Loading...
04/27/2004 1 REGULAR MEETING 2 OF THE 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 FOR THE 5 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 6 City Council Chambers 7 April 27, 2004 8 6:00 pm 9 10 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 11 Henry Young, Chair 12 Quentin Ford 13 William Ludtke 14 Bruce Buchman 15 Nancy Binneweg 16 Elizabeth Camunez 17 18 STAFF PRESENT: 19 Robert Kyle, Planner 20 Kirk Clifton, Planner 21 Brian Harper, Associate Planner 22 Richard Jacquez, Legal Department 23 Travis Brown, Fire Department 24 Dan Soriano, Traffic Engineer ~- Public Works Department 25 Carmen Alicia Lucero, Recording Secretary -1- ~. r 1 2 CHAIR HENRY YOUNG: Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen, let me call the meeting of the 3 Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Commission to order for the April meeting. 4 We are going to have a few things that are different tonight, and we have a rather large 5 crowd sa bear with us. 6 If anyone does not have an agenda, there are some up here in front, please feel free to 7 came and pick up an agenda so that you can follow along with the cases as we come to them. ~ As far as our rules, we basically fallow Robert's Rules of Order. When it comes to the 9 section for public participation, I will allow each individual in the public up to three minutes to 10 speak concerning the case. If there is a community representative that is speaking for 11 everyone, I will give that person 15 minutes maximum, and if there is anyone that has anything 12 additional which the spokesman did not cover, they wiN be allowed an additional minute for any 13 new information. 14 OK, with that, let's go ahead. For our consideration tonight we have five subdivision 15 cases, one zone change, one Sign Code amendment, one plan for adoption and one Zoning 16 Code amendment. 1 ~ Having said that, what we need to do is adopt the Statement Of Reasonable Notice far 18 Meetings. ~ 9 Is there a motion tv do this? 20 BRUCE BUCHMAN: I make a motion we adopt the Statement Of Reasonable Notices for 21 Meetings. 22 ELIZABETH CAMUNEZ: I second it. 23 CHAIR YOUNG: Ok, let me call the roll. Commissioner Buchman: 24 BUCHMAN: Aye. 25 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Bennigan? NANCY BINNEWEG: Binneweg, Aye. -2- • • 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Yeah, Binneweg, sorry. 2 BUCHMAN: He's been eating out... 3 CHAIR YOUNG: I've been gone a long time, right? ~ BINNEWEG: Yeah. 5 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Ford? fi QUENTIN FORD: Aye. 7 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Ludtke? $ LUDTKE: Aye. 9 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Camunez? 1o CAMUNEZ: Aye. 11 CHAIR YOUNG: And the Chair votes Aye. 12 Robert, did you say I needed to read it, or just...? OK. Thank you. Then, we will sign 13 those and that is adopted. 14 Having done that, I think we will turn to the agenda; and looking at the agenda, I would 15 like to see the agenda changed. We have our annual election of officers this evening and it is 1 fi slated right now for number one under New Business. I would like to hear a motion that we 17 either put it at the beginning of the meeting or at the end, and it is up to you Commissioners, I 18 have no preference, but I'd like to do it up front or at the end. Is there a motion concerning 19 changing the agenda to reflect that? 20 LUDTKE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to move this election of officers for the 21 Planning and Zoning Commission to the end of the meeting. 22 FORD: Second. 23 CHAIR YOUNG: Any further discussion? 24 OK. Let me call the roll. Commissioner Buchman? 25 BUCHMAN: Aye. CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Binneweg? -3- . • • 1 BINNEWEG: Aye. 2 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Ford? 3 FORD: Aye. 4 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Ludtke? 5 LUDTKE: Aye. 6 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Camunez? 7 CAMUNEZ: Aye. $ CHAIR YOUNG: And the Chair votes Aye. 9 With that, that brings us to our minutes far March. Are there any additions or 10 corrections? 11 BINNEWEG: I was reading along on page 59, again on 65. There, talking about...the minutes 12 say "curve cuts" and it should be "curb." 13 CHAIR YOUNG: Mh hm. 14 BINNEWEG: Just so we know what we're talking about. 15 CHAIR YOUNG: OK. Thank you. Any additional comments or corrections? 16 FORD: Move approval of the minutes as circulated. 17 LUDTKE: Second. 18 CHAIR YOUNG: Or as amended? 19 FORD: OK, as amended. 20 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. 21 FORD: The circulated minutes as amended. 22 CHAIR YOUNG: OK. Thank you, and there was a second. 23 Any further discussion? 24 Commissioner Buchman? 25 BUCHMAN: Aye. CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Binneweg? -4- • • 1 BINNEWEG: Aye. 2 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Ford? 3 FORD: Aye 4 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Ludtke? 5 LUDTKE: Aye. 6 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Camunez? 7 CAMUNEZ: Aye. 8 CHAIR YOUNG: And the Chair will abstain. 9 BUCHMAN: Chairman Young? 