Loading...
05/25/2004~~- .' 1 REGULAR MEETING 2 OF THE 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 FOR THE 5 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 6 City Council Chambers 7 May 25, 2004 $ 6:00 pm 9 10 COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: 11 Bruce Buchman, Chair 12 Elizabeth Camur~ez 13 Nancy Binneweg 14 William Ludtke 15 Henry Young 16 Harry Sanchez 17 1$ STAFF PRESENT: 19 Robert Kyle, Planner 20 Kirk Clifton, Planner 21 Lani Ruth McCarspn, Planner 22 Richard Jacquez, Legal Department 23 Travis Brown, Fire Department 24 Carmen Alicia Lucero, Recording Secretary 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Ladies and Gentlemen, I'd like to call the meeting for the Planning and Zoning Commission. First order of business before we start the meeting, I'd like to welcome our newest -1- T Y ~ x 1 Commissioner, Mr. Harry Sanchez. We're welcoming you to the Baard, I hope you'll have a lot of fun, like 2 we've had... 3 HARRY SANCHEZ: Thank you. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...and will continue to have. The first order of business is the minutes from the 5 meeting, the regular meeting on April 27t" , 2004. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? I 6 would like to ask your advice; when the minutes are approved, with no corrections, do we have to vote on 7 them? And checking with staff, they can just be approved as presented. Now, in the past you've... 8 HENRY YOUNG: That's...that is true, but we have, as a matter of process, and the way we've set it up, 9 we always have voted on it... 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: You always have voted on them... 11 YOUNG: ...always voted on them, after roll call. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: QK, so in that case, I will accept a motion to approve the minutes. 13 NANCY BINNEWEG: So moved. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 15 YOUNG: Second. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I will call roll. 17 Commissioner Binneweg? 18 BINNEWEG: Aye. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Young? 20 YOUNG: Aye. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 22 YOUNG: Aye. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 24 CAMUNEZ: Aye. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And, Commissioner Ludtke? -2- f ~ ~? 1 LUDTKE: Aye. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes Aye. 3 Just to kind of give the audience a little break-down on the Consent Agenda, which we're coming to next. 4 This Consent Agenda allows items to be passed without any discussion. These are items that the staff 5 has reviewed, and have found acceptable, and there's been no unfavorable comment. Now, any item on fi the Consent Agenda can be removed by a member of the Commission, or it can be removed by anybody 7 in the audience. If you want to hear the particular case in detail, all you have to da is raise your hand, 8 state your name, and it will come off the Consent Agenda. g You can see on the board here, we have the items on the Consent Agenda. Oh, before I get into 10 that, just to give you arun-down, we have three zone changes tonight, two plat approvals, one master 11 plan, and one infill development. 12 OK, the first case listed on the Consent Agenda is PUD-04-02, this is a zone change in Sonoma 13 Ranch; it's called The Boulders II. Is there anyone in the audience who would like this case taken off the 14 Consent Agenda? OK, seeing no one, I'll ask the Commissioners; any Commissioner wants this off the 15 Agenda? All right. 16 Next case is Case 22560, this is also a zone change for 1647 Mahaney brive; anybody want to 17 take this off the Consent Agenda in the public? Seeing no one, Commissioners? All right. 1$ Next case is IDP-18; this is an infill development on the southeast corner of North Santa Fe 19 Street and Augustine Avenue. Is there anyone that wants to see this taken off the Consent Agenda? 20 Commissioners? All right. 21 The last case is Case S-04-035; it's a subdivision plat approval far Four Hills Subdivision on 22 Saturn Circle. Again, anybody in the audience want this to come off the Consent Agenda? 23 Commissioners? In that case, the four items will remain on the Consent Agenda, and I will then need a 24 motion to approve the Agenda as it has been presented. 25 CAMUNEZ: I make a motion to approve the Agenda as presented. -3- + T al ~ ~ ~ - 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Second? 2 BINNEWEG: Second. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. I'll call the roll. 4 Commissioner Binneweg? 5 BINNEWEG: Aye. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Young? 7 YOUNG: Aye. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 9 SANCHEZ: Aye. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 11 CAMUNI=Z: Aye. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And, Commissioner Ludtke? 13 LUDTKE: Aye. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes Aye, also. 15 OK. Under the New Business; let me just give a little bit of ground rules under the New Business... 16 KYLE: Mr. Chairman? 17 CHAIR 6UCHMAN: Oh, yes, sorry. Staff, that's right, you wanted to mention something. 18 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, if I may, for the benefit of the public who may be here for the case; at the April 27tH 19 Planning and .Zoning Commission Hearing, consideration of the Mesquite Overlay, the Mesquite Historic 20 District Overlay Plan and Ordinance was before the Commission. That case at that time was postponed 21 to tonight's meeting; however, the reason for the postponement was to allow further discussion between 22 interested parties and hopefully some consensus could be reached. That has not occurred yet, and as 23 such, staff is advising the Commission it's being withdrawn from consideration right now, in its entirety, so 24 will not be heard tonight. And before it's brought back far the Commission's consideration, we will again 25 send out proper notification and advertise the case for the neighborhood. -4- e 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Thank you. The ground rules on the New Business; we welcome your 2 comments, if you have a desire to speak concerning a case, after the presenter is finished, and you have 3 a representative that wants to speak on your behalf, that representative will be allowed 15 minutes to 4 speak, If you have individual comments, we'll allow each person three minutes, on their individual 5 comments. So, you get an additional three minutes, we do ask you to kind of limit your comments so we 6 don't have repetition of the same thing over and over again. 7 OK, in that case, that brings us to the first case which is 22557, and is the applicant ready? $ MICHI=LLE MARSHALL: Do we get up first? 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, you get up first. Get up, give your name, speak into the microphone. Now, 10 remember one thing too, we do have to record everything that is said, so when you do come up, please 11 give us your name so the secretary can get it correct in the minutes. Thank you, go ahead. 12 GARY RODGERS: Mr. Commissioner...Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'm Gary Rodgers, with the 13 president...l"m the President of the Home Builders Association. I'm joined here this evening by several 14 members of the leadership team and our executive officer. We are pleased to present our request for the 15 rezoning of the approximately 7.35 acres at 2811 North Main Street, which is awned by the members of 16 the Las Cruces Home Builders Association. 17 We have subdivided the properky into two parcels and developed plans to build a new 6,000 sq. 1$ ft. office building of the...on the northwest portion; approximately 3.325 acres. We are requesting O-2 19 zoning for our building parcel which is currently zoned R-3. The parcel will also provide for future 20 expansion of our offices. The remaining partian, when combined, totally...totals approximately 3.5 acres 21 and we are seeking C-3 zoning far that parcel form the current C-2 and R-3. That parcel is currently on 22 the market conditioned on approval of the zoning. 23 We have met with the staff and agreed with them on the conditions they have recommended for 24 bath parcels. We believe that our building will be a very attractive asset to the neighborhood. We mailed 25 over 200 invitations to the neighborhood neighbors far a neighborhood meeting that was held on March 18t", 2004 at the Elks Club. Three neighbors attended the meeting. One had no problems with our plans, -5- , r ~ ~ ~ ~/ 1 one was concerned about our buffer...buffering, and the other was concerned about whether the parcel 2 for sale would allow a nightclub. 3 Thank you for allowing our comments; we will be glad to ask any...answer any questions, if you 4 have any. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Rodgers. Ms. McCarson? 6 LANI RUTH MCCARSON: Thank you Chairman and Commissioners; as you see that this is Case 7 22557, request for multiple zone changes. The subject property, as you can see on the overhead, is 8 located along North Main Street just south...southwest of Temple Street. Currently, the property is 9 vacant, it consists of approximately seven acres and it's currently zoned R-3 and C-2 portion along North 10 Main Street. 11 This is an aerial photo of the property. You can see North Main, this is a little old, so this isn't 12 built out yet, but there's businesses obviously on North Main, and the property does abut the residential 13 neighborhood to the west of this property. 14 In 1998, the R-3 portion of this property, approximately 4.5 acres was zoned O-1 Conditional for 15 the Home Builders Association offices. The Condition dealt with the buffering, and landscaping, and 1fi screen requirements. The zoning did expired after two years because the property was not developed 17 and the landscaping was not installed. And, according to the Code, the zoning would revert back to what 18 it was originally, which was the R-3. Now, as you've heard from the Home Builder's President, they're 19 requesting similar zoning like they received in 1988. This time is the O-2 request for approximately 3.3 20 acres for their offices. And, the remaining portion of the property requesting to be zoned C-3. 21 Approximately 2.5 acres of this property is already zoned C-2. According to the 2001 Zoning 22 Code, this property would need to be converted to the C-3 zoning designation. They are requesting, 23 although, to add an additional one acre of property that is currently zoned R-3 be switched out to C-3 24 also. 25 As, Mr. Rodgers indicated, they did hold a neighborhood meeting in March with few representation from the neighborhood at that meeting. -6- 1 c 1 Here's the proposed zoning that they are requesting, the O-2 portion here, again, approximately 2 3.3 acres and C-3 portion here, approximately 3.5 acres. 3 This is the proposed site plan for the O-2 portion only of the property where their proposed offices 4 will be located; approximately 6,000 sq. ft. single story office building, located here with the required 5 parking lot and the landscaping improvements located along here. 6 Staff is recommending approval of the C-3 and the O-2 zoning districts, with conditions. Those 7 conditions being; 45 foot maximum height allowed, staff to have final site plan or architectural approval of 8 buildings on both the C-3 and the O-2 portions of the property, and the architectural treatments will be 9 placed on the buildings facing the adjacent residential areas to lift the impact of the building. So you 10 won't have like, the back of the building, an ugly back of the building facing the residential...existing 11 residential area. 12 Staff has not been contacted by any surrounding property owners regarding this case, and I can 13 answer any questions you might have. 14 CHAIR BUCWMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody in the public that wishes to address this case, or say 15 something? 16 JOHN MORGAN: Yes sir. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Would you please come to the microphone, state your name. 18 MORGAN: Hello Commissioners, my name is John Morgan, I own lot 13 on Topley Avenue; you've got a 19 map in front of you. I have no objections to the proposed O-2; actually, I'm happy to have the Home 20 Owners Association building there. I do have some objections to the C-3. My property backs up to this 21 property; my backyard will face the building that's being built. The real concern I have is with the zoning 22 from C-2 to C-3. C-2 is more restrictive, C-3 is less restrictive. There can be a nightclub there or 23 a...some other undesirable business that divides the property there. 24 My problem with the Home Builders Association is they bought this property knowing the zoning. 25 They're developing the proposed O-2 in a compatible use, I feel. I'm a civil engineer with community planning experience. But the proposed C-3, in my opinion, is incompatible, and they're doing that -7- ti Y .K. r 1 to...they're selling the property to maximize their profits, and they're going to maximize their profits at my 2 expense. Basically, my property could end up being devalued because a business comes in there that's 3 undesirable; and it's that uncertainty that I find unacceptable and I know in talking with other folks in the 4 area, although there hasn't been many objections, as so typical, community folks don't normally come to 5 those meetings or object. I do; I'm directly affected by this zoning change and would like, hopefully you 6 guys to represent the property owners in the area. 7 I know the Mome Builders Association is probably big and well known in this area, and hopefully, 8 the property wouldn't turn into something undesirable, but I feel, you know, when they're selling it and 9 they're doing it for profit, they knew the zoning when they bought it, I don't feel a change is justified. 10 I'm very happy with C-2 zoning, a low intensity or medium intensity, an office building, a bank, 11 something like that. I really don't want a Burger King or a bar there, and those are all potential uses. 12 And, again, if they were trying to develop this, and 1 knew the plan, I would be more amenable to 13 accepting their zoning changes, but they're selling this property for profit. 14 Again, its...the change is going to benefit them at my expense, and I think my neighbors share in 15 that concern. And, hopefully, that will be denied. 16 And, again, I would support a C-2; I think the C-2 to C-3, the reason they're wanting a C-3, it will 17 sell, it's compatible within any business, or it accepts more businesses. 18 And, again, this is a residential neighborhood, a lot of backyards back up to this and I don't really 19 want a Burger King or a bar there. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Morgan. Is there anyone else? Yes. 21 MICHELE MARSHALL: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Michele Marshall with Home Builders 22 Association. I'm the Executive Officer and we, of course, appreciate the comments of any of the 23 neighbors that would come forward, but I just wanted to address a couple of things. 24 As I understand it, we are na longer eligible far C-2 zoning on that property. So, it isn't a matter 25 of our being able to keep that, is that correct? C-2 zoning? And, they may want to address that. -$- ti. ~ • 1 And then, I wanted to let you know that the Home Builders Association is a nonprofit organization; 2 we are not selling that property to make a profit. As a matter of fact, we have to raise, through fund 3 raising projects, 64% of our operating revenues. And, our members work very, very hard to do that. If we 4 can't sell that property, what it will mean is that we will have some funds to build our office building. And, 5 we won't by any means have all of the funds we need. We are relying on donations from our volunteers 6 and our members to get that building built. We have worked with the staff on conditions for that property 7 and have been willing to accede to the conditions, and so that's about all I have to say. Thank you. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. 9 MCCARSON: Chairman, Commissioners, just to clarify; the portion of the property that is currently zoned 10 C-2 is approximately 2.5 acres. According to the 2001 Zoning Code, any property that's C-2 now, would 11 have a maximum acreage size of one acre. So, if it's over that one acre size, then it would need to be 12 converted to comply with the new zone...the new 2001 Zoning Code to a C-3 designation. However, they 13 are adding the small triangular piece that's currently zoned R-3 along with the rest of this sort of upper 14 piece of the property to their requested C-3 portion, so it's a point to keep that in mind. 15 This lower portion of the property is already zoned C-2, let me go back, maybe this will... This 16 lower portion of the property along North Main Street, 2.5 acres, is zoned C-2, so to convert that to C-3 17 would be purely because of the new Zoning Code, the 2001 Zoning Code, but this little triangular piece in 18 the corner is in addition to the commercial request that they're asking for. Does that make sense? 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Thank you. 20 MORGAN: I have an additional comment on that. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Go ahead, make it short. 22 MORGAN: OK. Could I see the slide please, that shows the triangle piece there, the R-3? I just want to 23 say, I may not be saying it correctly that they want to make a profit, but obviously zoning C-3 will increase 24 their resale value of the property and will help them build their new building. 