Loading...
08/17/2004WS_ __ _ ____ -~~„~•- `_, ~ ~ • 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 WORK SESSION 3 FOR THE 4 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 5 City Office Center, Room 101 6 August 17, 2004 7 6:00 p.m. 8 9 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 10 Bruce Buchman, Chair William Ludtke 11 Nancy Binneweg, Vice Chair Harry Sanchez 12 Elizabeth Camunez, Secretary Quentin Ford 13 Henry Young 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: 16 Vincent Banegas, Development and MPO Administrator Kim Seckler, Chamber of Commerce 17 Robert Kyle, Senior Planner John Carmody, Zoning Committee 18 Lani Ruth McCarron, Planner George Rawson, Zoning Committee 19 Kirk Clifton, Planner Ben Woods, Zoning Committee 20 Brian Harper, Associate Planner Sid Evans 21 Tom Murphy, MPO Planner 22 Carmen A. Lucero, Recording Secretary 23 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Let us begin then, the Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session for August 25 17tH we all got a copy of the minutes of the May 18th meeting, the Work Session, are there any corrections or additions to those minutes? -1- __ _ _ ____ ~„~,r, ,~ • 1 NANCY BINNEWEG: I've pointed out a couple of things to the secretary that I found. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, would you like to let us know, so we can make the necessary changes? 3 BINNEWEG: OK, well, we have one on page 27 and there's another one on... 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Wait a minute, that's page 27, OK 5 BINNEWEG: ...line 8. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Line 8. 7 BINNEWEG: It's, instead of contention, it's "contentious issue." 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Then I'll go to.... "another contentious issue." 9 BINNEWEG: Yeah, yeah. And then there's a spelling of Mr. Rawson's name, on page 31... 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thirty one... 11 BINNEWEG: Line nine, 9t" line... 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Nine... 13 BINNEWEG: Should be Rawson, R A W S O N. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: R...say again, R... 15 BINNEWEG: R A W S O N. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. George Rawson, OK. Any other corrections to the minutes? OK. Seeing that 17 there are some corrections then 1 will call for a vote. 18 Commissioner Young? 19 YOUNG: Aye. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg: 21 BINNEWEG: Aye. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 23 CAMUNEZ: Aye. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And, the Chairman votes Aye. The minutes from the meeting are approved, as 25 presented. -2- 1 ~ 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: More work for you. At least you're on time. OK. Item #2, 3 -Discussion of the 2 Proposed Amendment to the Las Cruces Sign Code. Tom Murphy. 3 TOM MURPHY: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'm Tom Murphy, I'm an MPO Planner with the Community 4 Development Department. And, what you have before you is an amendment to Section 36-82 of the 5 Municipal Code; specifically, the part of the Sign Code that deals with bench signs. And, what this 6 amendment will do, will allow a placard or sign to be placed on bus benches, bus shelters, and within City 7 medians, and Trails and Arroyos in conjunction with the already established City of Las Cruces Adopt a 8 Median Sign. And, it's...and just let me give you a little bit of background on haw this has come along. A 9 few months back, a couple of businesses approached some members of City Council and asked about 1l) the possibility of donating bus shelters and we were directed to develop a policy that would allow the City 11 to accept donated bus shelters. 12 In the process of taking this policy through the Transit Advisory Board, the feelings from those 13 members were that there needed to be some sort of incentive that allows people, you know, that would 14 encourage them to make the investment to donate a shelter. And, by that incentive we're looking at 15 placing a slightly larger sign on there that would then...that's currently allowed under the Zoning Code, or 16 the Sign Cade. 17 The sizes would depend on the structure of what it is. Benches...let me start out by currently 18 stating the standard for the benches would be no higher than one inch or 18 inches long. And, we 19 increased those sizes to three inches high for benches, 12 inches high for shelters, and we keep it at 18 20 inches long for benches, 18 inches long for medians; perhaps go as high as 48 inches for shelters. 21 The reason being for the larger size, if you look on Exhibit three of the packet, the size that we 22 took down would be...so that the width of the sign would roughly correspond to the width of the bus 23 shelter. 24 25 -3- 1 It is not the intention for the...so there be any kind of commercial advertising in this. Exhibit four 2 is a mock up proto-type of what we imagine having, and we would simply...it would simply be the 3 business or individual's name with the City logo and with the Transit logo on there. 4 And, with that, I'm ready for any questions. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, I have quite a few questions, `cause it also entails the "Adopt a Median" 6 program too. Am I correct? 7 MURPHY: That's correct, and Carol McCall from Keep Las Cruces Beautiful is here too to answer any 8 questions... 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: As Carol is aware, I'll let the rest of you know, I have a median that I adopt and 10 there's quite a few questions that I have concerning this. First thing is, and you mentioned it, was 11 commercial. This is under 82b, "No commercial or political advertising." I'm kind of concerned with the 12 ward "Commercial." What is your intent there where you say Commercial? 13 MURPHY: What the intent is, you know, no specific advertising like, you know, "Eat at Joe's" or you 14 know, "Shop at Wally's," or you know, phone... 15 BINNEWEG: Phone numbers and things like that. 16 MURPHY: Phone numbers or anything that could... 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, under... 18 MURPHY: ...represent information.... 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...the Median Program we do Commercial Advertising. 20 BINNEWEG: It's just the name of the company, it doesn't say... 21 CAMUNEZ: It's not advertising. 22 YOUNG: It is. 23 BINNEWEG: It is in a... 24 (Unintelligible, several people talking at the same time.) 25 -4- 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, hold, hold it, let's go to the Chair, so we don't get confused. OK, it say's 2 "Buchman Insurance Agency." 