10 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes. 11 BUCHMAN: May I make a comment to Mrs. Lucero, Recording Secretary? And, I noticed on 12 this particular minutes for March 22~d, we didn't have a time of adjournment, and I think that 13 that's something that, just to make it legal and everything, in the future we should have the time 14 of adjournment right at the end. And, I dan't remember what time it was, I know it was long, so 15 I...no changes for this, but just in the future I think that's something we should have in it. 1fi CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. 17 OK. The first section then of our agenda is Withdrawals. And, I'll turn it over to staff to 18 comment on Case 22555. 19 ROBERT KYLE: Mr. Chairman, just far the benefit of the public, Case 22555, which was a 20 zoning change or conversion for the Holly Gardens Mobile Home Park at 850 Holly Drive has 21 been withdrawn by the applicants at this time and staff is, at this point in time, has no projected 22 date for returning to the Commission with that particular proposal. If at some point it is 23 resurrected, we will, of course, provide ample notice to the neighborhood in accordance with the 24 requirements of the Zoning Code and State Law. 25 CHAIR YOUNG: OK. We also have two cases on the Postponements section. -5- • • 1 KYLE: Correct, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners Case CP-04-01 and ZCA-04-02, the Mesquite 2 Neighborhood Plan and corresponding Ordinance for the Zoning Cade, the Mesquite 3 Neighborhood area is being postponed until the May 25th, 2004 Public Hearing. It's been 4 postponed far ongoing meetings between the Mesquite business community and as well as 5 members of staff and Las Esperanzas. So, we will not have any discussion regarding the 5 Mesquite Neighborhood plan at the meeting this evening. 7 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. 8 BUCHMAN: Mr. Kyle, would you repeat the second number, please? ZCA... 9 KYLE: ZCA-04-02. 1o BUCHMAN: On my worksheet, it says 01. 11 BINNEWEG: There's also... 12 BUCHMAN: Just wanted to get it... 13 KYLE: It's the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code... 14 BUCHMAN: Yes. 15 KYLE: ...Chapter 3$... 16 BUCHMAN: Yes. 17 KYLE: ...for the Mesquite Neighborhood Plan... 18 BUCHMAN: My glasses are dirty, I can't see that far. 19 KYLE: Can't see it? 20 BUCHMAN: But it is supposed to be 02? 21 KYLE: I believe it is 02. 22 BUCHMAN: OK. 23 CHAIR YOUNG: OK. That takes us to the Consent Agenda. We have two cases here. Let me 24 read the abstract for Case S-04-030: A request for Preliminary Plat approval of the property 25 known as Twilight Campana Estates. The subject property is located east of Roadrunner Parkway, along the extension of Sonoma Springs Avenue. The applicant is proposing to create -6- ~~ r ~ • 1 32 lots on 6.39 ± acres (far a density of 5 dwelling units per acre). The subject property is 2 zoned R-1, I'm sorry, R-1 b (Single Family High Density Residential). Submitted by 3 ScanlonNl/hite Engineering for Philippou, LLC. 4 Is there anyone in the public that would like to hear this case in more depth? 5 Seeing no one, I'll ask the Commissioners the same thing. 6 OK. Takes us to case two on Consent. This is SCA-04-02: This is a proposal to amend 7 Chapter 36 of the Las Cruces Municipal Code for the purpose of adding the word "caucus" to 8 the political sign requirements. Submitted by the City of Las Cruces. 9 Once again, anyone in the audience who would like to hear this in more depth? Seeing no one, 10 Commissioners? 11 OK. Then it is an the Consent Agenda. 12 FORD: Mr. Chairman? 13 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes, sir? 14 FORD: I would like to suggest that Case 5-04-031, number six, on New Business, be put on 15 the Consent Agenda also. 16 CHAIR YOUNG: In that case, since Commissioner Ford has requested it, let me read the 17 abstract and we'll take it from there. Case S-04-031: This is a request for preliminary plat 18 approval for Dos Suenos Estates, Phases 1-3. The subject property is located between the 19 proposed extension of McGuffy Street and Mesa Grande Drive and borders the north side of 20 Jornada North Subdivision. The plat proposes 367 residential lots on 139.67 acres for a gross 21 density of 2.63 dwelling acres...dwellings per acre. The property is zoned EE (Equestrian 22 Estates), R-1c (Single Family Low Density) and R-1a (Single Family Medium Density). 23 Submitted by Scanlon White, Inc., for Katerina Inc., property owner. 24 Is there anyone in the public that would like to hear this case in its entirety? 25 Yes, Mr. Kyle? -7- • • 1 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, if there's nobody in the audience who wants to hear it in depth or the 2 Council, or the Commission does not want to hear the full whole case, I would like to address 3 the fact that there is a member from the public that did have a question of staff regarding this 4 proposal. I don't know that we need to do a whole presentation, but if you want it to remain on 5 the Consent Agenda, I would like to indicate for the record that the properties contained within 6 the electric line easement that runs through the property, it would be the City's position, or 7 staff's position that the land be included in the adjacent lot and NOT dedicated to the City. The $ City staff does not want that property dedicated for our maintenance and ownership. 9 CHAIR YOUNG: So that would actually remain as part of the subdivision? 