, as mentioned earlier, the area highlighted by the light green dotted line is the 23 area of impact. 24 And, when we say change in land use, they are changing land use within this area; however, it's 25 more of a swapping of land uses. They are relatively maintaining their percentages to what it was -29- ~ ~ 1 originally approved, but they are just moving the land uses; for example, this was R-4c here, they're 2 requesting R-1 b in this area; they're moving it to this area. 3 Some of the commercial was located in this area, they're picking that commercial up down here 4 and maintaining the C-3 located in this area. 5 Another change, although it's not a change in land use, it is a change in the overall density. The 6 area in the central part of the Master Plan, basically this, was originally zoned EE, large lot development. 7 They've since development plans have changed, and they're breaking that up into multiple residential 8 zoning districts including R-1c, which is a 10,000 square feet minimum lot size. That is virtually on the 9 east side of the area within that Master Plan. There's some R-1 a and there's some R-1 b. 10 In the R-1 b areas, it's more of an R-1 a-type development, but it does give the developer some 11 flexibility with the minimum lot frontage and setback issues. 12 The requested zone changes, I can go through these parcels specific, if you would like... 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I don't, necessarily; any of the Commissioners want it? 14 CLIFTON: I did include color copies in your packets, so that should really illustrate what they're 15 requesting. 16 This is just the area affected, the 133 acres, again, as mentioned. The notable in this area, the 1T R-4c, and this was R-1a in this area; they are requesting R-4. So, the percentages are staying within 18 what the Comprehensive Plan Guidelines are to retaining its mixed use concept, which we're all pleased 19 to see. 20 And, lastly, the Preliminary Plat, High Desert Subdivision, with approximately 25.6 acres, contains 21 134 lots and is currently zoned R-4c and R-1 b, but as mentioned earlier, portions of this property, 22 basically from here north, is R-4c is requested for rezoning to R-1 b. And, again, the R-1 b will give the 23 developer some flexibility and housing options within this area. 24 And, earlier concerns were access, but that is being addressed by two remote points of access 25 being located an Settler's Pass Boulevard and Rinconada Boulevard, so we'll have dual access points once these roads are constructed. And, eventually, as development occurs to the north, they will gain an -30- • • 1 additional access from Engler Road and Peachtree Hills Road, which are both principal arterials to the 2 north. 3 The DRC has reviewed the Master Plan and Preliminary Plat, and does recommend approval of 4 both, no conditions. And, staff has reviewed the zone change request and recommends approval of that 5 as well, without conditions. 6 If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. And, I would like to point out that there 7 was one citizen inquiry earlier today regarding access to the north from Settler's Pass. 8 And, I would like to point out to the Commission, this right-of-way was established with the 9 Rinconada Central Master...Preliminary Plat in 2001-2002, the plat was filed in 2002 establishing this 10 right-of-way and providing access to the north; however, the parcel directly north of this subdivision, does 11 not touch this collector. And, in talking to the consultant, they have agreed to look at shifting this collector 12 slightly to the east to help provide access to this parcel. And, if the consultant would like to elaborate, if 13 needed, we can go into that. Thank you very much. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Clifton. Is there anybody in the public that wishes to discuss 15 anything in this case? Please raise your hand, Yes sir, please come forward. State your name for the 16 recorder. 17 ISIDRO LOpEZ: Isidro Lopez. How do you get back to that...? There... Anyway, as you can see on the 18 northwes# corner there, where Settler's Pass meets the property up north, there's a quarter section line in 19 which there has been an easement for the last 25 years; 25 foot on each side for that road. So, therefore, 20 as you guys said that you were going to go ahead and make an adjustment, is that correct? 21 EDDIE MARTINI=Z: Eddie Martinez with Zia Engineering and Environmental Consultants. We were just 22 notified of this today and at this stage, the way that it's been laid out; it's been laid out based on the 23 platted road as it was platted and noted back in 2001. We will consider looking at the potential for slightly 24 adjusting that right-of-way, but at this stage, without knowing how it's going to impact the overall plat, we 25 couldn't say for sure whether we'd be able to adjust it or not. We're...what we're willing to commit to at this stage, is that we'll look at it. -31- ~ r 1 LOPEZ: OK, you know, as far as I can see, the lots on that corner, that one is kind of a big kite lot, up 2 there. And, I don't see, you know, such an impact on the reduction of that one lot there. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Which lots are you talking about, would you give us the numbers, can you tell? 4 LOPEZ: Let, me...let's see, this one right here. 5 MARTINEZ: OK. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: So, we're talking about that one lot? 7 PICKEL: Mr. Chairman, if it...when I was first explained this issue earlier in the evening. I thought it was 8 a realignment of the center line of the road, which I'm not very anxious to pay for because we've already 9 paid for all these designs based on existing approved plats. 10 On the other hand, if it's a matter of adjusting it to where Mr. Lopez has proximity tv his property 11 line, right here, just by basically adding a little tiny fraction of that lot to the right-of-way, I certainly don't 12 object to that. That gives him, I believe, negotiating power with the...l believe his land is in the County 13 and it has not been annexed yet. 14 LOPEZ: Yeah, it has. 15 PICKEL: It has been annexed? Then, City policies are going to...you can't leave him landlocked 16 anyway, and so, for a matter of convenience, I certainly don't object to him having the ability to line up 17 with his property line there, and he can work with the adjacent property owner on haw right-of-way is 18 provided to the City. It would be very difficult for us, at this point, to change the center line of the road, 19 because that would cut into all of these lots over in here, and I'm not willing to do that at this point of the 20 design. Thank you. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: But, you do allow him just a little bit of property then, a little extra room, you'd be 22 satisfied, Mr. Martinez? 23 LOPEZ: Mr. Lopez. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'm sorry. 25 LOPEZ: Lopez. -32- ~ ~ 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. Robles, yes, 2 LOPEZ: Lopez, L O P E Z. Actually, you know, that access has been there far years, you know, so 3 being that it's a'/4 section line, it would have been just a perfect place to intersect that road, you know. 4 And I would appreciate if, you know, if that could be done. That would be, you know, being that it was 5 there for the last 25 years, I'm sorry I hadn't been able to be here the last three years to make any 6 comments on any of this stuff, but, you know, it's been there and I think it's only fair if we, you know, 7 make a...there's no construction on there, the only thing it is, it's just a matter of changing a couple of 8 drawing, that's all that is. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, Mr. Martinez? 10 MARTINEZ: Yes, as Mr. Pickle indicated, at this stage to completely change the alignments of that so 11 that the center line matches up with that quarter section line would completely change the overall design 12 that you see in front of you. We would completely have to relay out that whale subdivision in order to get 13 the lots to balance once again. It would not be a matter of just changing a couple of drawings. What 14 you're looking at here is a culmination of a lot of analysis and design work relative to establishing the 15 grades, looking at drainage issues, et cetera. Sa, as Mr. Pickle indicated, you know, if it's a matter of 16 providing a sliver, so that...from a standpoint of legal access, he has a position to be able to move 17 forward with negotiations with his adjacent property owner, that's one thing, but to completely move the 18 alignment, as I said, it's, you know, this should have been addressed three years ago. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right, I'm going to call staff up to comment further on this. Let me have staff 20 make a comment on this, sir. Please take your seat for a minute. Thank you. 21 CLIFTON: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, I can't quite answer why the road was platted like 22 that, but it was approved by the DRC at the time. 23 I know that when this was originally done in 2001-2002; many easements were vacated within Mr. 24 Pickle's property to make provisions for the planned thoroughfares based on the MPO's Transportation 25 Plan. This did ga through public hearing process three years ago, they're, you know, the public was offered opportunities to comment on this project. -33- ~ ~ 1 The property in question to the north isn't landlocked; it does have access off of Reina. But, I 2 mean, we too would like to see alternate access on Settler's Pass. It was my suggestion, earlier in the 3 day, that this right-of-way be pushed over slightly to where the east right-of-way line matches up with this 4 property line. 5 It would be a slight modification in the design, but then when it eventually gets developed to the 6 north, as these properties develop, the City design standards, MPO Transportation Plan, those 7 documents will have to be addressed, and what we can do is try to make provisions where that right-of- 8 way swings back along the section line, but, I mean, ideally, the section line is were you want your 9 arterials and (inaudible), but that's not always the ideal situation, based on the terrain that exists on site. I 10 don't know that that's been looked at, we just, from a planning perspective feel that the collector would be 11 best located here. 12 So, that can swing back, I mean, that can be addressed as development occurs to the north. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: When you say it can swing back, do we need a definition of how many feet, or 14 whatever? 15 CLIFTON: Mr. Chair, I wouldn't want to tie down those property owners, one, because they are not here, 1B two, we don't know what their development plans are, and three, the City would like to be able to sit dawn 17 and review those development plans with whoever it is submits those at that time. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Thank you. 19 CLIFTON: The property is not landlocked. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Any other comments from citizens? At this time I'm going to close it... 21 PICKEL: I do want to make it clear to all of you that we are willing and ready to line up that piece that's... 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr, Pickle. I'll close this to the public; I'll turn it over the Commissioners 23 at this time. Questions, comments, Commissioners. 24 CAMUIVEZ: I have one. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes? -34- ~ ~ 1 CAMUNEZ: When you say...when Mr. Pickle says he's willing to give Mr. Lopez a sliver of that land to 2 get into his property. When...exactly how much would be needed? 3 PICKEL: We're not giving it to Mr. Lopez; it's donated to the City as right-of-way. 4 CAMUNEZ: It's given to the City. 5 PICKEL: And, I'm not sure what it amounts to, but it's...it'll just come off those two lots in order to give it 6 a good geometry into the curb. 7 MARTINEZ: Eddie Martinez. What...we're not sure for sure, but we're probably talking about 8 somewhere in the range of about 10 feet. That we would be moving that right-of-way over, probably 9 approximately 10 feet, taking that much off the back end of those lots that you see in this area here, to be 10 able to align up the eastern right-of-way of Settler's Pass... 11 CAMUNEZ: Mh hm. 12 MARTINEZ: ...with what you see right here as the quarter section. 13 CAMUNEZ: OK. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Martinez. Other Commissioners, comments, questions. I'd like to 15 make a comment, if I may, if I can find my notes. A year or so ago, we had the Master Ptan concepts 16 brought before us and they entailed this Village Concept that you are presenting also. And, I commend 17 you on this concept because I think it is a good concept in a large community as this. And, I hope, in 18 time, that you don't do the same thing that the other communities had and change all the commercial to 19 residential. I think this is a nice concept for the people who are going to live there, where they can shop 20 and live in the same community instead of having to drive three to seven miles into town. So, my only 21 comment would be I approve of all this and I hope you maintain the integrity that you're presenting to us 22 this evening. 