25 The reason that triangle piece is in the R-3 is basically, because you don't have residential areas next to your commercial property; you need a buffer and that's why that triangle buffered my property. -9- r ~ 1 1 And, the C-3 to C-2, I just would really like to see something more of a bank, an office building, 2 less of a high traffic, high intensity C-3 zoning, so... 3 And, again, my neighbors aren't here, but I think they...if they understood the implications half the 4 time, all those things, they would be here, and I think I share their concerns. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you again. 6 MORGAN: Thanks. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, Ma'am? 8 LIBBY PRUITT: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners... 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Please state your name, please. 10 PRUITT: Oh, I'm sorry, my name is Libby Pruitt, I am a member of the Las Cruces Home Builders 11 Association, and have served in various capacities with the Home Builders Association. I might point out 12 to you and to the gentleman who was...is a neighbor there to the property, that the R-3 property, which 13 does...or the R-3 zoning, which does...is contiguous with his property, could very well be used for an 14 apartment complex, a large apartment complex in fact. 15 Could one of you on the staff help me out in terms of how many apartments might be allowed per 16 acre in an R-3 zone? 17 MCCARSON: Chairman, Commissioners, currently the R-3 zoning district would allow up to 30 dwelling 18 units per acre. So, after September 2004, that would go down slightly, I'd have to double check those 19 figures, but currently, under the zoning that they hold, it would be 30 units per acre. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 21 PRUITT: At what height, can you tell me that? I apologize for not having these numbers readily available 22 myself, but I think that you can see, and perhaps even the neighbors can see that 30 units per acre of 23 apartments, at who knows what height at this point, might be far less desirable than a well buffered 24 business in that particular area. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I think we understand what you're trying to convey to us. -10- ~ k ~ • 1 PRUITT: Thank you. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the height of it, Ms. McCarson? 3 MCCARSON: The maximum height in an R-3 is 35 feet, that's the same as in any of the residential R-1 a, 4 it's the same, it's 35 also. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Thank you. Is there anybody else, anything new from the audience? 6 OK, at this time I'll close the audience participation and turn to the Commissioners. 7 Commissioners, questions. 8 SANCHEZ: My question, if I may, for Mr. Rodgers. You said that there's a sale pending in regards to 9 being zoned to R...to C-3? No? 10 RODGERS: (Speaking away from the microphone, inaudible.) 11 SANCHEZ: OK. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Would you come up to the microphone, please Mr. Rodgers, so we can get this... 13 RODGERS: No, the zoning would be conditional...the sale would be conditional on the zoning. 14 SANCHEZ: OK. So you're asking for a zoning change in order to have the sale go through? 15 RODGERS: In order to sell it. 16 SANCHEZ: In order to sell it... 17 RODGERS: Mh hm. 18 SANCHEZ: ...as C-3? 19 RODGERS: Mh hm, right? 20 SANCHEZ: Right. And, you won't be able to sell it as C-2 as is? 21 RODGERS: We can't keep the C-2, it's the problem. 22 SANCHEZ: OK. Can you answer... 23 BINNEWEG: It falls under a different. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Commissioner Binneweg? 25 BINNEWEG: I was just going to say that the property falls into a different category now, according to the new zoning of 2001, and my question to staff is, does C-3 open up a lot mare conflicting uses than C-2? -11- f 1 ~ ~ 1 I think we just went through this same thing with a property just up the street. 2 MCCARSON: Exactly... 3 BINNEWEG: ...a few months ago. 4 MCCARSON: Yeah. Just for clarification, the only portion of the property that's truly being converted 5 from the C-2 to the C-3 for the sole purposes of the 2001 Zoning Code, only because of its acreage, is 6 only this lower piece, not this little triangular piece. They're adding that, again, to go along with the C-3 7 piece, but because it is over the one acre, it does need to be converted to the C-3 to comply with the new 8 Zoning Code requirements. If not, than it's out of compliance and as soon as someone came in for a 9 building permit on that property, we would request, or force them to come into compliance with the new 10 Code. And then, it would result in having a C-3 district being requested. 11 On the other part of your question, you're right, virtually, the C-2 and the C-3 list are the same, 12 there's only a few items that change the C-2 versus the C-3 and only because of the size. Because the 13 C-3 property would be a little bit larger, it has a few more uses out of, like a country club, or a golf course, 14 or things like that that you wouldn't be able to put on a smaller than an acre piece of land. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other Commissioners? 16 SANCHEZ: So then, it is my understanding that irregardless of its past now or later, it will have to came 17 up C-3 zoning to be... 18 MCCARSON: Right, only... 19 SANCHEZ: ...in compliance with the 2001... 20 MCCARSON: Right, Chairman Buchman, Commissioner Sanchez, that's correct; only the 2.5 acre 21 portion that's already zoned C-2. 22 SANCHEZ: Two. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: If there's no other comments from the Commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to 24 approve Case 22557. 25 YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Case 22557, with the following conditions; number one, that there is a 45 foot maximum height. Two, that staff will have final site plan and architectural approval; -12- • • 1 and three, that architectural treatments will be placed on buildings facing the adjacent residential areas so 2 that the back of the building does not negatively affect the residential area. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Is there a second? 4 CAMUNEZ: 1 second it. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. At this time, I'll call the roll. 6 Commissioner Binneweg? 7 BINNEWEG: Aye. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Based on... 9 BINNEWEG: Oh, sorry, based on discussion, and findings. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 11 Commissioner Young? 12 YOUNG: Aye, based on findings, discussion, and site visit. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 14 SANCHEZ: Aye, based on findings, and recommendations. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camunez? 1fi CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on site visit, and findings. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And, Commissioner Ludtke? 1$ LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes Aye, based on site visit and discussion tonight. Thank you. 20 That brings us to Case 5-02-081. Is the applicant ready to present this, please? 21 GREG BYERS: My name is Greg Byers, I'm with Summit Engineering, I'm here to represent this case for 22 the owner, Pamela Elliot. 23 Like I said, the owner's Pamela Elliot. The project location is on Del Rey Boulevard, just north of 24 Highway 70. This is going to be a townhouse subdivision. It is approximately 5.96 acres with a total of 37 25 lots proposed for the subdivision. -13- s . • • 1 I was hoping you could see this, but it's kind of hard to see. What we're proposing is a, like I said, 2 it's a townhouse subdivision that'll access on Del Rey at two locations. We will be putting in, or installing 3 the extension of Mercury BouI...Mercury Lane, as well as a new road that'll end at a cul-de-sac, that will 4 be called Sunburst Court. It is cross-tied through there with an additional road. All these roads will meet 5 City requirements for residential roadways. These are all local minor roadways. On Del Rey, we will be 6 putting in tapered turning lanes to extend to the existing pavement as well as a 25 foot radius pavement 7 extending full depth to reach the roadway. $ The drainage for the project is...there's two major ponding areas that are planned. There will be 9 no on-lot ponding. Discharge from these ponds will discharge into the Sand Hill Arroyo, which is adjacent 10 to the north side of the property. 11 Utilities far the subdivision, there's an existing sewer line that runs right through the middle of the 12 subdivision, unfortunately it's a little bit too high for us to access, so it will be extending sewer service 13 down Del Rey Boulevard within the Del Rey right-of-way to an additional sewer line. Water is accessible 14 as well as gas for the subdivision. It will also be extended up Mercury Lane for future use. The adjacent 15 property owner on the south side will have access to utilities for his future development. 