10 KYLE: That's correct; it would remain within the adjacent lots as opposed to being dedicated to 11 the city. 12 CHAIR YOUNG: OK, thank you. 13 TED SCANLON: Mr. Chairman, for the records, Ted Scanlon of Scanlon White, Inc. I'm the 14 developer's representative and we would have no problem what so ever with that condition 15 being imposed, in fact we would, you know, for purposes of the record, formally agree to that. 16 CHAIR YOUNG: OK, thank you. We've covered almost all of the bases, the only thing that 17 we've done wrong, we've already approved an amended agenda, now this is a new 18 amendment. Commissioners, is there any problem with any of you in putting this on Consent? 19 BUCHMAN: I don't, Chairman Young, I don't have a problem, I did have a comment that 20 wanted to make... 21 CHAIR YOUNG: OK. 22 BUCHMAN: ...and this was concerning the last paragraph. "Staff does not want to work with 23 the developer as part of the development appears to be an attractive nuisance for speeding." 24 And the comment I was gonna make is I am familiar with the new speed bumps that they put in 25 on Holly, and there's three of them on Holly... CHAIR YOUNG: Mh hm. -8- • ~ 1 BUCHMAN: .,.and there are two on Sundown Road. Living near Sundown, my daughter lives 2 near Holly, I've observed these and if there's any problem, rather than taking away land to make 3 could de sacs or something, I would think that the speed bumps would be considered, because 4 they definitely slow down traffic. That was the only comment that I would've made... 5 CHAIR YOUNG: OK. 6 BUCHMAN: .,.if there was a discussion, I have no objection to it being placed on Consent. 7 CHAIR YOUNG: OK, thank you. Mr. Kyle? 8 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, just to address that concern. Staff, as indicated in the 9 packet, staff's gonna work with the developer, traffic ops. (Operations), and look at numerous 10 options, and certainly that would be one that we would look at as a...as a means to slow down 11 and discourage speeding along those roads. 12 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. 13 So, Commissioners, you don't have a problem? I didn't hear anyone having a problem 14 with putting that on Consent. But, since we are amending the Agenda once more, let's have a 15 motion to, just to cover ourselves, for the new amendment to the Agenda and revote on the 16 Agenda. 17 FORD: Mr. Chairman, we do nat have an Agenda to amend. 18 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes, we do. 19 BINNEWEG: We haven't adopted the Agenda yet? 20 FORD: No, we've done nothing, we've just talked about it. 21 BINNEWEG: Haven't adopted the Agenda yet? 22 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes, we did, didn't we? 23 ALL THE COMMISSIONERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME UNINTELLIGIBLE. 24 BUCHMAN: So, then we have no problem. ~~ CHAIR YOUNG: What we did when we moved the election of officers, we adopted the Agenda at that time. _g_ . • • 1 BUCHMAN: Mmm...no. 2 LUDTKE: I remember we added... 3 FORD: No, I do not remember that. 4 BUCHMAN: No...yeah. ~ LUDTKE: We arranged the agenda at that time. fi KYLE: I think we changed the order, I don't think we adopted it. 7 CHAIR YOUNG: OK. Well, let's adopt the agenda then. 8 BUCHMAN: I make a motion we adopt the agenda as modified, changed, and mortif...no... 9 CHAIR YOUNG: OK. 10 BUCHMAN: ...as modified. 11 CHAIR YOUNG: Is there a second? 12 CAMUNEZ: Second. 13 CHAIR YOUNG: Any further discussion? 14 Commissioner Buchman? ~ 5 BUCHMAN: Aye 16 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Bennigan? 17 BINNEWEG: Binneweg... 18 CHAIR YOUNG: Binneweg. 19 BINNEWEG: Aye. 20 CHAIR YOUNG: I just want to keep doing that. 21 BINNEWEG: You've been going to Bennigan's too often. 22 CHAIR YOUNG: I guess so. 23 Commissioner Ford? 24 FORD: Aye. 25 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Ludtke? LUDTKE: Aye. -10- • • 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Camunez? 2 CAM U IV EZ: Aye. 3 CHAIR YOUNG: And the Chair votes Aye. 4 All right. Now we're finally ready for new business. 5 Is there a motion to hear Case S-04-021? 6 BUCHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion, let's see 021, that's three, Arrowhead Estates; I 7 make a motion we suspend the rules and hear... 8 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. 9 BUCHMAN: ...S-04-021 and S-04-022 concurrently, and then vote on them separately... 10 CHAIR YOUNG: Separately. 11 BUCHMAN: ...at the end. 12 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you very much. 13 LUDTKE: Second. 14 CHAIR YOUNG: OK, let me read these two cases then. First of all Case S-04-021: This is a 15 request for master plan approval of Arrowhead Estates Master Plan, Amendment No. 2. The 16 Arrowhead Estates Master Plan (55.931 acres/approximately 174 lots) is an approved master 17 plan that is being amended to incorporate additional single-family acreage (13.477± acres) 18 south of the existing master planned area. The additional acreages...acreage includes 45 19 existing lots within a portion of the filed Country Club Manor No. 3 (filed in 1966). The applicant 20 will be proposing to replat these 45 lots into 53 single-family residential lots and provide 21 drainage improvements to the area. However, the number of developable, can't even talk 22 tonight, developable lots is actually increasing from 37 to 53 (for a total increase of 16 23 developable lots). There were eight (8) lots dedicated to the City of Las Cruces as park of the 24 original plat. The property is located on the east side of Parham Street directly south of the 25 intersection of Parham Street and Oneida Drive and southeast of the intersection of Heather Avenue and Nemesh Drive. This addition to the master planned area will be considered Phase -11- . • • 1 9. The property is currently zoned R-1a (Single Family Medium Density Residential). 