23 PICKEL: We fully intent to. Thank you. 24 SANCWEZ: My other quick comment, if I may. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes sir, go ahead, Commissioner Sanchez. -35- ~ ~ 1 SANCHEZ: You know, I think the Commission kind of serves, as kind of looking into the future and 1 do 2 hope that this roadway can alleviate that access to the north part of that. But, as we've heard mentioned 3 earlier, in the case before us, off of Elks, I mean, are we going to have trouble here with ingress, egress, 4 traffic congestion and problems, has that been looked at well in advance to ten years down the road we're 5 not going to have people at our meetings upset because seven lots are going to go in and it's going to 6 cause that much traffic. I guess I want to understand a little bit more what the ingress and egress is going 7 to be to the overall project. 8 MARI'INEZ: Eddie Martinez, Zia Engineering. Relative to...for the lower portion that we're looking at the 9 rezoning changes now, which is this area dpwn in this portion. Primary access will be Rinconada 10 Boulevard off of U.S. 70 which is designated as a collector. It'll be a collector both directions with a 11 separator median in the middle. Settler's Pass is also designated as a collector. Eventually that's 12 probably going to be, I would suspect, the next major roadway that we tie into. We know that there's 13 currently plans that Binns has on property down in this area that's under design that will probably be 14 coming to you in the near future because they've been discussing with us relative to the tying in their 15 design with our design. 16 In addition to that, as you move forward, Rinconada Boulevard will continue all the way through 17 the property in this area here. So, Rinconada Boulevard will continue as a major collector all the way 18 through the project. 19 You also have Engler Road, which is actually a, if I'm not mistaken, a major arterial designated 20 right here. Engler Road...the properties underneath this green area here, Rinconada Ranch, that is 21 actually a Federal parcel. So, to the extent that Engler Road continues across those Federal lands, that 22 may be a question, but relative to Engler Road this way, it extends back down to Del Rey Boulevard. 23 There's currently Binn's projects in this area here that are underway on the lower portion, and the 24 upper portion it's currently under design by other developers. So, we anticipate that Engler will be tying in 25 quite shortly as well. -36- 1 This tie in here is Peachtree Drive and this portion of Peachtree on the lower area, once again, it 2 ties in to bel Rey Boulevard; it also extends to the east in this area. And then, lastly, Westmoreland ties 3 in at the very north end. 4 So, relative to access in general, for the major roadways, there is significant collectors and 5 arterials that are feeding into and out of this area as it's going to be filled. 6 SANCHEZ: Very well answered, thank you. And the other thing I just wan to comment on; your 7 willingness to work something out with the other property owner. I know, I think it should have been 8 caught on early through the review process, and I commend you for willing to work with the other property 9 owner. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other discussion? At this time, we will vote on these individually now, so we 11 have number...actually, it's number five, six, and seven to vote on. So, I'll take a motion on the first case. 12 Hello? 13 CAMUNEZ: I make a motion we approve Case 22562, is that the ane? 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, I think we have to do 5-04-073. 15 CAMUNEZ: Oh, OK. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is that the one you were going to make a motion on? Is there a second? 17 BINNEWEG: Second. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call the roll. 19 Commissioner Young? 20 YOUNG: Aye, based an findings, and discussion. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 22 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on findings, and discussion. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 24 SANCHEZ: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? -37- 1 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 3 CAMUNEX: Aye, findings and discussion. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN:. And the Chair votes Aye based on finding and discussion. 5 OK, the next case? 6 BINNEWEG: Mr. Chair, I move we approve Gase 22562. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? $ SANCHEZ: I second it. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call the roll, 10 Commissioner Young? 11 YOUNG: Aye, findings, and discussion. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 13 BINNEWEG: Aye, findings, and discussion. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 15 SANCHEZ: Aye, findings and discussion. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 17 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 19 CAMUNEZ: Aye, findings and discussion. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chairman votes Aye based on discussion and findings. 21 And, the last case? 22 BINNEWEG: Mr. Chair, I move we approve Case 5-04-081. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 24 CAM U IV EZ: Second it. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call the roll. -3$- ~ ~ 1 Gammissioner Yaung? 2 YOUNG: Aye, findings, and discussion. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 4 BWNEWEG: Aye, findings, and discussion. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 6 SANCHEZ: Aye, findings and discussion. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 8 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Gammissioner Camunez? 10 CAMUNEZ: Aye, findings and discussion. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes Aye based on findings, and discussion. Thank you all three of 12 them passed. 13 PICKEL: Thank you very much. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right. Case PUD-04-03, this is a request for an amendment to the Northrise 15 Business Park Planned Unit Development. Submitted by Scanlon White, Inc., for Martinez Real Estate 16 Company, LLC. 17 Is the applicant ready? 18 TED SCANLON: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name's Ted Scanlon, I'm with Scanlon 19 White Engineering; I represent the developer, Martinez Real Estate, with respect to the development of 20 this project. 