3 BINNEWEG: Mh hm. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is that advertising? 5 CAMUNEZ: Yes. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: It doesn't have my phone number. 7 CAMUNEZ: Mh hm. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Now, what I'm concerned is, if you want to do it, fine, and I think we should do it, 9 "cause it's the businesses that could donate the money... 10 BINNEWEG: Mh hm. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...but I think the word "Commercial," if we're going to do this, no political advertising, 12 or limited Commercial, or, you know, "Eat at Joes." Well, if Joe's going to pay for it, why not put it up 13 there. 14 MURPHY: I think, Mr. Chair, we would envision something like, if Joe's Restaurant wanted to adapt one, 15 we would put the name Joe's Restaurant. I would suggest as a possible amendment to this put no 16 Commercial, other than simply the business name... 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: There you go, OK. 18 MURPHY: ....may be allowed. 19 BINNEWEG: Mh hm. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. And, in working with Carol, as I have in the past, there have been quite a few 21 questions about the Median Program, so my thought is, let's make this one as black and white as 22 possible, let's take out some of the problems that could arise. On this same page, when you're talking 23 about the size of the lettering, the advertisement I have now is one inch by 18 inches. You could have 24 said, I'm just going to go three inch by 18 inches. But you used the word "Placard." Would it be easier to 25 understand if that word was "Lettering." The "Lettering" in the bench should be no more than three inches high by 18 inches... -5- • 1 YOUNG: That's the sign. The placard is the sign, rather than the lettering. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 3 McCARSON: So, we shouldn't say the sign. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yeah. What is a "Placard" and what is a "Lettering?" All I'm saying is that if we put 5 the "Lettering" on the benches, they should be not higher than three inches by 18 inches. 6 YOUNG: No. 7 CAMUIVEZ: No. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That is... 9 YOUNG: You're correct because the background...he's going for background size... 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, OK, all right, so let's go with that; the background size in the median, number 11 three, 12 inches by 18 inches, when they're only one inch by 18 inches now? Aren't you putting up an 12 awful big sign now in the median that could possibly obstruct vision? 13 MURPHY: Mr. Chairman, currently, there is no regulation for the median ones, and if, Carol, correct me if 14 I'm wrong, but I think that's about the size that the signs are currently made. 15 CAROL McCALL: The median signs are approximately 18 inches long by 12 inches high. The lettering 16 on the sign is about two inches high. 17 MURPHY: The one inch by 18 inch is the standard in the Sign Cade for lettering on bus benches. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 19 McCARSON: The lettering is the actual sign. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yeah, that's...that was the terminology that I was looking at too. Let's see... 21 MURPHY: So, if I change "Placard" to "Sign," do you think that would do it? 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That...l would understand the issue then. 23 BINNEWEG: Mh hm. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yeah, the sign on the benches, the sign on the medians should be... OK, that 25 would be good. -6- 1 On, "Adopt a Bus Shelter, recognition, "I have a little bit of problem with the last sentence, "as 2 encouragement for more commitment, a larger sign," leave it there, "placed along the roof line could be 3 arranged for those who show a greater commitment." 4 BINNEWEG: Mh. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: What's "a greater commitment?" 6 BINNEWEG: Money. 7 MURPHY: As... $ CHAIR BUCHMAN: Ah, OK. 9 MURPHY: Does that answer that? I think the "greater commitment" was meant in the above para...in the 10 above section on levels, someone was to take on the maintenance of the shelter, that would be less...it 11 would be viewed as less commitment as somebody who would purchase the shelter for the City. Say 12 somebody was to purchase and maintain it, that would be viewed as doing mare for the City. And, the 13 perhaps, it wasn't clearly enough in here, but this was...these larger signs were envisioned as going up to 14 the maximum as allowed in the Sign Code, and perhaps the signs that is spelled out by this policy would 15 be smaller than the maximum. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: So, if I give you $10,000 how big of a sign can I get? Phooo. 17 YOUNG: The max. 18 MURPHY: The max. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: The max? 20 BINNEWEG: Mh hm. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, then, go ahead Commissioner Young. 22 YOUNG: What I would suggest then, is changing the last part of that from, "for those who show a greater 23 commitment," to read, "it could be arranged based on the preceding levels." 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: But, still, OK...I sponsor a bus shelter, and I put out $300, and I keep it spotless, 25 and Joe Blow puts out $1,000, and he never takes care of this. Should he have bigger recognition than I have? Shouldn't maybe all the signs be standardized like you have kind of have as this example here? -7- 1 YOUNG: Well, it's based on what they commit to upfront, though. Now, when they don't keep up their 2 end of their bargain, there's got to be a way to address that. 3 MURPHY: Mr. Chair that was envisioned being enforced through the contract. If somebody was not 4 upholding their end of the deal, you know, potentially, the City would come in and just take down that, 5 "Maintained, or adopted by..." since they're not living up to their terms of the agreement. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, so if we change some wording in here, we should possibly change it as to 7 Commissioner Young's recommendation? Oh, under the levels, you put the first one, Ocotillo or Palm. 8 Are you going to adopt one word or the other? 9 MURPHY: One or the other, I'm still looking for suggestions on a nice Southwestern theme to go along 10 with this, and I'm expecting some changes at the Transit Advisory Board this Thursday, some of their 11 recommendations. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. So you will be coming back to us then with some minor changes and 13 recommendations on this before the next meeting? 14 MURPHY: Hopefully, yes. Hopefully the TAB will have it finalized. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other Commissioners have any other comments? OK. Thank you very much 16 Mr. Murphy. 17 MURPHY: Thank you. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK that was good, see I told you 15 minutes. All right. 19 YOUNG: It's more than Robert's ten. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yeah. 21 ROBERT KYLE: Doesn't make you feel good. I gave you so much time. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, item number four, Discussion of the Proposed Amendments to the Las Cruces 23 Zoning Code. 24 VINCENT BANEGAS: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, kind of a brief background, if you will. We have 25 seen a lot of this information previously, in fact, at your May 1$t"Work Session, we presented a memo, if -8- 1 you will, that outlined several concepts or issues that were agreed upon by staff, agreed upon by a 2 Committee that had met with staff to go over some proposed changes to the 2001 Zoning Code. 3 If you recall, staff indicated that there were a series of meetings with the Committee wherein we 4 identified areas, both within the residential, the nonresidential, and then in a miscellaneous category, you 5 know, segments, if you will, of the Zoning Code where we felt some change was probably necessary and 6 absolutely needed to help clarify some of the provisions and make them more workable; not only for the 7 development community but also for staff. 8 So, with that in mind, I think then we indicated that we would break up the packet, if you will, just 9 to make it more manageable, and we started...we decided to start by tackling the residential section first, 10 and this is what you have before you this evening for review and consideration before it hits your table 11 next week for the regular meeting. 12 We doubled it up because a lot of the information contained herein isn't new to you all. We talked 13 about it at length; in fact, several members of the Committee also shared some discussion and some 14 issues and insight as to their feelings about the proposed change or changes. So, staff went back to the 15 table, the computers, et cetera, and started making those changes. 16 The document you have is basically a take from the Municipal Code version that exists, that has 17 been adopted by City Council so I'm not going to own the format per se, it's kind of what we have to work 18 with, so bear with me if there's some things that are amiss. One thing that you will find on this is a certain 19 important Development Standard Table that got cut off because of the paper size that I noticed today... 20 pass those down. And I will be highlighting some of the key points. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Isn't this already included in... 22 BANEGAS: There's a part of it. It should have been printed landscape, but it got printed portrait so half 23 the table got cut off. At least mine did, so I'm assuming everyone else's did; yeah, that one. 24 So, the format of the packets that you have, basically reflect some highlighted text which staff is 25 reflecting as added text, or new text in order to implement the changes that were discussed and agreed -9- • 1 upon, and then you will see some text that is struck through, obviously indicating that that's proposed for 2 deletion. 3 When staff went to work on the document, and we tried to incorporate all the changes that were 4 discussed, obviously when we talked with you they were generic issues and we knew that there was a lot 5 of work that was ahead of us. We came across some points that we felt were necessary to be made in 6 order to bring about greater consistency for the types of uses, that kind of thing, within the residential 7 zoning districts. 8 I don't think...l'm going to highlight those, and 1 don't think they're going to cause anybody any 9 grief. I know staff talked about it at length and I think what it'll do, or what the Committee will find is that it 10 opens up some of the structure types, which was one of the areas that we talked about opening up; it 11 opens it up to even a greater degree, and 1'll hit that in a minute. So, it's changes like those that I think 12 are just a consistency issue, and certainly make sense, given some of the other changes such as density 13 that were already discussed and agreed upon. 14 I've hit one item, if you recall in the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts, we identified the types of 15 structures that were to be allowed, pursuant to those zoning designations. Before, under the adopted 16 2001 Zoning Code, we allowed basically duplexes, triplexes, and mobile home parks; that was in the R-2 17 zone. R-3 zone we allowed basically the same, the density was different; originally it was set at 12, and 18 then 15 respectively for the R-2, R-3 zoning districts. But the uses were somewhat defined and 19 restrictive. When we kind of started working with the document, we identified with the Committee that 20 perhaps we needed to open that up and it was agreed upon that we would allow same of the structure- 21 types that were allowed in the lower zones, if you will, the more single-family oriented zones, site-built 22 structures, you know, single structures, that kind of thing, patio homes, to be included in the mix of 23 allowable structure-types for R-2, R-3. 24 When we went to draft that up even further, we found that there was a need to incorporate some 25 additional language that allowed greater latitude in how structures were to be grouped on a single lot, given the fact that the R-2, R-3, talked about; multi-family-type land use. -10- 1 Going to the density issue; R-2, for example has a proposed density change from 12 to 15 2 dwelling units per acre. If you applied the language that was proposed in terms of the structure-type, 3 theoretically the max that you could have, you're looking at basically, before I changed it, a quad, a quad- 4 plex, and quite frankly that doesn't kind of add up to me or to some of the other staff. It's like, if you had a 5 quad-plex and you are allowed a density of 15 dwelling units per acre, and your lot size allowed you to 6 have more than the quad-plex, you would be capped, it just didn't jive. 7 So, what we're saying is, we're proposing to, for the R-2 zone, allow no more than seven 8 attached units to be placed, but that's just talking scale of the residential use itself, but in this case, if 9 you're allowed 15 dwellings per acre and the lot size allows you to have more than seven units on the lot, 10 the developer, the contractor can group seven together and then add at, what we characteristically 11 consider a duplex or individual units to make up the difference in terms of the density threshold. But, 12 what we're saying is no more than seven attached. That's kind of where we're drawing the line in terms 13 of the restriction there. But it opens it up in terms of how many more can be placed on the parcel in 14 question from what we originally had agreed to. That's one area where it kind of loosened up in terms of 15 staff modification. 