2 Submitted by Zia Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. for AED, Inc. 3 Then Case S-04-022: A request for preliminary plat approval of Arrowhead Estates 9. 4 The subject property is located on the east side of Parham Street directly south of the 5 intersection of Parham Street and Oneida Drive and southeast of the intersection of Heather 6 Avenue and Nemesh Drive. The preliminary plat contains 53 lots on 13.4771 acres zoned R-1 a 7 (Single Family Medium Density Residential). This is actually a replat of 45 lots within a portion 8 of the filed Country Club Manor No. 3 (filed in 1966). As such, the proposed development is 9 increasing the total number of lad tted lots by 8. However, the number of developable lots is 1o actually increasing from 37 to 53 (for a total of increase of 16 developable lots). There were 11 eight lots dedicated to the City of Las Cruces as part of the original plat. Submitted by Zia 12 Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. for AED, Inc. 13 And, is the applicant ready for their presentation? 14 MARTY PILLAR: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Marty Pillar, with Zia Engineering, I 15 represent Arrowhead Estates Development Incorporated. For you tonight we are looking for 16 master plan approval and preliminary plat approval for the Arrowhead Estates 9. 17 What the developers have done is they purchased 13.477 acres of property which is 18 completely surrounded by developed areas right now. They are repfatting a portion of it to 19 increase the number of lots and make it worth while for them to go ahead and go forward with 20 the development. At the very north end of Parham Street is where it touches the existing 21 Arrowhead Estates Development; that was Phase 9, right here in this area and that's the reason 22 that the master plan has come before you, it's that additional property is adjacent to the existing 23 master plan. 24 And, I'd like to just be here to answer any questions that you may have on this. 25 CHAIR YOUNG: OK, we'll get to those I'm sure. PILLAR: OK. -12- . • • 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Staff? 2 KIRK CLIFTON: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, as Mr. Pillar 3 stated, this is a request far master plan approval and preliminary plat approval of Arrowhead 4 Estates Master Plan Amendment Number Two and Arrowhead Estates 9 respectively. The 5 property is located generally south of the Arrowhead Estate development which is finishing up 6 the last two phases presently along Parham Street, Arrowhead Estates 7, and...or six and 7 seven. And, it's basically sandwiched between existing development; the Country Club Mesa 8 Development and the Lenox Place and additional development in the Lenox High Ridge Area. 9 Property size is 13.477 ± acres, they are proposing 53 total lots and the zoning is R-1 a. 10 As you can see by the vicinity map, the property is highlighted in yellow. Edgewood 11 area just north, and Nemesh and Parham comprised of the previously filed Country Club Manor 12 Subdivision. And, as Mr. Pillar stated, because this is contiguous to the existing Arrowhead 13 Estates Master Plan, that's what threw us into requiring that they submit a master plan 14 amendment, otherwise if it was just this area we were looking at it would just be preliminary plat. 15 Aerial photo indicates the property has remained vacant essentially since the inception 16 of the original subdivision, there's currently an arroyo traversing the property. 17 As you can see from the site photos, there is a drainage facility currently under 18 construction due in part to the Lenox Place Subdivision, which is located rather southeast of this 19 development. This is basically a temporarily facility which the developers of Arrowhead Estates 20 9 will be expanding on once they begin construction of their subdivision. 21 This photo is looking north towards the Arrowhead Estates Phase 7; you can see the 22 construction equipment here at the time they were constructing Parham Street. This would be 23 the future extension of Parham Street. 24 Here is the proposed master plan; the area in question includes this L shaped property. 25 This section of the area is presently awned by the City of Las Cruces. -13- y r 1 The original plat was filed in 1966, and really to get you to understand where we're at 2 with this; currently there are 37 platted lots that the developer can sell today without the benefit 3 of a public hearing, without the benefit of infrastructure going per the City's design standards, 4 and they can basically sell lots and start putting up homes. But rather they have opted, 5 obliviously, `cause we would have to somehow figure out a way to stop that, but with today's 6 laws, they could do that, but they have came to us, they are requesting to essentially replat the 7 area and create 53 lots out of this platted subdivision. 8 As I mentioned, there are 37 lots, but in all actuality, these lots in this corner were 9 dedicated to the City at the time of this plat filing. This lot at present time is slated far a utility 10 substation; the remaining of the lots by notes on the plat, were set aside for park area, but they 11 will not be utilized as a park area, they will be rededicated for drainage purposes. 