21 What we have is a parcel of land that lies...) can show on here, near the intersection of...partially 22 near the intersection of Northrise Drive and Roadrunner Parkway. Roadrunner Parkway being the major 23 arterial, Northrise Drive is a collector roadway. 24 Currently undeveloped land is bordered an the west by the Spillway of the Las Cruces Dam 25 Reservoir area and on the south by right-of-way of the Las Cruces Dam Reservoir area and the Alameda Arroyo. -39W C 1 Over here is the village of Northrise, they have Pioneer Bank up here, Memorial Health Plex is 2 located across the street, and Las Cuestas Apartments across Roadrunner Parkway further to the south. 3 The property was zoned R-4 Conditional with the original Northrise Business Park Master Plan, 4 and that condition being, as with all the properties lying within the Northrise Business Park Master Plan, 5 that the covenants and restrictions of the Northrise Business Park area were to be adhered to with 6 respect to development of all of those parcels. 7 The property was converted to PUD zoning or overlaid with a PUD zoning as were many of the 8 vacant parcels within the Northrise Business Park area within the last couple of years. 9 What we're requesting now is under the PUD zoning, a concept plan and a Final Site Plan in 10 accordance with the Zoning Code requirements for development of the properties within a PUD. 11 And, what we're proposing here is kind of an interesting concept, and Mr. Shekar Bhushan is the 12 architect on the project; he's dawn here from Denver. 13 It's been done in other cities, I think it's really the first one to be done in the Las Cruces area, but 14 what we have is basically a gated seniors' secured community. You have to be at least 55 years old to 15 live in there. And, the concept is to create a sense of community within the area. And, basically, in order 15 to da that, what we're doing is along Northrise Drive, which contains a lot of traffic, we're proposing some 17 medical offices in support of the Healthplex across the street, in suppork of some of the other health 18 service uses that exit within the area. 19 There will also be an apartment project later on that will be a seniors' apartment project also. 20 What we'll have within here is gated areas, here and at this location here, which will allow only the 21 residents or their invited guests within the community. 22 Now, what we're proposing is a little bit different concept for access, and vehicular circulation, 23 and traffic, and so forth than the normal City Design Standards would provide. 24 And, we're doing that by creating alleyways within the development where the vehicles will park. 25 All of the units along within the interior of the development will have back loaded garages; they'll have two car garages at each one of these. There will be access through these alleyways. -40- ~ ~ 1 That will allow the streets to become more of a._.almost a pedestrian community. The only time 2 you'll have parking within the actual street areas that you see that are kind of a red color here, would be if 3 someone happens to have a guest. 4 Now, a concern came up with respect to fire prevention staff, when we met with the staff on this 5 project, because we are asking for a narrower than the normal 50 feet of right-of-way within these streets; 6 with respect to parking on them, and we were asked by the fire prevention staff could we limit parking to 7 only one side of the street and alleviate their concerns with respect to congestion, and at the time of $ emergency responses. And, absolutely, we can prohibit parking on one side of these streets to 9 accomplish that. each one of these turn around areas that you see here meet the minimum standards; 10 and, keeping in mind that these streets are all private. 11 Another concern was with respect to emergency response in the area being gated. And, of 12 course, you know, we're evolving technologically, and it's kind of a neat thing. Just a few yeas ago we 13 had what you call "crash gates." And, a "crash gate" was just exactly that; it was a gate that was 14 designed with breakable pins in it, and if the fire truck wanted to get it, it crashed right trough it. And, that 15 was kind of the Neanderthal approach maybe, but, then they evolved to what they call "knocks boxes," 16 that they would put on those gates and it would allow the emergency response teams to have a key that 17 they could use to open it. What we've got now and we will utilize in this case is electronic emergency 18 preemption devices. And, those are activated by a strobe light on the fire truck and police cars and so 19 forth, and it's a strobe that flashes at a very specific frequency that will activate a controller on the gate 20 and cause it to open for emergency response. 21 The, let's see, the other land uses within this...well, we'll have a community center down in this 22 area that will provide a gathering place and some recreational space, swimming pool and a club house, 23 and a rec room for the residents of the area. There'll be some other open space scattered around within 24 the area. And we're also proposing to construct some green belt-type improvements out here in the 25 adjacent area of the right-of-way of the Las Cruces Dam, offsite. And, of course, that will be done in coordination with the plan that is currently being developed by the City and has been proposed by the -41- 1 Corp of Engineers to develop the entire reservoir into a recreational area. So that will be an area that 2 could be used for the residents of this community as well as the public. 3 All of the hard infrastructure; the utilities, and other elements of the subdivision design will be 4 done in accordance with all of the City Design Standards. The only deviations that we're requesting from 5 the Design Standards are the narrower streets and the alleyways, which are not provided far, under City 6 Design Standards and the gated concept for the development. 