16 There's also a park that is associated with this project. The developments for that park will be 17 included in the construction of the subdivision. 1$ Are there any questions that you have? 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Not at this time, we'll come back to you, if we have some. Mr. Clifton? 20 KIRK CLIFTON: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, just as a point of interest before 21 I begin. I should mention that I do live in the Northpointe area; however, I am outside of the legally 22 prescribed notification boundary. I disclosed this to the Community Development Director who had no 23 issues with this matter as well as the Commission here; however, if there are any members of the 24 Commission or the public who might feel I might have a bias slant towards this case, I'd be more than 25 happy to step aside and let another staff person take it over. I should say that I'm neutral to this case, in fact, my wife and I are not members of the neighborhood association. -14- r . • • 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: We have no problem Mr. Clifton. 2 CLIFTON: OK. Thank you. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Wait a minute, anybody in the audience have any problem with it? You may 4 continue, sir. 5 CLIFTON: Thank you. As stated, this is a request for a preliminary plat approval of Northpointe 6 Subdivision Unit 5, submitted by Pamela Elliot. The property is located on the northeast corner of Del 7 Rey Boulevard and Mercury Lane, which is not yet constructed. The property contains 6.205 ± acres, 8 zoned R-3. They are proposing 37 lots. 9 You can see the property is highlighted in blue. Mercury Lane does not yet exist, but the 10 developer will be constructing 100% of the property of Mercury Lane adjacent to her development. The 11 remaining portion of Mercury will presumably be built when this developer comes in with his development. 12 And, actually this was subdivided at a preliminary plat stage a number of years ago, but has since 13 expired. So, I would envision this would be before the Commission within the next six months. 14 Aerial photo as usual, it's a 1999 aerial, but really hasn't changed too much from what's existing. 15 This area down here is now fully developed with the exception of two lots in the corner. Predominantly 16 townhouses are located easterly and adjacent to the development, and within this newer portion they are 17 detached patio homes, which are zero lot line. This is an assisted living facility, and I believe, this is 18 Mesilla Valley Hospital, in this area. 19 This preliminary plat is a little bit clear and it shows you how the lots will be laid out within the 20 subdivision. Thirty-seven lots, as Mr. Byers stated. 21 The drainage facilities; there will be two ponding areas; one located here at this corner, and the 22 other at this corner. 23 The cul-de-sac will be constructed to meet City design standards far these townhouse lots. 24 The park area, as previously mentioned, is within this area of the...it's actually outside of the 25 development, but when they final plat the subdivision, we will require that they include it, so it can be shown as a dedicated park area to the City of Las Cruces. -15- a • ~ 1 This is the strip of land that is presently owned by the adjacent developer. He has agreed to, 2 essentially, give this property to Ms. Elliot for the purposes of construction of Mercury Lane, which as 3 stated earlier, she will be constructing 100% of this road adjacent to her development pursuant to the City 4 design standards. 5 This is the approved Master Plan for the Northpointe Subdivision, Unit 3, 4, and 5. It is the most 6 recent current Master Plan that we go by. As you can see, the proposed preliminary plat substantially 7 complies to the area, in fact, when this was approved at the time, they were, by the zoning of the time 8 allowed to go up to 30 units per acre, this development is merely a 5.96 dwelling units per acre. As 9 currently zoned with the R-3, I should mention that apartment would be a permitted use within this area. 10 The DRC has reviewed this extensibly, as well as staff, as you can see by the case number, it 11 has an 02 on it, sa it has gone through staff review; it's in substantial compliance all the way around. 12 As Mr. Byers has mentioned, the park issue that was addressed in July of 2002, with the Las 13 Cruces City Council and the neighborhood association. That agreement basically brought forth the issue 14 of the development of the park, and requires the developer to provide some improvements to the park; it 15 will remain essentially as open space, untouched, natural area, but there will be same improvements 16 made to the park. 17 Also, as part of the agreement, the developer will not be required to provide adjacent 18 improvements to Del Rey Boulevard, which is classified as a principal arterial. And, she will not be 19 required to pay the park fees required for each lot as they come in for building permits. 20 With that said, the DRC, upon reviewing this, would like to closely tie this park issue to the 21 preliminary plat. So, they are recommending conditional approval with the following conditions: 22 23 24 1) The development construction of the adjacent open space must occur at time of subdivision construction of Northpointe Subdivision Unit 5, 25 2) The subdivision construction drawings must include the construction drawings for the adjacent open space. For example, landscape plan, irrigation plan, et cetera. -16- r • • 1 3) The developer will be required to obtain the necessary right-of-way, 50 feet from Mercury 2 Lane adjacent to the proposed Northpointe Subdivision Unit 5 from the southerly adjacent property owner 3 at time of final plat, and 4 4) The developer of Northpointe Subdivision Unit 5 will be required to construct 100% of Mercury 5 Lane adjacent to the proposed preliminary plat pursuant to the City of Las Cruces design standards. 6 And, that condition four we want that in place, it's already a Code requirement that you do that, 7 but we just want to make sure that is reiterated through the preliminary plat process. 8 g And if it pleases the Commission, I do have a conceptual drawing of the park, however, it is 10 merely conceptual at this point and would be required to be approved by the City's Landscape architect. 11 Thank you. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Clifton. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to address 13 this case? Yes Ma'am, please come forward, state your name. 14 ANN MCCARTWY: My name is Ann McCarthy, I'm the registered agent for Northpointe Neighborhood 15 Corporation, I live at 3527 Northpointe Drive. We want to thank the staff for the work that they have done 16 on this and especially for the conditions they have added to this proposal, as we have worked very long 17 and very hard over the years to get the park included. 1 g We have been before City Council twice, we have been before the Planning and honing 1 g Commission several times, and this issue will now finally be settled, with the approval of the 20 neighborhood. And, we thank you very much for this. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address this? Hearing none, I will 22 close the participation, the audience part, and turn to the Commissioners. Commissioners, comments. 23 Yes, Mr....Commissioner Ludtke? 24 LUDTKE: Kirk, will there be street lights at these entrances at Del Rey, for those intersections, far that 25 traffic. -17- • • 1 CLIFTON: Mr. Chair, that would be in conformance with design standards. I don't...l'm not quite sure 2 what Mr. Byers has drawn up yet. Would you elaborate? 3 BYERS: Yes, we would do whatever is required as per City standards. If the City staff feels that we need 4 it, we will include those. 5 CLIFTON: There was a waiver to Del Rey improvement so that would include street lighting. So that the 6 street lights would have to come off of Mercury, and the entrance, I guess it's Starburst Lane into the 7 development. 8 BYERS: The right-of-way along Del Rey is extremely wide, it's 120 foot right-of-way. Where the turn 9 outs for Mercury Lane and Starburst occur, if we need to put street lights at those intersections, at those 10 radii points, we most certainly do that, but it would be quite a ways back away from the existing pavement 11 on Del Rey. 12 CLIFTON: Does that, at all, answer your question, Commissioner? 