12 Specific to the property, as I mentioned, 27 lots exists what was called Nemesh Drive 13 with this plat and 10 lots along Parham. There is currently a Rio Grande gas line easement in 14 width of 25 feet wide, along the back side of the existing development along Edgewood. 15 What the developer is proposing to do at this point, this is one of the issues that last 16 month came up and we chose to table the case for, what the developer is proposing to do is to 17 construct the walls for the new Tots on the south side of this easement; this 25 foot easement 18 will remain intact and act basically as an alley way. They're further proposing to gate either end 19 of it; it will be the responsibility of Rio Grande Natural Gas to maintain that easement. 20 With the increase of 16 lots from their preliminary plat, we consider the increase in traffic 21 to be minimal; they're increasing from what could be 354 trips per day to 507; that's an increase 22 of 153. That"s a minimal impact to this area and to Elks Drive, which I'll address later in the 23 presentation. 24 This is the proposed preliminary plat; what was existing 27 lots here they're increasing to 25 39, 10 to 14. St. Johns, I believe is located here, they are proposing to punch that through; the fire department staff has reviewed this proposal with the cul-de-sacs as submitted and have -14- 1 approved it in concept. This area here, once again, is owned by the City of Las Cruces and 2 when they came over with the final plat, we will require that they include this property and replat 3 it under one big parcel; it's just cleaner far the City from a title perspective. 4 The DRC has reviewed this extensively; I would also like to point out that the developer 5 had a neighborhood meeting probably two months ago plus. We, as staff, sat down with 6 representatives from the neighborhood last week to discuss various issues and to try to answer 7 some questions and at this point we are recommending conditional approval of both the Master 8 Plan and the Preliminary Plat; they both have the same conditions but need to be acted upon 9 separately. 10 Condition 1) The developer/engineer must coordinate with the City of Las Cruces Public 11 Works staff on the final engineering design issues, including the appropriate agreements with 12 the City of Las Cruces far the development of the drainage area. 13 And 2) The developer/engineer must coordinate and resolve all utility issues with the 14 City of Las Cruces Utilities staff prior to the submittal of the final plat. 15 Let me back up real quick, I know it's going to come up, the drainage area in question, 16 from what I understand, at present time is proposed to be walled off, gated, so it will not be 17 through access. The gates will solely be there for City of Las Cruces maintenance purposes. 18 There will be an overtlow, it will be piped down the street, terminating at Heather. There will be 19 a drainage easement through this lot, that way the water is not having to do a magical 90° turn 20 under ground. And, when the City undertakes the Elks Project, they'll deal with the drainage 21 from that point. And this is essentially aCity-wide problem, more regional than specific to this 22 area. We have a lot of drainage issues west of the development that will be dealt with with this 23 pond and eventually the Elks Drive Project. And I can have questions answered by Engineering 24 and we do have a representative from Public Works' staff here to answer any technical 25 questions that you may have regarding drainage. And at this time, I would like to give the...have our traffic engineer give you a brief presentation on what's going to happen with Elks -15- • • 1 Drive because, as the Commission, you guys are frequently hearing about Elks Drive traffic, 2 what's going on, it's too crowded, and this is strictly for your benefit so I don't really want this 3 public hearing to turn into an Elks Drive meeting, because there's been meetings, there will 4 continue to be meetings on Elks Drive; this is really for your benefit. So at this point I'll turn it 5 over to Dan Soriano and he can give a brief presentation on Elks Drive. Thank you. 6 DAN SORIANO: Good evening, for the record, Dan Soriano, Traffic Engineer for the City of 7 Las Cruces Public Works Department. 8 As Mr. Clifton has stated, the Public Works Department is currently seeking funding 9 through the New Mexico DOT to address the Elks Drive issue, namely the under-capacity of the 10 roadway. We are...we've actually just made application with the State for MAP funding, and it 11 looks now that it's...looking pretty favorably is that that could happen this year; it's still being 12 considered at the State level. And, basically what that would do is allow construction to start 13 some time in the summer of 2005. The design would start as early as this fall and construction 14 start in the spring, or summer of 2005. Approximately six to nine months to complete at a price 15 tag of about 475 to $500,000. 