7 Now, as is with all the properties within the Northrise Business Park area, the plans and designs 8 and concepts, and sa forth, have to be approved by the...there's a design committee composed of the 9 Mafens, which were the original developers of the property as well as Cliff Spirock, up in Corrales, New 10 Mexico, and John Curry here in Las Cruces. They have reviewed the concept plans that we have 11 submitted and have agreed with them, and not only agreed with them, but congratulated Mr. Bhushan on 12 a development proposal that really meets the intent of what the Northrise Business Park area had 13 intended for this parcel. And, I think that it creates a new type of development, a new and diverse type of 14 development that hasn't been done before in Las Cruces, and will really be an asset to the whole area. 15 One more thing that we're in discussion with s#aff on is, that I need to bring up because it's 16 something that is being worked on and hasn't been finalized yet, but we are proposing far drainage within 17 the area, as has been done in several other developments that surround the reservoir area is excavating 18 some material from within the reservoir area thereby creating additional capacity in the reservoir, and 19 putting it on the site. 20 There used to be a big arroyo that came down through here, and if you've been out to this site, 21 you'll notice that there's a pretty big canyon that comes down right through here that was caused by that 22 arroyo. Now, that arroyo has since been diverted by a storm drain system in Northrise Drive and in 23 Roadrunner Parkway that carry those flows down to the Alameda Arroyo here, and to the spillway are 24 over in here. So, there are no offsite flows emanating into this site from that arroyo anymore. 25 -42~ 1 We would propose, rather than having on lot ponding or any kind of off site ponding area in here 2 to excavate material from the reservoir area, increase its capacity, and use that material to fill out that 3 canyon and to provide some of the fill that we may need for other grating along the edges of site in here. 4 We have written a letter to Public Works and have discussed this matter previously with Robert 5 Garza, when he was over in Public Works and have gotten a general agreement in concept to that. 6 As t stated, there have been other development that have done exactly the same thing on..,in all 7 areas around the reservoir areas. Most notably the Sombra de Colores, over off of Foothills. They 8 excavated probably I think, somewhere in the neighborhood of 160,000 yards from the reservoir area and 9 used it to fill over in there. We would anticipate creating, essentially, exactly the same type of agreement 10 as that. 11 I think I covered everything, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. White. Staff? 13 SHBKAR BHUSHAN: Good evening, gentlemen, my name is Shekar Bhushan, I'm the architect 14 responsible for what you're looking at. Just wanted to add a couple of comments to what Ted Scanlon 15 mentioned. 16 What we're trying to really create is a social environment; it's actually reminiscent of the era of the 17 40's and 30's, which are the type of people that...the age type of people that are going to be...that are 18 anticipated to live here, this silence generation, so to speak. 19 Specifically, the social environment as the red streets, and when you have garages off of the 20 alley, what it does is it alleviates the need for garages off of the front of the houses, and then you have 21 sweeping porches that wrap around the houses and it just invites social interaction with people that live 22 across the street, et cetera. 23 And, we went to the extent of going to two car garages for each unit, as Ted mentioned, so that 24 the need for additional cars on the streets is reduced. 25 Furthermore, we have two essential types of units that you're looking at; the peripheral units that are on the outside, that obviously don't have alleys, and there what we've done is actually have garages -43- 1 that sit way back, so you have a continuous drive-way, where, actually, I think there's a couple of unit 2 plans too, which folks have probably seen. 3 ~ But, the environment includes the wrap-around parches and adrive-way, and so, if you have 4 visitors, it goes back to what the fire folks would probably be concerned about. And, see that's their other 5 floor plan too, probably. That's the alley-way. It doesn't matter, the point I'm trying to make is the 6 garages on the outer peripheral units are set back so that, if there's additional cars for visitors needed, 7 then they can park in the drive-way itself. They actually have room far easily four to six cars at each 8 individual peripheral unit drive-way. And, then in addition, you have the garages off of the alley. 50, the 9 point I'm trying to make is the chances of the social streets being flooded with cars, parked off of them, is 10 going to be reduced tremendously. And the roads are not going to be that narrow. They're going to be, 11 even the social streets, are going to be 27 feet or so, and then the alleys are going to be closer to 25 feet. 12 And then one last comment I wanted to make is, the sidewalks are all detached sidewalks, that, 13 again, increases the opportunity to some xeriscape landscaping, for trees, shade trees in the five feet that 14 you have between the curb and the sidewalks. 15 16 So, again, it's getting back to the old area of the 30's and 40's that the people that were trying to 17 cater to are used to. Thank you. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Staff? 19 KIRK CLIFTON: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, I'lI...Mr. Scanlon certainly did a fine job with 20 the presentation, so I'll try to glaze over this as rapidly as possible so we can move on. 21 This is, essentially, an amendment to the Northrise Business Park PUD. Kind of like a zone 22 change, but it's rather, it's kind of complex. I mean, we're treating it as a PUD Concept Plan Final Site 23 Plan, and amendment to the Northrise Business Park PUD, under one action, which will be forwarded to 24 the City Council, so this is a recommendation. 25 One important point I would like to make is that what they're proposing, aside from the gated community and the 40 foot right-of-way, would be a permitted use as currently zoned, so what has -44- ~J 1 triggered this case to be here this evening is essentially the gated portion of the request and the 40 foot 2 right-of-way. 3 Existing zoning within the area, predominantly A-1, which is the flood control area. C-2 to the 4 north and east. Fire Station No. 6 is located here at the corner. So, we would hope that fire response is 5 relatively quick. 6 Aerial photo of the project, here's the arroyo that Mr. Scanlon was talking about that has since 7 disappeared. 8 And the Concept Plan, which I really won't go over it additionally, unless you have questions at 9 this time. The alleyways on the back side of the residences and the streets for vehicular traffic. 10 The medical offices are proposed in this area and this area, open space for the community 11 located here. And, the apartment complex with additional RV parking will be located here. 12 I should note for the record, in your packets that I indicated there were three areas located 13 adjacent to Northrise for medical offices; there are just two there. There are a total of four out parcels, 14 separate from the single family, and those include the two medical, one open space, and the apartment 15 complex. 