16 The R-3 zoning district same thing; there we're proposing changing the density from 15 dwelling 17 units per acre to 20. And, there, we also had a cap on the structure-type and we're opening that up as 18 well; we're saying no more than nine attached, but there again, if the lot size allows you to place more 19 than nine units, you can...if 18 units was allowed based on the density threshold, you can group them by 20 units of nine or have 18 individual garden apartments or patio homes or whatever you wanted to call 21 them; you can set them up in that manner. So, again, it opens up the structure-types in terms of use and 22 configuration, that kind of thing. 23 We also thought that one of the problem spots that staff was having that really wasn't addressed 24 in the reviews with the Committee, was the mobile home park issue. Currently in the R-2 zoning district it 25 required a Special Use Permit. We didn't see the rationale in that, and we're proposing to eliminate the Special Use Permit requirement for mobile home parks in the R-2 zone. -11- 1 In the R-3 zone, they're already allowed; they merely follow mobile home park standards and 2 they're good to go. We felt that the R-2 should be opened up in similar fashion. The mobile home 3 standards are identified; they have to be complied with, there's no modification to those standards. We 4 just felt that it would serve staff and City purposes to just allow it as an allowable use as opposed to 5 special use. 6 In terms of, I'm kind of flip flopping, going back to the structure-type, when we were tweaking that 7 issue and trying to make mare sense of it, we found a definition problem. We had a definition for 8 apartment that basically stated that "it's a building containing two or more living units, or units within the 9 confines of that structure." Given the fact that a property owner can have a parcel of land and can place, 10 if there...again, the density allowed, two or three or four or five individual, what 1'll call apartment units, on 11 the property, they don't have to be attached, they can be independent, individual units; we felt that there 12 was a definition conflict with what we had, and so we modified that definition to coincide with how we 13 were treating the use of those structures. That's another change that really wasn't discussed, but 14 certainly far consistency's sake, makes sense. 15 We had, obviously, a host of other items that were discussed with the Committee, and at the work 16 session included in the packets, you'll find, obviously, a hundred and some odd pages of text that 17 represents the whole packet that will ultimately go to City Council. It has to be formatted in this fashion. 18 It's what we're told we had to do, so that's why it's so lengthy. 19 There's not 150 pages worth of change so don't be mislead by the volume of paper there in the 20 packet. 21 We did have another issue come up which we were asked to address earlier, and we never really 22 talked about it, at least from the Committee point of view, but it's something that we've had to contend 23 with time and time again, and that's the non-conforming replacement issue of residential uses. 24 Particularly when they're damaged, and I'm talking about your, you know, typical single-family home or 25 something to that effect, it's damaged, or somehow burned to the ground or whatever and as a result of that, the feeling was at least staff has had to deal with instances where we really had to make things work -12- s • 1 and apply as much of the Code in terms of its flexibility to the issue of allowing the home owner 2 opportunities to rebuild to the status that it once was prior to it being damaged or destroyed, so we've 3 incorporated some changes in that particular section to address that scenario. 4 But, everything else in the packet is as we presented at the last work session and certainly as we 5 discussed at the Committee level, prior to going to your work session, and we're proposing to take this 6 same information forward to your next regular meeting, and any changes or issues that we identify here 7 tonight if you'd like to see them incorporated, we can certainty do that and get a clean packet to you for 8 consideration at the regular meeting. So, with that, I'll pause for any questions you might have, specific to 9 any language issue or item. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Banegas. I think we do the same thing we do in regular meeting, we 11 have so many guests here. Let's let the audience bring up any questions that they may have on this 12 proposed additions and changes. 13 GEORGE RAWSON: Well, Vince, I'll just bring up one small issue, and that is with the apartments... 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Could we have your name, please? 15 RAWSON: Yes, George Rawson, Pueblo Builders. You're absolutely right, we talked about the number 16 of units that are attached, but we have a weird number in nine... 17 BINNEWEG: Yes. 18 RAWSON: ...for apartments, and generally speaking, when we go to finance these kind of things, 10 is 19 the number; five up, five down. I really plead with you to go to 10 instead of nine because on page 44, 20 because if you do any quantitative size, you know, it used to be in R-3 we did 20; we're willing to go to 21 ten, but nine is a hard number to finance, and big numbers work and things like that, especially when 22 you're trying to stack units and things like that. But everything else looks fine to me, but that would be 23 one consideration I'd ask you to look at. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Let's take one item at a time; you want to answer that? 25 BANEGAS: Yeah, I guess a follow up question to that, George, is 10...you're right, what we were doing is taking a look at the R-1 a, R-1 m district and R-1 b, R-1 bm district, maximum attached townhouse -13- 1 thresholds, which was already established that three and five and we're kind of carrying it forward from 2 there. Admittedly, you know, 10, that's one more than what we're proposing; I don't think staff would 3 have a problem with that. Do you see any problem? 4 ROBERT KYLE: I don't think, no, but I think that if we're going to do that conversely, then you'll probably 5 want to go to eight in the R-2 instead of 7. 6 RAWSON: Well, that would be great, because if you put two four-plexes, you know, the numbers are 7 really important, I know they don't seem that way, but financially-wise they'd be better to do even 8 numbers than odd. 9 KYLE: Eight and ten? 10 RAWSON: Yeah. 11 BANEGAS: That doesn't bother staff either way. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: So, you'll make those changes? 13 BANEGAS: OK. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Rawson. 15 RAWSON: Thank you. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Anybody else? Yes? 17 KIM SECKLER: Mr. Chairman, Kim Seckler, and I guess I'm representing the Chamber of Commerce 18 Work Group here. I have...l would say thank you up front to Mr. Banegas and Mr. Kyle; because they 19 gave us these packets a couple of days ago and gave us a chance to look at them. I would have three 20 small technical comments and one substance comment. 21 And the three technical comments would be first, there's language which we had asked for and 22 which the Committee had agreed on about remodeling and striking the language that says you can't 23 remodel to more than $50,000. 24 The language occurs on page 98 and 99 to page 102, and it's in the Nonconforming Use Section. 25 But, page 98, let's start with the page 98 at the bottom; it says, "One Single Family Dwelling Unit - 1 a Existing buildings on the property which has any nonconformities may be altered or remodeled one time -14- 1 up to 50% of the grass floor area." We've had several folks read this and say, does that mean you can 2 only remodel it once? Dan't we really mean we should remodel it, alter it, or expand it, one time up to 3 50%. And, if you work dawn farther, there is a sentence that kind of clarifies that and that says something 4 along the lines of, "you can do it more than once, if you don't increase the gross floor area." That occurs 5 on page 98 and 99, but when you get to 102, there isn't anything #hat says that. 4c - it says, "you can 6 expand, alter, ar remodel one time up to 10%." And, that implies you can only remodel it once. And, I 7 don't think that's what you really meant. And, so, maybe we can suggest some wording there. If you split 8 the words around so that it says, "altered, or remodel (comma), ar expanded one time up to 10°/d' to 9 accomplish what I think it's intended. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. 11 SECKLER: Because I don't...lt's not my impression that you intent to only allow people to remodel once 12 ever. 13 BINNEWEG: Yeah. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. Banegas. 15 BANEGAS: Yau know, the remodeling term, I guess, I certainly don't see, at least rough...) mean, I'm 16 speaking at the top of my head; the remodeling aspect I think what we're after in these nonconforming 17 provisions, we're really concerned about the expansion. 18 SECKLER: No, we agree completely to that. 19 BINNEWEG: Mh hm. 20 SECKLER: I think with several different folks of us reading, coming up with...it implies another meaning, 21 if you have a chance to clarify the language here why not take it. 22 BANEGAS: Yeah, I think on the Single Family, but the big cancern...there is a difference. The Single 23 Family provision back on 98; that was the area where we were battling back and forth on the few 24 instances where staff felt that we needed to be a little bit more, I guess, lenient, in terms of the destruction 25 or damage to a single family or duplex-type situations. I would think, Robert, maybe if we're looking at it from the damage/destruction point of view, that maybe we can let the remodeling point of view... -15- 1 I don't know, you're going to allow it to be rebuilt and we'll see what the worse case scenario is, why 2 wouldn't you allow remodeling to take place within the limits (inaudible). 3 KYLE: I don't know... 4 BANEGAS: I think the expansion, though... 5 BINNEWEG: Mh hm, no, I don't think we can... 6 KYLE: That needs to be limited. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, then, so on page 98, are you going to take out that word "one time?" 8 KYLE: No, we're going to put a separate item. 9 BANEGAS: I think what we will do is concentrate on the "remodel" term somehow... 10 SEKLER: Flip "remodel" at the beginning of the sentence. 11 KYLE: Right. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. So, you're going to... 13 BANEGAS: Yeah. The expansion that kind of thing, we would allow one time up to 50%, but the 14 remodeling can happen. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Thank you Mr. Banegas. 16 BANEGAS: Now, if I could, Mr. Chairman, back on page 102; the difference there, I just want to point 17 out, now we're talking about the bottom of 102, we're talking about more than.... 18 KYLE: One. 19 BANEGAS: A single family scenario, again, we're also talking non-residential development; could be 20 commercial, law office, manufacturing, that kind of thing. And, what was agreed upon at the Committee 21 level was to allow remodeling to take place, especially on the interior building, we didn't... 22 KYLE: Care. 23 BANEGAS: ...we didn't care; the sky's the limit. If you wanted to put gold on your ceiling, go for it. We 24 also talked about expansion of the structure up to a set percentage, and that's why that's why that 25 remains intact. But the remodeling aspect in R1, R2, one time, on the inside and then if you want to spend a million bucks on it, so be it. But, you know, we wanted to be firm on the exterior. -16- • • 1 KYLE: But it's still the same point, though, we say you can only remodel one time. 2 BANEGAS: Yeah, we can... 3 SEKLER: Yeah. 4 KYLE: So we'll...the flip will be consistent. 5 SEKLER: And, if at any place, you would want to do more than one remodel, might be in a three building 6 commercial place... 7 BINNEWEG: Yeah. 8 SEKLER: ...so, this means... 9 KYLE: A whole new... 10 BINNEWEG: Yeah, having a new tenant, yeah. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right. 12 SEKLER: OK, technical comment number one, here's technical comment number two. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I though you got three of them? 14 SEKLER: Oh, sorry, I'm not there yet. I'll talk fast though. On...when you're talking about R-4, and this 15 was the contentious issue in the Committee, and my question is not going back to any of our contentions. 16 My questions is, on page 47 and page 52, you make a reference to a parcel...on page 52, for example, 17 for parcels zoned...or lots zoned R-4, prior to adoption of 2001 Zoning Code, the same language, sorry, 18 the maximum density allowed shall be no greater than was allowed pursuant to the '81 Zoning Code as 19 amended. This language is also on page 47 and, I was just...as an old drafter, I was wandering if 20 wouldn't it be more sensible to have a date certain there? Adoption of the 2001 Zoning Code is probably 21 a different date then the effective date of the 2001 Zoning Code, and then in the prior provision you say, 22 the 2001 Zoning Code, as amended. Could anybody other than maybe Mr. Kyle and Mr. Banegas look at 23 this and say, what day that was? 24 BANEGAS: We could... 25 SEKLER: And, that would affect somebody's property rights, really. -17- • 1 BANEGAS: We could add that. 2 SEKLER: Yeah, just as a matter of clarifying what applies when, you might want to have...if this were a 3 statute you were writing, you'd put a date specific in there. 4 KYLE: Just drop the parenthesis and put... 5 YOUNG: Yeah. 6 KYLE: September... 7 YOUNG: Yeah 8 KYLE: ...leave the wording the same, and just put the date in parenthesis. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: You've got two up, two dawn. 10 SEKLER: 1've got two out of two. The third thing is just a correction for the record. Actually, when you 11 talk about the partial destruction and getting rid of the cap on fixing parcels, that was one of our issues 12 earlier on, and we brought it to the Committee, and we appreciate the City going forward on that. 13 The last comment I would make is a major substance one, and I called Mr. Kyle earlier today, 14 please don't cry when I bring this back up again. The last section of this packet deals with nonconforming 15 uses. And, the nonconforming uses includes the provisions for compliance of the mobile homes. Once 16 again, I would ask, in behalf of our group, that you consider removing the requirement of mobile home 17 compliance plans and, secondly, providing a "grandfather" for mobile homes that are older mobile homes, 18 and not ask them to come up to the 2D01 Code. And, the reason I would do that is to say that the mobile 19 home parks are the folks who are least able to afford big changes, and new Cade actions. And, yet, 20 they're the only set of residential folks who are asked...who are not given a "grandfather" clause. They're 21 the only set of folks who are asked to come up to the highest hurdle, "you're older park, you must meet 22 the 2001 Cade stuff." That is impossible for some of these older parks, and I will...l'm going to defer to 23 Mr. Sid Evans, who is behind me, and he is one of those park owners. He want speak too long, he did 24 come down from Albuquerque tonight to tell you his situation. But, the problem with both the lack of the 25 "grandfathe-" clause and the compliance plans is that it is, one, it makes financing very uncertain on some of these things. -18- 1 Mr. Bullock would...if he were here tonight, he could not, he's out of town; he would tell you as a 2 banker, it's almost impossible for him to loan on a mobile home park right now., because what is 3 expected of them is so uncertain, and his appraisers cannot appraise. Secondly, there's a lot of mobile 4 home folks...owners out there, who feel that this places an unequal burden on them that is not placed on 5 other residential folks. For example, with Mr. Evans' park, he's required to provide off street parking for 6 his small park, whereas the apartments across the street are not. Mr. Evans has a small park, I won't 7 speak for him, I promise after this, I'll shut up. But, that would continue to be one of our major issues, 8 even though I'm not a mobile home park owner, and neither is Mr. Rawson, or Mr. Carmody, but we think 9 it's an important matter, because one of the concerns of this community is affordable housing, and 10 unfortunately, mobile homes are affordable housing. And, so I defer Mr. Evans, if I may. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, go ahead. 12 KYLE: I just wanted to jump in for a quick second, and Vince can correct me if I'm wrong. I think a 13 couple of points to that. For the most part, what we brought tonight was the residential sections. Now, 14 Vince included the entire nonconforming section, but we focused primarily on the residential side, 15 because the one issue we had talked about specifically about the remodeling, we went ahead and 16 included it in this go around of the nonconforming use. 17 I think as we get into the commercial packet, we'll probably be back with the nonconforming 18 section, because I think that it's likely that issues will come up that we'll address. So we're done talking 19 about that section. And, then, I also fully admit that mobile home parks are one of the...kind of the third 20 packet, I mean, along with the miscellaneous issues, we decided to do what we could agree with on the 21 residential, we're going to come forward with the commercial, and I think, as a group, we'll probably 22 reconvene certainly, and continue talking on some of those issues that we didn't come to agreement, and 23 see if there's consensus to be reached. But, I don't think as a Committee, we're done talking mobile 24 home parks either, I just wanted to put that out there before... 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And I appreciate that Robert, and I was trying to go through the minutes, because I thought this subject did come up about nonconforming... -19- C~ 1 BINNEWEG: It did. 2 YOUNG: It did 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ... and we pretty much said that it will be discussed at further length. Now, we've 4 got someone who came down from Albuquerque, I think we should show a little courtesy, sir, at listening 5 to what you have to say, or would you feel more comfortable talking to staff at a later time. You're here, 6 and you want to speak, you're more than welcome. 7 SID EVANS: Well, whatever it's appropriate, you know. My name is Sid Evans, I'm the owner of the $ College Crest Mobile Home Park on South Esping, and when I first got notice of this a week or two, 1 9 guess, or three. Obviously I was a little perturbed because based on what was proposed, well, they'll put 10 me out of business. 