16 This is basically the...what's really going to be the first attempt at trying to increase 17 capacity along Elks Drive. The first phase will basically be widening Elks Drive from Lennox 18 Avenue north to Hermosillo Street to a...really it's going to be a four lane section, four lanes of 19 travel with the attempt to try and have a left turn lane through the middle. So, it essentially will 20 be four lanes of travel, and then there to the north of Hermosillo up to Rio Bravo Way we will 21 attempt to get enough width through that section to have it reduced to a two lane roadway with a 22 continuous left turn lane through the middle. 23 The Public Works Director, Robert Garza, is now seeking funding over the next four or 24 five years through CIP budgeting to try to make attempt to continue to work north from the 25 Hermosillo point all the way up to where the Elks Drive ties into Vista del Rio where we actually go back to a four lane section. Some of the obstacles there, of course, is going to be acquisition -16- . • • 1 of right-of-way, but the attempts are being made now and Mr. Garza has made a programmed 2 attempt and schedule to work his way north until we can tie up and have a full four lane section 3 all the way up to the Rio Bravo Way intersection. 4 So, we're hopeful that, and it's looking very favorable again, that we can start work on 5 the Elks Road as early as this fall. We've been starting at the south end and hopefully over the 6 next few years we can have a full four lane section all the way up to the Rio Brava Way and 7 allow Elks Drive to operate as a full functional major arterial, which is classified as. 8 I'd be happy to answer any questions, if you have any. 9 CHAIR YOUNG: OK, thank you. 10 SORIANO: Thank you. 11 CLIFTON: One quick point, if I could back up on the drainage issue. The developer and the 12 City...well, basically, the developer at this point has submitted a proposal to the City of Las 13 Cruces and there will probably be some type of joint coordination on the development of the 14 ponding areas for the benefit of the public and the Commission to know that the City will have a 15 lot of oversight on what happens with the drainage facility. Thank you. 16 CHAIR YOUNG: OK. At this time I want to open the floor for the public, however, keep in mind 17 let's have questions concerning the cases only, not about the Elks Drive Project, OK. Just so 18 that everyone understands. 19 Who would like to be first in the public to address this case? 2Q Yes sir, please come up and state your name, please? 21 JAMES GROVES: James Groves, I live at 1220 Edgewood Avenue adjacent to the...or in 22 Country Club Manor Number Three. Some of the objections that I've talked with...about the 23 residents of the area are the covenants...or dealing with covenants of the property. All of our 24 property is brick veneer, construction block homes with sloping roofs. The...we're not sure 25 whether that's gonna be continued and the areas which we have, I understand that covenants -17- • • 1 are not your problem, but they have an effect, because they...property does directly interface 2 with our property, especially on Parham Street. 3 We're concerned about the width of the lots; the lots are all 6Q foot frontage instead of 4 80, 85 foot, which are...all of our lots are basically 85 along Edgewood Drive. The...that 5 impacts the look and feel of the neighborhood. 50, we have some concerns with that. 6 Part of the master plan, the compatibility...dealing with compatibility, it says that "New 7 development shall be compatible with surrounding area neighborhood. Compatibility does not 8 mean development, must replicate existing design characteristics, but the developer should take 9 design characteristics into consideration when designing the development/structure, farm, scale, 10 structure layout, materials, landscaping, and overall design or attributes which should respect 11 the character of the existing neighborhood." 12 We would like, certainly tike the homes constructed on Parham Street to be of one level, 13 no multi-story developments, or homes that would, at least, preserve some of the view of the 14 mountains for the people who will be on those corner lots. 15 We would also like to entertain...) don't know if the...if Parham Street continues from the 16 existing Arrowhead's development down through our Country Club Manor. We would probably 17 like that to be separated from our subdivision, so that they have access through their other. 1 S We're concerned about the increase of traffic from the Parham, or from Arrowhead 19 Estates Development in our area. 20 The, let's see...the storm retention pond, we would like to see that walled in with gated 21 access, you know, same more to the rock wall construction that we have in our area and we 22 would prefer to have natural landscaping left in place around the pond. 23 I don't...(speaking away from the microphone, inaudible)... to see if anybody wishes to 24 add any of that... 25 CHAIR YOUNG: So, you're a community spokesman then? GROVES: Yes. -18- 1, f . 1 CHAIR YOUNG: OK, thank you. 2 GROVES: OK. 3 CHAIR YOUNG: If that's all you had. 4 GROVES: I think Mr. Nix would like to make.... 5 CHAIR YOUNG: Fine. 6 GROVES: ...additional comments. 7 KINGMAN NIX: My name is Kingman Nix, I live at 1224 Edgewood and the holding pond is just 8 about directly behind my home. And, what I'd like to hear from someone is that we won't have a 9 mosquito problem with that pond. I hear people, you know, the City's gonna work with the 10 developer and the developer's gonna work with the City, but what I'd really like to hear is we're 11 not gonna have a problem with the mosquitoes and other things that we would like not to have 12 in the neighborhood. 