16 This is the Final Site Plan, if approved by City Council; their next step in the process would be to 17 submit the Final Plat for staff review. That would be an administrative process. 18 Housing elevations, garage, towards the alley, rear loaded. 19 The proposed deviation includes right-of-way and street dedication. The total requirement is 50 20 feet of right-of-way dedicated to the City of Las Cruces and an approved paved section pursuant to the 21 City of Las Cruces design standards. What's proposed is a 40 foot right-of-way to be gated and privately 22 maintained by the homeowners association. The City of Las Cruces will have no maintenance 23 responsibilities within this development, as proposed. 24 As Mr. Scanlon touched on the issue with the Public Works Department regarding drainage into 25 the floor control area, prior to City Council, we would like that agreement formalized, approved, and in writing. -45- 1 So, we da...the DRC has reviewed this, staff as well. We are recommending conditional approval 2 with the following condition: Final staff review and approval of PUD documents to reflect resolution of an 3 approved drainage agreement with the City of Las Cruces Public Works Department to utilize the arroyo 4 area south of the proposal for storm water run off. This issue must be resolved prior to City of Las Cruces 5 Council hearing this case. And, that's critical that we get that taken care of before it goes to Council. 6 Thank you. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Clifton. Is there anybody in the public that wish to make a comment 8 on this case? At this time, I'll close it to public comment. Commissioners? Yes, Commissioner 9 Binneweg? 10 BINNEWEG: About four years ago, my aunt passed on, she was 93, and she left me a little house in a 11 community like this in California; men I wish I was another ten years older, because I would have taken it 12 and told the guards not to let my four sans come in, but I'm still raising them, so I can't do that, and so I 13 had to sell i#. And, I'll be very happy to be able to find and live in a little place like this that I, again, can 14 tell the guards, `cause my kids will be a lot older then, "No, no, they can't come in." 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: But they want us to be silence, us older people, we're not going to be silen#. 16 BINNEWEG: I'm going to be silent; I'll be happy, sitting right there, walking around. No, I've been really 17 interested to see these concepts of the smaller streets, the more neighborhood...neighbor interaction, 18 because when you have the streets that are less wide, there's less distance between you and the person 19 across the street, and when you're parking on the back alley, people in Sonoma Ranch didn't like us 20 calling them alleys, but to me, they're alleys. When you're parking in an alley, you get to know the people 21 back there too. And, 50 I'm all for interacting with neighbors and I enjoy a planned unit development like 22 this. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, other commissioners? Commissioner Sanchez? 24 SANCHEZ: If I may? Just...on a 40 foot proposed right-af-way, I know that Mr. Scanlon had talked 25 about having, I guess in its restrictive covenants, only one sided street parking. As I agree with the whole total concept of, you know, making it a sense of place, giving a sense of community to the residents, I do -46- 1 also realize that this is going to be an elderly community with the need of maybe quite often, higher 2 number of average of medical attention, ambulances, fire department, police cars, so on, going in there. 3 Is the access to the alleyway, has that been properly addressed, just seeing that, you know, these 4 medical teams will be able to access these residents efficiently and quickly? 5 SCANLON: Yes, actually, that's one of the advantages to having the alley on one side and the street on 6 the other, and that's one of the things that the fire prevention staff brought up in our meetings with them is 7 having a front porch entry on the street side, as well as an open alley with another access to the $ residence from that side, gives the emergency response team's access from either direction. And, so it, 9 you know, that was one of the things that...one of the reasons that it was done that way. 10 SANCHEZ: OK. 11 SCANLON: And as far as the restriction of parking, the, as you know, the developers are now 12 responsible for providing all the signage and everything within the subdivisions, and so we will actually 13 provide, you know, the signage and so forth, within the development to the restrict parking to only one 14 side of the street. 15 SANCHEZ: And, I'm sure the Homeowners Association will police it well. The other quick question I 16 have is, you kind of mentioned about the future development of apartment complex... 17 SCANLON: Mh hm. 18 SANCHEZ: ...doing the quick numbers in my head, there's 90 proposed single residence housing to go 19 up there, which I'm times two per house, it's 180 cars. What are we looking at, how big is this apartment 20 complex going to be, haw many units are we looking to maybe developing in that area? 21 SCANLON: We...the tract itself for the apartment project is six acres. We would anticipate, I would 22 think, somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 to 200 apartments within that area. We are located on a 23 major arterial and at the intersection of a collector roadway and then, of course, we have just up the street 24 the interchange at Roadrunner Parkway and U.S. 70. So we have real good access, and real good traffic 25 carrying capability within that area. Roadrunner Parkway is current-y not even close to being at its capacity. -47- • r~ 1 SANCHEZ: True, but as far as the actual traffic within the development itself, is the gated community 2 going to.,.or the apartment complex going to fall in within the gated community or are they going to have 3 their own access through Roadrunner or Rinconada? 4 SCANLON: The apartment project will not be within the gated area, it will... 5 SANCHEZ: It's outside... 6 SCANLON: ...it will have access directly to Roadrunner Parkway. 7 SANCHEZ: And, are these apartments also going to be targeted for....? 8 SCANLON: Yes... 9 SANCHEZ: ...for the elderly? 10 SCANLON: ...for the elderly, yes. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, Commissioner Ludtke? 