13 LUDTKE: I live in that area, I'm familiar with that traffic, and I'm familiar with the problem with that traffic 14 and cars intersecting there as it is. And, the hospital across the street from where you are developing, 15 and I'm concerned with that lighting issue. And, I was also surprised to see the City waive away from a 16 developer, improvements to that highway, as they've done such a great jab with other developers and 17 other developers have done a wonderful job of making improvements in the City; as far as sidewalks and 18 road improvements and lighting and so forth. It's a shame to see this occurs in this situation, far me. 19 That's all. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioners, any other comments? Hearing none, at this time I will entertain a 21 motion to approve Case 5-02-081. 22 BINNEWEG: Mr. Chair, I move that we approve Case 5-02-081, to include the four conditions as read by 23 staff into the record. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Does she have to read those conditions into the... 25 BINNEWEG: They already did. -18- • • 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 2 CLIFTON: So noted. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: So noted. Is there a second? 4 CAMUNEZ: I second it. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any further discussion? I'll call the roll. 6 Commissioner Binneweg? 7 BINNEWEG: Aye. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Based on... 9 BINNEWEG: Based on site visit, discussion, and findings. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Young? 11 YOUNG: Aye, for the same stated reasons. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 13 SANCHEZ: Aye, based on recommendations by DRC. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camuriez? 15 CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on discussion, and findings. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And, Commissioner Ludtke? 17 LUDTKE: Reluctant Aye on findings. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes Aye, based on site visits, and discussion tonight. Thank you. 19 And, the final case, S-04-045. Is the applicant ready, please? 20 MARTY PILLAR: Hello, I'm Marty Pillar, with Zia Engineering, representing Mr. Bill Cupit developer of 21 the proposed Legends West Subdivision. Tonight we're before the Commission for the Master Plan 22 approval of 99.166 acres of property. The property's outlined in green. It is immediately adjacent to the 23 Field of Dreams Football Stadium, and north of the Picacho Middle School. 24 The property has Motel Boulevard a principal arterial running along north-south through the 25 property. Yashiro Drive is a collector that runs south of the football stadium and ties into the subdivision. -19- •. r • 1 We've been working with City staff and Las Cruces MPO staff to extend Tashiro Boulevard as a 2 collector to the west, tying in...tying it to Roadrunner Lane. In our submittal...Master Plan submittal, we 3 have two options for Tashiro Drive. We put in two options on that, at the recommendation of staff. 4 One of our options...in this...in this option you can see how Tashiro Boulevard is curving up 5 towards the north. And, what we've done on that is the...on the west boundary of the property is the 6 Mesilla Lateral. And, we took Tashiro toward an existing crossing is built and permitted with EBID at the 7 lateral. During discussion at DRC staff looked at how the road...Tashiro was curving up and the property 8 immediately north of the 99 acres is not own currently at this time by the developer, so staff was looking 9 at a separate option for Tashiro Boulevard be put into the Master Plan. And that is why we've shown 10 Option B, where we have Tashiro going through this property directly to the west side tying, in what could 11 potentially tie in to Roadrunner Lane. 12 Motel Boulevard will extend north through the property as a principal arterial. There's an existing 13 42' interceptor sewer that Motel Boulevard would follow in that alignment. 14 Currently the 99 acre parcel is zoned R-1 a and R-3; the development, as proposed, is for all R- 15 1a, single family residential affordable housing. 16 And, our drainage; we are looking at working in conjunction with Las Cruces Public Schools, and 17 City of Las Cruces Regional Drainage Facilities. How we're doing this is, since this area is farmland 18 currently, it's very flat and can be very tough far drainage. We are looking at pumping water out via force 19 mains and utilizing existing drainage structures located on the west side of the football stadium; we will 20 use that to convey storm water to Phase V. Phase V area is currently zoned R-1 a, but the development 21 of that area is being worked on between the developer of the Las Cruces Public Schools and City of Las 22 Cruces. 23 Mr. Cupit is going to be donating an amphitheatre to the Las Cruces Public Schools, and he's 24 going to be building that on that property, Phase V, and we're also looking at that Phase V property to be 25 used as open space recreational. So, we're looking at is having it as multi-use park area and as our -20- • • 1 drainage, we'll be overflowing drainage through that area and dumping into the Mesilla Drain east of 2 there. 3 We have met with Henry Magallanez of EBID, to discuss drainage issues and to discuss Tashiro 4 Road where it will be crossing the Mesilla Lateral on the west side. And, we've had these meetings with 5 Robert Garza of Public Works, in attendance as well. 6 And, right now, that's what we are proposing, this Master Plan for this parcel, if you have any 7 questions, please let me know. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Fuller. 9 Mrs. McCarson? 10 MCCARSON: Thank you Chairman, and Commissioners. I'm just going to run briefly through this, Marty 11 did pretty much...said everything I was going to go through. 12 Again, the vicinity map of the subject property contains approximately 99 acres. Motel Boulevard, 13 again, running through the property and proposed Tashiro Road extension connecting to Roadrunner 14 Lane on the west side. 15 The blue line, indicated here, is the City limits. You can see a portion of the property lies on the 16 northern boundary of the City limits as well as the western boundary. 17 An aerial photo of the property; the majority of the property surrounding the subject property is 18 vacant to the north. Again, the Field of Dreams Stadium's located near the east of this property and the 19 middle school to the south. 20 As Mr. Pillar indicated, the proposed Master Plan is showing two alternates for the proposed 21 extension of Tashiro Drive. The MPO is currently undertaking a study of the area and will, in cooperation 22 with the developer at a later date, determine the exact extension...the exact alignment of Tashiro Drive. 23 Alternate B, again, showing Tashiro...proposed Tashiro Drive extension running immediately east-west to 24 Roadrunner Lane. 25 -21- • • 1 The Phase V, as Mr. Pillar mentioned of the development as proposed on single family 2 development along with the rest of the project or an open space area. And, again, to be determined at a 3 later date, in cooperation with Las Cruces Public Schools, the City Parks Department, and the developer. 4 The DRC is recommending approval of the Master Plan. Because of its conceptual nature, the 5 DRC felt that the issues regarding Tashiro Drive and the Phase V development of open space area of a 6 park or some kind of path or recreational area with the schools could be determined and laid out at 7 preliminary plat level, which would be also brought to the Commission at a later date for approval. 8 Staff has not been contacted by any surrounding property owners, and I can answer any 9 questions you might have. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. 11 Is there any member of the public that wishes to discuss this? Yes sir, please come forward, state your 12 name. 13 FRANK GUTIERREZ: My name is Frank Gutierrez and I'm a realtor with Steinbarn Realtors, and we 14 represent the property Peter Wierenga, (unintelligible) LLC, which is just immediately to the south of 15 Phase IV. 16 The concerns, or questions we have mostly were not in opposition or anything so much as the 17 parcel where Phase IV is at this point is a little bit higher and my guess is that they will have to take care 18 of drainage problems, because the percolation of that soil there is not real good, and there'll be a concern 19 with what we have. In fact, we're constructing a wall along that, what would be the southern portion, that 20 Phase IV, at this point in time. And, addressing the drainage and things like that; that'll be the issue, I 21 think that, we would be concerned with. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 23 GUTIERREZ: That percolation's bad. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. Fuller, would you like to comment on that at this time? 25 PILLAR: Yes sir, Mr. Chairman, Commission, we will be looking at taking care of the drainage within the Master Planned area, meeting City design standards. And, what we are proposing to do is to install -22- • • 1 conventional storm drain, gravity flow storm drain; take east to west wells where we can pump the water 2 out through the conveyance...convey it through the school's existing pond. And what we'll have is low 3 flow channel going through Phase V where we then have a pipe connected to the Mesilla Drain to get the 4 water...the storm run off out of the area. So, as far as on lot ponding, there'll be very minimal on lot 5 ponds, we will not have any regional ponds within any of the phases. A regional ponding will be looking 6 to go through the existing ponding area as conveyance to Phase V and use that as our retention area, 7 and then, that will be dumped into the Mesilla Drain. And, that's how we're going to be taking care of 8 drainage. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the public that has a concern? 10 Yes sir, please come forward. 11 JAMES JERNIGAN: My name is James Jernigan, I live immediately west of the property across the 12 Mesilla Canal. And, the canal, I don't think was addressed in the presentation here; that the west 13 boundary of this property has EBID property adjacent to it between it and Roadrunner Lane. 14 I'm curious as to what the future plans are for that canal, probably leave it open or build a wall 15 between it? Since I live immediately to the west, under Alternate B, which is not showing on that current 16 map; the Tashiro Drive would dead end into my property. 17 So, I am concerned about the development of it. I would recommend that, if they're going to 18 proceed with this, is to go with Alternate A. 19 I'd like to make a comment; I do not believe that Roadrunner Lane in its current condition is 20 capable of receiving any additional traffic. And for several reasons, the road surface and also the fact 21 that that Roadrunner Lane is really a part of the...well, t was built as part of the embankment far that 22 canal, and was not structured to handle that kind of traffic or even heavy traffic. Even currently now, with 23 traffic on that road, it will...there's some subsidence, if you will, of earth moving either moving into the 24 canal or into other properties adjacent to it. 25 So, I would suggest that anything that...any plan to put additional traffic would be seriously considered in terms of the nature of that roadway and what the future of it is. -23- • • 1 The traffic is not shown there, clearly to me Tashiro Drive going northward on this Alternate A; is 2 it going to dead end there or where is the traffic going to go, what are the future plans? 3 My suggestion is that we hold some of this Phase III, Phase IV development that is showed, in 4 abeyance until the traffic situation can be worked out, and the road construction be reckoned with there. 5 I sort of question the drainage situation; I get apprehensive about ponding and then pumping, 6 because if we have a good extended rain or whatever, being on low line areas, I wonder if it...will the 7 pumps ever be able to prevent flooding, if we don't have gravity drainage all the way to the river. 8 So, I have a little bit of a concern there. I think that will go along with the concern of the 9 gentleman previous to me. 10 That's in essence part of it, and so I have some recommendations there that some of this be 11 considered further and I'd like to know more about what their time schedule is on Phase III and Phase IV 12 since that does impact me. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you for your concerns. Mr. Fuller. 14 PILLAR: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I will take a few items at a time. Mesilla Lateral is 15 located outside of the boundary of the proposed Master Plan; that property is owned by Elephant Butte 16 Irrigation District and we would not be doing any construction or alteration to the existing lateral, as it 17 exists today. 18 Number two, as far as Tashiro Road, in our meetings with City staff and with the Fire Department, 19 Tashiro is looked at...is looking to be a secondary access far Phases III and IV. There will be a crash 20 gate put on the existing crossing. The way we are looking at developing this subdivision is that there will 21 not be any traffic allowed onto Roadrunner Lane `cause the concerns have been brought up, as far as the 22 shape of Roadrunner Lane, the width of it, that it...just as this gentleman said, it cannot handle any 23 additional traffic. So, the proposal is to not have residential traffic be able to access Roadrunner Lane. 24 There will be a crash gate there and that will be worked out with the Fire Department and other 25 emergency personnel, for their secondary access use only. -24- • f 1 As far as schedule, we are looking to begin construction on Phase I and Phase II, and have those 2 fully constructed by the year's end. Phase III and IV will be following very shortly behind. One of the 3 comments that we have received from the Fire Department for bringing Phase III and IV forward as 4 Preliminary Plat, that Tashiro would have to be connected through to Roadrunner Lane and have the 5 crash gate installed, the emergency crash gate installed. 6 What that would be is, the property that is currently north of this parcel, the road, or, excuse 7 me...Tashiro would be installed as a passable 20 foot wide secondary access into the area. 8 The, you know, as far as drainage wise, we're looking at for the pumps and that to be able to take 9 the storm out in 24 hours so that we're ready for the next day when it rains again, if it rains two days in a 10 row. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. 12 Are there any other comments from the audience? Yes Ma'am. 13 COLLBEN SHAMAN: Good evening Commissioners, my name is Colleen Shaman... 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 15 SHAMAN: ...I'm also one of the neighbors. I'd like to indulge...if you could indulge me please, in the 16 beginning here. May I ask what does the Master Plan entail, I mean, what happens if it's approved or 17 disapproved; I would like just a real rough indication of what this process is, because I also have some 18 comments concerning the information that we have presently. That's something that could... 19 CWAIR BUCHMAN; OK, what... 20 SHAMAN: ...very quickly... 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: ...we'll list your comments and then come back to what you want, an explanation of 22 the Master Plan, OK... 23 SHAMAN: Well, my concern is not understanding what type of obligations an approved Master Plan 24 contains or doesn't contain. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. -25- • • 1 SHAMAN: OK. I think Mr. Jernigan did address one of my concerns which is that in Alternate B, they 2 have indicated that Tashiro is extended to the western boundary of the subdivision, which for all intents 3 and purposes, looks like a way to tie in Roadrunner Lane. Indeed, Mr. FuII...Fuller...? 4 PILLAR: Pillar. 5 SHAMAN: ...Mr. Pillar has indicated a crash gate scenario. I'm assuming this will be in conjunction with 6 EBID, 'cause that is...the levee is obviously owned by them at this paint. 7 Mr. Jernigan did do a good job handling...or discussing the concerns about Roadrunner Lane, but 8 I've been wondering, is...well, OK, I'd like to know if, first of, if there are concerns about Roadrunner 9 Lane. Do we know for sure if Alternate B is planned...how do we know when those concerns will be 10 addressed? Do...how do we know how to follow this? I mean, are we talking about an intersection? Are 11 we talking about filling in the canal? Are we talking about upgrading the Roadrunner Lane to Picacho 12 Street intersection, which presently is also a sort of an unsafe scenario as it is, without any additional 13 traffic on it? 14 And, so, those are my concerns about that road. 15 Beyond that, I'm...l guess I'm here advocating a rural atmosphere. Presently, this land is farm 16 land; there are small farm holdings nearby, meaning, say, an owner who has one or two or five acres, 17 who has also decided to continue farming. There's tractors on these roads, there are people out walking 18 around with their shovel maintaining their irrigation ditches. Presently we have a view of the mountains, 19 which is wonderful, obviously. I'm concerned as to whether there might be lighting in this subdivision. I 20 don't know enough about this subdivision. Maybe this is way too early in the game, but as to building 21 heights, as to lighting that might be allowed or disallowed for the benefit, the aesthetic benefit of the other 22 neighbors. 