13 And, I'm also here to just to reinforce what Jim said. Those of us that live in the 14 neighborhood would like to see the new development more in keeping with what we already 15 have not small lots and small homes. 16 And the...their talk about the gas line's right-of-way, but also, and I may not know what 17 I'm talking about here, but the power line runs along there too, so even if there wasn't a gas line 18 there, seems to me like there had to be an easement there so that the power companies did 19 their work. 20 And, we're also concerned about the security of that kind of "no man's land easement" 21 there, where it would be gated and just only be accessed by personnel that really had business 22 there. 23 We already have a lot of motorcycles and four-wheelers and everything running up and 24 down the ravine there and if we get some good mud pond back there we'll have even more if we 25 don't have some kind of control. Thank you. CHAIR YOUNG: OK, thank you. -19- • • ~ Anyone else, with something new? Yes sir. 2 JOHN NESBITT: I'm John Nesbitt, I live on Akers Street in that same development. The points 3 that I've heard here is that this is a... (inaudible) 4 CHAIR YOUNG: Could you get in to the microphone a little bit more? 5 NESBITT: ...R-1a Medium Density, and the density in this proposed development is gonna be 6 much higher than...it certainly isn't any of our homes, sa I don't know if this is violating that R-1a 7 standard, but it's certainly much higher density that what exists now. 8 CHAIR YOUNG: Mh hm. 9 NESBITT: The only plat that we were ever shown; I have it in front of me here. The lots on the 10 north side of the new Nemesh Street were going to include the 25 foot Rio Grande Gas 1 ~ easement, so from what I've heard, they are now going to be even smaller lots; they're gonna 12 be minus 25 by 60 feet or whatever, even smaller than what they would have been otherwise. 13 Again, more density, a lot more crowded people. 14 The drainage, there was a picture up here of what the drainage lot looks like, you know, 15 what I heard at the initial meeting at Jornada School with the residents and the developer was 16 something much better than what we're seeing there; a really good pond with a pipe that went 17 completely under the new Nemesh Street carrying it completely out of that development and I ~ 8 guess what we're hearing now is the water's just gonna run right down the new Nemesh Street. 19 No, that isn't what I just heard. OK. 20 Well, could you tell everybody what... 21 CHAIR YOUNG: We'll address that. 22 NESBITT: And, so it's just, you know, we're not seeing what we were told, as far as that whole 23 drainage pond issue. I think all the residents, and I've spoken to about 104 residents that live 24 there, feel like our property values are being lowered. Basically, if they were built like our 25 homes, which was the whole purpose of the original platting and our covenants; to maintain that value, that they would be a lot higher value than what it will be with the proposed development; -20- . • • 1 smaller lots, smaller homes, on and on and on. So, we're taking a financial loss in the 2 investment. 3 And then, just one other comment, I don't want to get into the Elks things, but a 4 statement was made that the 16 additional lots, 37 to 53 in this small area, would not have a big 5 impact on Elks traffic, but I would just like to submit that all the things that have been approved 6 along the Elks Corridor add a little bit, and it's all those little extra traffic that has created the big 7 problem on Elks Drive, and this is yet another one. So, I'd like to submit that the infrastructure 8 needs to be there before the traffic is added not after there's a problem, which is already the 9 case. 10 And, I think that's all I have to say. 11 CHAIR YOUNG: OK, thank you. 12 Anyone else, last call. 13 Seeing no one I'll close the public participation and before we get into the 14 Commissioner's questions, many of these concerns have already been addressed and I'll either 15 ask the applicant or staff to readdress the things that have come up from the public, if you would 16 like to at this time. 17 PILLAR: Thank you Mr. Chairman. OK, some of the questions that were brought up by the 18 public concerning the drainage, we're looking at utilizing the lots within here to create a retention 19 structure and that structure we are proposing to have an outlet pipe, which will be underground, 20 all the way through here, and then dump onto Heather, where the existing flow is right now. 21 We will have a spillway that would spill onto Nemesh if the storm (inaudible) gets greater 22 than a 100 year storm. OK? So there's an underground pipe to drain the structure. 23 Concerning the standing water, City design standards requires that a detention structure 24 like this, drain within 72 hours, our goal is to have it drain within 24 hours so that there is no 25 standing water in the structure, so that if you have rain two days in a row, the structure can handle that event. -21- • • 1 One of the items that was brought up was concerning Parham Street and the lots along 2 here, the dwellings being one story, single story, not multi-story. In talking with the developers, 3 they have no problem with those lots being single story though there. 