12 BHUSHAN: This is Shekar Bhushan again, I didn't mean to really contradict Ted, bu# density, we are 13 anticipating in that six acre parcel, it's going to probably be lower. We're anticipating about three 14 acre...three story project. In a six acre parcel will yield somewhere around 20 units to an acre ±, so 15 you're talking 20 x 120 units. So, it's not... just for anybody's concern, or traffic standpoint, it could be a 16 little bit this or that, but it's not going to be much higher than that. And, they'll have access to that 17 driveway...could you show them that site plan (inaudible)? Sorry. Yeah, that one, that's fine. 18 That six acre parcel, we're anticipating will have access, not directly off of Roadrunner to avoid 19 traffic confusion and it'll add some decent lanes, et cetera. So we've provided a really wide, like a 20 boulevard access. This is our main entry into the campus, and that arrow that you see is somewhere 21 where we think the main entry to this six acre parcel will be, so, about 120 units there ar so. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, thank you. Commissioner Ludtke, you had a question? 23 LUDTKE: I wonder if...Kirk, is Roadrunner where the entrance is on the east side right there on 24 Roadrunner, is that...how's that access for getting in and out of there for going north and south at...on 25 Roadrunner? CLIFTON: Are you referring to this point right here, Commissioner? -48- • ! 1 LUDTKE: Go dawn a little bit to the south, right there... 2 CLIFTON: Right there? 3 LUDTKE: Yeah. 4 CLIFTON: Ted is that a two way median there? 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Are there two of them? 6 LUDTKE: Is there a median right there, or...? 7 CLIFTON: Actually... 8 LUDTKE: Is there concrete there? 9 SCANLON: There is a median in there, and I can...it's kind of hard to see on this, it will show up on the 10 larger...the median currently goes...can you zoom? Let's see, no, that's not going to show it. Ga back to 11 where we were. All right. See, there's kind of a darkened area right here? That...the end of the existing 12 median is right at the point where the cursor tip is. I am proposing that we would do a modification in 13 there to bring in that median nose back even with this. We can do that and still maintain the City's 14 minimum of 300 foot length for the median, and we would go ahead then and redo the nose of that 15 median right in here where it would line up and allow turning movements in all directions and repave that 16 area where the existing median would be removed. 17 LUDTKE: Is there adjacent to the east property on Roadrunner? Is that an entrance and exit over 18 there? On that property right there? 19 SCANLON: This property right here is vacant, and as is a portion of the Village of Northrise property on 20 the south end. There's a Cuestas apartments are right down in here and they have access in...down 21 here on the other end of that median. 22 LUDTKE: Yeah. It would be like that number (inaudible). 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other Commissioners? I have a question, staff do we need to put in the fact 24 that they will limit parking to one side of the street, as one of the conditions, or are we just going to leave 25 it open that they would do it? -49- C 1 CLIFTON: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, staff will see that that item is placed on the PUD 2 documentation that we will forever refer to for design guidelines. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Any other comments? I will accept a motion on this case. 4 YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Case PUD-04-03. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 6 CAMUNEZ: I second it. 7 YOUNG: Wait, we have a... 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Oh, that's right, plus condition. 9 YOUNG: Conditioned upon final staff review and approval of PUD documents as outlined by staff. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right, is there a second? 11 CAMUNEZ: I second it, 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call the roll. 13 Commissioner Young? 14 YOUNG: Aye, based findings, and discussion. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 16 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on findings, discussion.. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 18 SANCHEZ: Aye, based on findings, discussion, site visit. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 20 L,UDTKE: Aye, findings.. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 22 CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on site visit, findings, and discussion. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chairman votes Aye based on site visit, findings, and discussion. 24 All right. This brings us to Case ZCA-04-03, that I placed on the...or took off the Consent Agenda and 25 really, I only had one question. I don't think, Mr. Banegas, there's a need to read the whole thing; my question goes back, and let me find my minutes. The minutes of the last meeting, on page 51, when you -50- 1 presented this to us, staff had to push forward to the City Council, an amendment seeking an amendment 2 to Section 38-10, which talks about a particular date, wherein the City's efforts to convert the zoning must 3 be completed. Naw, 1 understand that was one of the reasons, but in this document, I can see nothing 4 that addressed the time frame that you originally talked to us about. Is it something we're going to add to 5 that, or what are we going to do with that time frame of changing the date when the zoning had to be 6 done? 7 VINCENT BANEGAS: Mr. Chairman, Vincent Banegas, for the record, that amendment had to be 8 pushed through to City Council in order to preserve, if you will, the window for the nonconforming zoning 9 issues that currently are stated in our 2001 Zoning Code; in terms of the conversion of existing '81 zones 10 over to the 2001 document. 11 As it was stated, in the Code, the deadline or the expiration date was September of 2004, and we 12 sought to add a year, if you will, pushing it back to 2005. That has gone to Council and has been 13 approved. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Oh, that did... 15 BANEGAS: Actually, that'll be reflected in your packet, or should be reflected in your packet, as a 2005 16 date currently, but it's not something you need to act on, that particular issue is now covered. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'm sorry, you say that issue of moving the date from 2004 to 2005 is in this packe# 18 now? 19 BANEGAS: That's correct; it's referenced as a 2005 date. And, if it isn't... 