11 I was just reading here, minimum park size is going to be five acres, I don't have five acres. 12 Fortunately, I've been able to work with Mr. Kyle, and we addressed some issues, and I think we're 13 looking ahead cooperatively and getting some things done, and one of the major concerns, again, after 14 talking with Mr. Bullock and others, is the possibility of financing or the possible sell of a mobile home 15 park. When the aspect of what's happening with the zoning aspect of mobile homes, it becomes very 16 tenuous as to what your options, are and one of the major concerns is the lack of any kind of 17 "grandfathering." You're in a nonconforming position, but it's unknown if that, you know, perhaps could 18 be changed or revised or since you don't have the "grandfathering," you're just in a state of limbo. And, I 19 brought some information, but I can, you know, defer to it later if we're going to have another meeting as 20 to the aspect of affordable housing. I can share with you and then have it available in case, for some 21 reason, I couldn't make the subsequent meeting. 22 But, in October of 2003, when this was in the works, I took it upon myself to do a survey of our 23 tenants, at the College Crest Mobile Home Park. It is an older park, we've been in existence 40 plus 24 years, at the time it was constructed, it was, you know, in compliance but things have a way of changing. 25 And, when the issues, you know, came forward, I did this survey and you'll see the questions that I asked was,"if College Crest Mobile Home Park were to close and you had to move, what would be your options -20- v I Y Y • 1 and which do you think you would chose?" The options were: 1) Move to another mobile home park in 2 the City; 2) Move to another mobile home park outside the City; 3) Sell your mobile home park and buy 3 a conventional home; 4) Sell or rent a home or apartment; or 5) Other: Explain. 4 Obviously, these are identified but not by name, I didn't deem it appropriate, but it gives you an 5 idea of the socio-economical frame work or market needs, if you will, of some of the mobile home parks. 6 You know, we cater to a lower income group, they take as much pride in their home ownership as any 7 one in Telshor, in most instances there are exceptions, of course, but it's a way for some of them to meet 8 American dream to own their own home. And, some of them are elderly, as you'll see on here, there's a 9 disabled veteran. He indicates that he doesn't know where he'll go, you know, he'd have to move and 10 make a change, and he could be out on the street, be homeless. 11 Another aspect of mobile homes is if you have to move it's not like packing all your stuff up and 12 bringing back a pick up and, you know, and go to an apartment down the street. There's substantial 13 costs to moving mobile homes. You know, most of these people, you know, are pay check to pay check 14 and don't have the funds to, you know, make a move. If they had to move outside of the City because of 15 the zoning requirements, you know, they can't move within the City, the other thing is that if they have to 16 move, you know, what will their rent be when they move? A percent of their, you know, spendable 17 income is much different than, you know, what you have with apartment, home buyers or whatever. So, 18 it's a different market niche. 19 And, so I thought this would kind of give you an idea of, you know, kind of responses I've had, 20 and, some of them are concerned if they have to move, what will they do, because it's expensive. And, I 21 don't know how it comes into play, but I, you know, I discovered today that the City has an affordable 22 housing strategy, or department that they're promoting. And, one of the things I found on the website 23 today is that they want to increase affordable housing by 500 units, and it's one of their goals. But if the 24 impact of the zoning on the mobile homes is such that it's eliminating more than 500 affordable housing 25 units, then you're kind of working against yourself. -21- T ~. • ' 1 So, I guess what we're asking is, you know, what can we do to resolve some of these issues, and 2 more particularly, if we can get some kind of "grandfather" issue and know what we're dealing with, since 3 we do need to do some financing, go to the bankers, and tell them, "yeah, you can get a rough appraisal 4 of what you have and, you know, work within to meet the requirements for financing." As it is right now, 5 that's just an impossible situation. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: We appreciate your comments, Mr. Evans, and taking the time with this. I'm sure it 7 will help staff. But, you have to remember, we took what was easy to start with, which was just a few 8 items changes, you see how this went. This is going to entails a few meetings, quite a bit of time, I'm 9 sure staff will keep in touch with you, and you keep in touch with staff, and continue to give your input, 10 because this is what we need from the citizens, to know what we can do. What we need to do right now 11 is put the mobile home compliance and nonconformity kind of on the back burner, and go ahead with 12 what has been approved. 13 EVANS: I appreciate the opportunity and, you know... 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. 15 EVANS: ...thank specifically, Mr. Kyle, for working with me and, you know, there's no contentious issues 16 at this point that I'm aware of, so if we can resolve some of these things so that it can be more of a, if you 17 will, a level playing field and we know what the rules are, we can play by and take it to financing. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. Kyle? 19 KYLE: 1'll take just a second, then, we'll get back to where we were. The question I have, I guess, to you 20 and, even to Kim at some degree is, aside from the argument of why we're picking on mobile home parks; 21 let's remove that. The issues, you said, the banks don't want to loan money because of uncertainty. A 22 Nonconforming Status says, you can continue as you are as long as you don't change, and if we actually 23 enforced the nonconforming provision that existed in our previous honing Code, you couldn't even 24 replace a mobile home. It's just that we had it for 20 years, was never enforced, when you come down to 25 it. But, you say that you want something concrete so you'll know what the rules are. To me, it seems like the compliance plan is exactly what you want, because that and the agreement between the City and you, -22- ~r k ~ • 1 as the owner, as to what you have to do. You take that to the bank and says, if I gravel the road, if I 2 move the electrical line, if I put in a fire hydrant, that's it, and I'm good; that's all the City is going to 3 require me to do and I am deemed in compliance. That seems to me exactly the concrete document you 4 want to take to your banker. In essence, the document that Joe Blow can look at and say, "psst, that's 5 not very grievous, that's not so big of an issue," and do it. And, so I guess that's our approach to what is 6 the overall concern. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Now, what (inaudible). 8 SECKLER: But, I'll wrap up then. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 10 SECKLER: Mr. Chairman, just for a three sentence answer to Mr. Kyle. I think the problem is, you have 11 an agreement with the City in this letter of compliance, but the actual law is on the City's side. The Law 12 says you have to come up to 2001 Codes, and find a nice person, like a Robert Kyle, they'll work out 13 something with you, but if that's not the place, then somebody like Mr. Evans, is in a bad way, because 14 he has to meet 2001 Code stuff and if he doesn't he'll never be able to go from three to five acres, ever. 15 Absolute miracle, but I... 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That was three sentences 17 SECKLER: I'm sorry, one and a half more sentences? I appreciate the opportunity to bring this up, and 18 I...it's my fault we brought this up because I was afraid nonconforming use provision, which is the 19 provision that deals with this, would pass us by at this point and we'd never come back to it. I should 20 know better, but it struck me that you should swing and fall every time it got tossed. So, it's my fault, but I 21 appreciate Mr. Evans'...is not really a mobile home park guy, he's an insurance guy all day, and he drove 22 down to put in his two cents, if you still (inaudible). Thank you very much. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Thank you, Mr. Banegas? 24 BANEGAS: Just for reference, I hear what you're saying. The nonconforming section is in here. When 25 we go to Council, as a matter of procedure, what we do is we take the entire section, even though one or two pages, and maybe even of those, or maybe one or two paragraphs are modified, and we repeal, and -23- r ~ y' • ` ^ 1 replace the entire section. So, if you see that, don't think your chance for addressing anything is over. I 2 just throw that out for future reference. 3 KYLE: I was just going to, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to exactly clarify what Mr. Banegas said. The 4 legislative format you see here will probably be different, actually, than what goes to Council, because 5 we'll just stick those entire sections and readapt entire sections. We won't go with astrike-out and 6 highlight, because our City Clerk says we can't do that anymore. So, yeah, don't freak out when a whole 7 new nonconforming packet goes, we're going to come back and revisit it, as necessary. Yeah, we've 8 been advised we can't just strike a sentence and highlight this addition. 9 CHAIR BUCWMAN: OK. 10 KYLE: And I hear what she says. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Does anybody else in the audience wish to make a comment? All 12 right. 13 RAWSON: I want to say on behalf of the Home Builders Association, we appreciate the time to set up 14 this meeting on this and that we've all worked over nine months on this and it hasn't crumbled out. 15 There's been a lot of pains on both sides to come to this. And, a lot of change in there, but there is a lot 16 of good change for the citizens of l.as Cruces, and the business people, and the staff who work on this on 17 a daily basis. And it should, in my opinion, probably remove about 70 to 80% of the requests for zone 18 changes and issues that are coming through staff on a monthly basis, and then going on to Council. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Rawson. OK. Now, I'll come back to the Commission. Any 20 comments? Yes, Mr. Young. 21 YOUNG: This is small, maybe even petty, one of the terms, and I know the definition section cannot be 22 exhaustive, but far instance, the term "Youth Hostel" is not defined in your definitions. And there maybe 23 people that don't know what a "Youth Hostel" is. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: What page are you talking about? 25 YOUNG: Well, it's mentioned on 44, but it is not included in the definition section. BINNEWEG: Yeah, how would you define it? -24- -• • . • 1 RAWSON: I've heard of a hostile youth... 2 BINNEWEG: A bunch of rooms with one bathroom down the hall? 3 YOUNG: It's a European term. 4 81NNEWEG: But can you imagine having one in Las Cruces. 5 RAWSON: In Italy. 6 BINNEWEG: Right, Italy, yeah, any time. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Young, you and I both had quite a few questions when we were $ talking about the changes in R-2 and R-3, from the 12 to 15. 9 YOUNG: Yes. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Are you comfortable with those changes? 11 YOUNG: It's fine with me. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Any other commissioners? 13 BINNEWEG: I'm glad to see the R-4 defined as minimum of 10, maximum defined by developer because 14 why, there's no way you can put an absolute number... 15 RAWSON: Right. 16 BINNEWEG: ...on that 17 YOUNG: But once you have plans... 18 BINNEWEG: Yeah, yeah. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Yes? Let me check my minutes, what are we doing next? 20 BINNEWEG: Discussion of other items. That's it. 21 CHAIR YOUNG: If we're done with that, we're essentially done. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, we did talk about something, taking this information and putting it on the 23 Consent Agenda for next Tuesday. I'm personally not comfortable with the bus.... 24 CAMUNEZ: Shelters? 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Shelters. I would like them on the Consent until we can see it. Are you comfortable with these changes going on the Consent Agenda? -25- • y F ~ ( 3 1 YOUNG: Yes, because they can always be taken off. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. That way it give us a chance to look at it. OK? Any other items to discuss? I 3 know someone stole my minutes, I had put them in a stack there. Again, thank you for driving dawn here, 4 we appreciate it, it makes out job easier. 5 EVANS: Thank you for the time. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: It is 6:59, we are adjourned. Thank you again. 7 8 9 10 C AI N 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -26-