23 Also, the open areas that were briefly discussed, I mean, I'm promoting those as well, but yet I 24 don't know anything about them within this subdivision. I think that is partially why I'm asking what a 25 Master Plan entails. -26- • • 1 Another concern that I had, are there any environmental studies required, or have they been 2 done. The reason I say that is, just for myself, walking through the neighborhood or walking, you know, 3 my dog, I'm aware that the, at least one species of the little Burrowing owls lives out in that area, 4 presently. I don't know if the endangered one or not, but I'm aware that they're there. 5 So, other than the big concern, which is the long term roadway...the foreseeable future of the 6 roads, such as Motel Boulevard, for example. It's not indicated on these maps, maybe it's not necessary 7 but at some point, I think it would be important for us all to... 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, but you have to understand that these are not points of concerns of this 9 zoning and this Master Plan right now. 10 SHAMAN: No, no, I... 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, I understand what you're saying. 12 SHAMAN: The zoning I understand quite clearly, now the Master Plan I didn't know how that fits in. If we 13 have other information regarding where future roadways are going to be, and how this subdivision will tie 14 in to it, I mean, I need to find out that information for myself. If you already have that, that's my question. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. At this time, to answer your questions, I think call on Mr. Clifton to kind of 1Ei review the questions you had about the Master Plan and...Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Mrs. McCarron. 17 SHAMAN: Oh, OK, thank you so much. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Let us go through and see if she can answer your questions. 19 MCCARSON: Just for informational purposes, the Master Plan process is a...well, it is a subdivision 2a process. It is a conceptual tool, it's a guiding document for future development. After the Master Plan, or 21 if the Master Plan is approved, the developer's consultant will continue on with Preliminary Plats for each 22 phase, and at that point, it will be crystal clear where the road is going, and haw wide it is, and what it will 23 constructed of. It will be crystal clear how the drainage will be handled, how the open space will be 24 handled. All of the items that she was inquiring about will be address at Preliminary Plat stage and there 25 will be re-notification at that time, in the same manner that it was done this time for the Master Plan -27- y • • 1 approval. And, it will be heard by the Commission again; each Preliminary Plat. And, in this case you 2 can be looking at, at least five Preliminary Plats, maybe more. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And, one last question, environmental studies; are we required? 4 MCCARSON: The City doesn't have any requirements for its environmental studies. I mean, as far 5 as...if there is some kind of endangered species on the property, I'm sure there is some kind of federal, 6 you know, regulations, I'm uncertain on that. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. All right, thank you. 8 MCCARSON: Wait, I'm sorry, Chairman, I forgot one more comment she made. The last issue that she 9 made regarding the roadways, and you know, she wanted to know where they were going, and what they 10 were going to do, and the long range plans. There is a department, I guess you could say, in our offices, 11 or in the region, it's called the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and it's their sole function to study 12 these roadways, and alignments, and connections, and the long range, you know, the 20 or 40 year plans 13 of where these things are happening. And, they have all the documents dawn at the Community 14 Development Department for review or purchase. And, there are numerous staff people down at our 15 offices that could go over those plans with her, or anybody that was interested. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that has anything new to 17 bring forward? OK, at that time, I'll close it to the audience participation, and turn to the Commissioners. 18 Commissioners, do we have any questions, comments, discussions? 19 SANCHEZ: Mr. Chairman. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camur~ez, please. 21 CAMUNEZ: I've got to say that I lived right in that are years ago, where the neighbors are complaining 22 about. My house was directly west of that lateral now, and I can't tell you haw many times it flooded us 23 out to where we finally moved out of there. So, my concern now is, when these homes are built on there, 24 how far away are they going to be built from Roadrunner, because I agree with the lady here, I don't think 25 Roadrunner is equipped to handle that much traffic there. I lived there for 10 years, and I know what Roadrunner is like. -28- • • 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. Fuller. 2 PILLAR: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Camunez, the traffic from this development will not be able to get 3 onto Roadrunner Lane. 4 CAMUNEZ: But how far from Roadrunner Lane will the homes be, you know, from Roadrunner? 5 PILLAR: OK. Adjacent to the Mesilla Lateral, the lots will back up to the Mesilla Lateral, they'll be 6 directly adjacent to the Lateral. 7 CAMUIVEZ: Well, let's hope that EBID has done something to where that canal doesn't break as often as 8 it did when 1 lived there. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Commissioner Sanchez? 10 SANCHEZ: My concern, again, I think it's dealing with ingress and egress, I mean, it's 644 lots is a lot of 11 homes in that area, which I think is much needed, but traffic, I think, is the overall concern and there was 12 going through my mind as Mr. Jorgensen and Ms. Shaman got up and spoke, so... I do understand this is 13 a Master Plan and through Preliminary Plats that these issues will get addressed, because getting in 14 there and getting out, even though it's a crash gate, and as a police office and being in some areas, I've 15 been in area where we just can't get in there quick enough. So that would be my concern for such a large 16 amount of houses going in there. And, I think that that should be addressed. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Other Commissioners? Commissioner Ludtke? 18 LUDTKE: One mare time, Alternate A and Alternate B, when do we decide, that's to decide which way 19 that's going? What...? No? 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mrs. McCarson? 21 LUDTKE: You've got Alternate A and Alternate B, I... 22 MCCARSON: Chairman, Commissioner Ludtke, those...the future alignment of Tashiro will be decided 23 when they come in with the Preliminary Plats, which you will have to approve. So, for example, they 24 could come in with Phase I and II and not have decided the exact alignment, but as soon as they come in 25 with Phase III and IV, that will have to be decided, because it will directly impact where the road's going to go. -29- ~ r ' ' r 1 LUDTKE: That's quite a ways down the road, then? 2 MCCARSON: I would imagine so, based on the time limit they stated. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: It would be up to a year. 4 LUDTKE: Thank you. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other Commissioners? 6 Yes, ga ahead, Commissioner Sanchez? 7 SANCHEZ: Has there been any other alternative routes planned or looked at, anything tying in $ maybe...l'm not too familiar with this area other than going to Picacho Middle School, and I do remember 9 Motel Boulevard back then wasn't very desirable. Is there anything tie up to, I guess, what would it be, 10 the west towards Valley, or the...actually east? Do we've gat any alternate...any back up plan, if we 11 need more roads coming into this development? 12 PILLAR: Yes, yes, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Sanchez. The roadways that extend west from Valley 13 Drive, there's Tashiro and then the next one up is, I believe, it's McClure that dead ends into the Mobil 14 Home Park which is right next to the new soccer field, so, that one will not be extended. Next road up is 15 Bruins Lane, which is proposed to be extended into this development, as we go outside of the City limits. 16 And, then there's Isaacs Lane, which is on the north side of Mayfield High School that also connects to 17 here. That could connect into this area. And then, currently, the MPO is looking at this area and one of 18 the alternates that they have for roadway access is the...there lies the Outfall Channel as a roadway, 19 connecting into this area. So, yes, there will be four roadways connecting into this area as it develops. 20 SANCHEZ: I think that'll be good; it'll kind of help address the concerns that these people brought up 21 today in regards to Roadrunner. Thank you. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 23 LUDTKE: Mr. Fuller, is there a possibility that this Tashiro Drive could loop back around when we see 24 the Preliminaries come in? 25 PILLAR: What the... -30- ~ T ~ • • 1 LUDTKE: Loop back around into the area and back... 2 PILLAR: Loop... 3 LUDTKE: ...and back out again... 4 PILLAR: ...looping back around is not going to be in compliance with what the MPO is looking at. The 5 MPO is looking to make the...Tashiro extend to Roadrunner Lane, you know, the possibility of making the 6 connection there. Within this development as the property further to the north and outside the City limits 7 is brought into this development, yes, we do have loop system going back into Motel Boulevard. And, 8 that loop system is residential roads. We have Tashiro cutting through as a collector and then Motel 9 Boulevard, the principal arterial, splits through this property. 10 LUDTKE: Thank you. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, Commissioner Young? 12 YQUNG: Mr. Chairman, and Commissioner Ludtke, the reason that Tashiro was designed in this fashion 13 instead of with the loop is to provide the fire department with a secondary access in case of emergency, 14 so it couldn't loop and still satisfy the fire department. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you Commissioner Young. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Binneweg? 17 BINNEWEG: I can remember attending MPO meetings years ago when they were talking about this area 18 and it's always speculative until the people who actually own the property come in with their Master Plan. 19 And, so they have their, you know, plans they would like to see, but you never know when people are 20 going to start coming in to start developing. 21 So, now, this big 90, you know almost 100 acre parcel comes in and all of a sudden we're looking 22 at, "Oh, my gosh, you know, 700 houses, all the traffic, all that." 23 The thing is, you know, the plans for the infrastructure have to have something to motivate them. 24 We can't go in and make Motel Boulevard an expressway all the way up through the farmland, you know, 25 it doesn't make any sense. So, I can see how...my initial thought was Alternate B was great, but then -31- . • • 1 Alternate A shows that it's going in and it's going to give access to the properties to the north, when they 2 start developing, because otherwise, they're landlocked and only can be accessed off Roadrunner. 3 So...this is going to trigger the really now dawn to the wire creative thinking about how to get 4 free...how to get, not freeways, but large collectors and roads to service the people who really aren't 5 there right now. 6 In that aerial view they say there's nothing there, but that's incorrect, it's all farmland. I mean, 7 farmland's something, it's not nothing there. But it certainly doesn't demand road service like this 100 8 acre development...100 parcel development will be...100 acre, yes. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: So, what you're saying is we'll be discussing this mare, won't we. 10 CAMUNEZ: Mh hm. 11 BINNEWEG: Certainly. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other Commissioners? 13 CAMUNEZ: I have a question. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, Commissioner Camunez? 15 CAMUNEZ: Roadrunner...does the...you neighbors that live there, is that still part of EBID, property? 16 MR. JERNIGAN SPEAKING FROM THE AUDIENCE AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE:: No, it's the 17 County. 1$ CAMUNEZ: It's a County road now? 19 MR. JERNIGAN SPEAKING FROM THE AUDIENCE AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE: On what side 20 of it? (Inaudible). On the east side of the canal (inaudible)... if they're going to tie in to that, we're gonna 21 have to bridge that canal. 22 CAMUNEZ: Yes, because... 23 MR JERNINGAN SPEAKING FROM THE AUDIENCE AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE: 24 It's not up to me what they plan there (inaudible.) 25 CAMUNEZ: Well, that was another...that brings up another question, staff, if Tashiro does come into where it cuts into Roadrunner, I guess that would have to be a County maintained road, because it -32- i ~ • • 1 belonged to...if it was EBIC7 property, we'd have a little problem there getting permission from EBID to 2 use that as a roadway. Am I correct, or not? 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. Kyle. 4 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, if I can try to address part of that property...part of that question. 5 The property to the south, the subdivision Mr. Gutierrez was discussing...was much the same situation. 6 They needed more than one way into the subdivision, which came from the south. They obtained, those 7 property owners, obtained a right of use permit from EBID and actually constructed a crossing over the 8 Lateral, and there's a two lane concrete crossing out there. 9 I would envision that, should the requirement that Tashiro tie into Roadrunner, which I know is the 10 long term MPO desire, that it at some point, when and if Roadrunner can handle that type of traffic, that it 11 is connected as a City street, obviously the City will be working with EBID to acquire the property, or to 12 acquire whatever right-of-use permits are necessary. 13 For the purposes of providing the secondary access and maybe Marty can address that, I believe 14 the same situation would apply; the applicants and/or the City would work with EBID to acquire right-of- 15 use permit for the property. They won't dedicate the property, but they will, you know, and have in the 16 past, granted right of use permit that do provide access over the Lateral. 17 In fact, there are several other points further north that's potentially one option with Option A 18 where Tashiro may continue up to the North. There are existing lateral crossings further to the north that, 19 potentially, could be tied into as they exist in the field today. 20 CAMUNEZ: Thank you. 21 PILLAR: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. On Alternate A, what we are proposing is to tie into an existing 22 crossing that is built at this time. When you look at the map here where the bar scale is, right underneath 23 the north arrow, that's about the approximate location of the existing crossing of the Mesilla Lateral. And, 24 that is the preferred alternate for the developer, is to tie Tashiro into Roadrunner Lane at that point due to 25 the existing crossing already being built and permitted by Elephant Butte Irrigation District. -33- r z • • 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. Thank you. Any other Commissioner? All right, then, at that time then I will 2 entertain a motion on Case S-05-045. 3 BINNEWEG: I move that we approve Case S-04-045. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 5 SANCHEZ: I second. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I will call the roll. 7 Commissioner Binneweg? 8 BINNEWEG: Aye,... 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Based on... 10 BINNEWEG: ...based on the information presented tonight, and the information presented in our packet. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Commissioner Young? 12 Commissioner Young? 13 YOUNG: Aye, based on findings, and discussion. 14 CHAIR 6UCHMAN: Commissioner Sanchez? 15 SANCHEZ: Aye, based on findings, and discussion. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camur~ez? 17 CAMUIVEZ: Aye, based on findings and discussion,. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke? 19 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes Aye, based on discussion, site visit, and findings tonight. 21 Thank you. 22 At this time is there any other business to be brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission? 23 Anybody in the public that would like to make any comments? 24 Yes sir, come forward. 25 JERNIGAN: Yes, my name is James Jernigan, on this previous thing. What...? you approved that, but I'm a little confused. Maybe you can inform me, but neither Alternate A nor l3 was... -34- • ~ f .. • • 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That's still... 2 JERNIGAN: That's still open? 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, that's still open. Yes. 4 JERNIGAN: OK, that's what I wanted... 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. 6 JERNIGAN: ...to know, and there's some other matters, I guess, that are still open and... 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK. 8 JERNIGAN: ...will be address as it comes out? 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: OK, anything else new? Staff comments? Commissioners? I'll entertain a motion 10 to adourn. 11 YOUNG: So moved. 12 BINNEWEG: Second. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: At 7:20. We are adjourned. 14 15 Adjourned at 7:20. 16 17 18 19 CHAIR 20 21 22 23 24 25 -35-