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I couldn't find it, I'm sorry. 21 BANEGAS: OK, let me... 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And I'd say, that was my main question on this; everything else was OK by me. Is 23 there anything else you... 24 BANEGAS: l_et me find the page here for you, page 100, its...of your packet of the exhibit, Section 38- 25 73, Nonconforming Provisions states, Item A: Nonconforming zoning districts upon the effective date, September 4, 2001 of this Code... -51- 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mh hm. 2 BANEGAS: ...2001 Zoning Code, the 1981 Zoning Code, as Amended, will be repealed; however, to 3 reduce the impact of immediately creating....gaes on to read, that within the four year periods, September 4 4, 2001 through September 3, 2005; that 2005 used to read 2004. So, that changed, and then there's 5 further reference of that... 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, that was the only question I had; I have #o admit I only read the first 90 pages. 7 BANBGAS: Mr. Chairman, I do want to point out a few things just for clarity, so that if nothing else, it's 8 also in the record. There was a reference on page 52, I believe. Yes, 53, I'm sorry; 53 of your packets 9 under the R-3 Zoning column there, it referred to,..it had some added text and also some struck text 10 under the Standard, right underneath Multi-dwelling, R-3. It was some shaded text and some struck text, 11 it referenced duplexes and triplexes and it had been struck. Duplexes should not be there; it should be 12 triplexes and quad-plexes, and those words will appear struck. So, I just want to point that out; that was a 13 typo more so than anything else. 14 And, also, one bit of wording that staff would recommend we include, which I'd certainly be able 15 to include, is on page 47 of that exhibit. If you recall, we were talking about parcels that were zoned 16 prior...zoned R-4, prior to the 2001 Zoning Code effective date that they would follow the 1981 density 17 requirements, and, if you recall, there's a maximum density for those...under the '81 Code of 40 dwelling 18 units per acre. 19 I wanted to clarify, however, that that provision does not establish a minimum density threshold 20 as what you will find with the current warding for the 2001 Code. So, I'm going to add just a little bit, by 21 four words, to help clarify that issue, and indicate that when you're referring to the '81 provision, when 22 that applies, there is no minimum density threshold that has to be met. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right. 24 BANEGAS: That's it. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other questions on this item? Seeing that it has been pulled off, and it is on the agenda, we do have to vote on it, so I need a motion on the case, please? -52- 1 BINNEWEG: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve Case ZCA-04-03. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 3 CAMUNEZ: Second it. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I'll call the roll. 5 Commissioner Young? 6 YOUNG: Aye, based on discussion. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 8 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on discussion. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 10 SANCHE~Z: Aye, based on discussion.. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 12 LUDTKE: Aye. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Based on... 14 LUDTKE: Discussion. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 17 CAMUNEZ: Aye, discussion. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chairman votes Aye based on discussion also. What's next? Is there any 19 other business to be brought before the Commission? Is there any public participation? 20 I have a couple of comments. I hate to do this, but, I think it has to be brought to our attention. According 21 to the City of Las Cruces Boards and Committee rules, City of Las Cruces has requirements, attendance, 22 and removal. If a member, this is on page...this is number three, Section B, a member appointed by the 23 City fails to attend 75% of the meetings, including work sessions within a 12 month period beginning April 24 1 through March 1, or is absent from three consecutive meetings, his or her membership shall be 25 terminated automatically by the affected Board. -53- ~ ~ 1 I tried to contact Commissioner Ford; this is the fourth meeting in a raw, he has missed. The 2 Board member may appeal removal personally, in writing, or bath to the City Council within 30 days after 3 receiving written notice. And, I think by the rules dictated to us by the City, the...any other 4 Commissioners can correct me if I'm wrong; I think we have to give notification to Commissioner Ford that 5 as he has not attended consecutive meetings, his membership shall be terminated automatically.. 6 Any discussion? 7 YOUNG: Staff handles that for us, so we don't... 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Staff? 9 YOUNG: ...we don't worry about that. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Staff will handle that for us. OK. Any... 11 RICHARD JACQUEZ: Mr. Chairman? 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes? 13 JACQUEZ: Richard Jacquez, the Legal Department. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, what's required is 14 the Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission to notify the City Council, by letter, that Commissioner 15 Ford has failed to appear to three or more consecutive meetings. That then kicks in a 30 day requirement 16 by the City Council to...or the Councilor from that district, where Commissioner Ford was from, to appoint 17 somebody to fill that vacancy. However, until that vacancy is filled, Commissioner Ford can continue to 18 serve on the Commission. The way the Municipal Code is stated. I'm not sure if staff can prepare a letter 19 for your signature to City Council, or the Chairman wants to initiate a letter and just provide it to staff and 2p we'll get it to the Mayor and the rest of the City Council to notify them. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Jacquez, we appreciate that, OK. I'll work with staff and we'll da 22 something. Staff comments? Commissioner comments? It is six, seven minutes after 8:00; I'll take a 23 motion to adjourn. 24 YOUNG: Sa moved. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: We are adjourned. Thank you. -54- ' ~ r .~ 1 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:07. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -55- ~ ~