4 And, then as far as the number of lots that are platted in here, the 53 Tots, the size of 5 these lots need to be current City standards and we'd just like to proceed with haw we have it 6 split up into 53 lots. 7 If there's any other questions that I could answer, please let me know. $ CHAIR YOUNG: Yvu might address the gating at the... 9 PILLAR: Oh, I'm sorry, yes sir. OK, along the ponding area what we'll be doing is the 25 foot 1o easement right here that is Rio Grande, the ponding area we're gonna be starting 10 feet off of 11 that before we start any chaffing or cutting of the ponding area. We will be gating across here at ~ 2 the end of Parham Street, this will be the controlled access to maintain the pond, at this area of 13 the spillway there will not be any vehicular traffic being able to go through here, we'll have that 14 blocked off. 15 And, then also, I did mention before, with the existing gas line easement along here, the 16 developers are proposing that no permanent structures, walls or fences be built on or across the 17 easement. So, if walls are built for this lot here, it will be built along the south line of the 18 easement, and this lot will still be 110 feet in depth, which is close to the same width of what we 19 have over here along Parham Street. 20 CHAIR YOUNG; And it will be gated at the bottom... 21 PILLAR: At the bottom, right here... 22 CHAIR YOUNG: ...correct? 23 PILLAR: ...yes sir. 24 BUCHMAN: So, there will just be one gate for the gas line easement? 25 PILLAR: There will be a gate here and then we'll... BUCHMAN: OK. -22- • • 1 PILLAR: ...have a gate here. 2 BUCHMAN: And that gate there will be for the gas line easement and for the ponding? 3 PILLAR: And for Maintenance to gain access into this area to maintain it, yes sir. 4 BUCHMAN: Thank you Mr. Pillar. 5 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. 6 Commissioners, I'll open the floor for you at this time. 7 Anyone with questions or comments? $ BUCHMAN: There was one big concern I had, kind of going along with Mr. Nix with the 9 mosquito problem, and I'm glad to hear that your plans are to have the water drained within 24 1o hours, but the City says it has to drain, but in 72 hours. So, unless we get that 100 year flood, 11 there's gonna be what chance of standing water there? 12 PILLAR: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, there should be none; our goal is to drain the pond. 13 The drain...the pond needs to drain completely, so we should have no standing water. 14 BUCHMAN: And so we shouldn't have a mosquito problem? 15 PILLAR: That is correct, sir. 16 BUCHMAN: OK. That was the only question I had, thank you. 17 CHAIR YOUNG: Any other Commissioners? 18 BINNEWEG: I just wanted to state from my experience in looking at new housing, new home 19 sales. The smaller lots with the homes on them will sell for more than the homes in the existing 20 subdivision with the larger lots. 21 People nowadays, whether it's developers giving everyone small lots and everyone's 22 accepting it, or the fact that our life style is such that we don't want property to take care of 23 anymore, you willfind...l would be willing to bet you'll find that these houses will sell for a lot 24 more than the homes in your neighborhood. 25 BUCHMAN: And in turn greatly increase the values of the existing, well now, possible increase the value of the existing homes too, I would think. -23- • ~ ~ BINNEWEG: The people who want a larger home... 2 BUCHMAN: Yes. 3 BINNEWEG: ...on a larger lot... ~ BUCHMAN: That's right. 5 BINNEWEG: ...yes. ~ CHAIR YOUNG: OK, any other Commissioners, comments or questions? ~ Sounds like we're ready for a motion, first of all, let's address Case S-04-021. $ BUCHMAN: Do we have to split it, or we just, automatically vote on it? ~ CHAIR YOUNG: We split it. 10 BUCHMAN: We split it? OK.... ~ 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes. 12 BUCHMAN: ...sa they're automatically split now... ~ ~ CHAIR YOUNG: Mh hm. 14 BUCHMAN:...I make a motion that we vote on Case S-04-021. 15 CAMUNEZ: Second it. 16 CHAIR YOUNG: Can I make a friendly amendment...? ~ 7 BUCHMAN: Yes. 18 CHAIR YOUNG: ...that we approve, not just vote on it? ~ 9 BUCHMAN: OK, that, we approve, OK. 20 CHAIR YOUNG: OK, thank you. Is there any further discussion? 21 LUDTKE: Let's see, we suspended the rules on both, didn't we? 22 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes. 23 Let me call the roll, Commissioner Buchman? 24 BUCHMAN: Aye, based on site visits, findings, and discussion tonight. 25 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Binneweg? BINNEWEG: Aye, based on site visits, findings, and discussion tonight. -24- • • 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Ford? 2 FORD: Aye, based on site visit, finding, and discussion. 3 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Ludtke? 4 LUDTKE: Aye, based on site visit, finding, and discussian 5 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Camunez? fi CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on findings, and discussion 7 CHAIR YOUNG: And the Chair votes Aye, based on site visit, findings, and discussion tonight. 8 OK, do I hear a motion on Case S-04-022? 9 BUCHMAN: I make a motion we approve Case S-04-022. 1o CHAIR YOUNG: I'm sorry, we have not, and it just occurred to me, we did not read the 11 conditions... 12 BINNEWEG: Yes, we need the Conditions. 13 CHAIR YOUNG: ...and didn't add the Conditions. That was my oversight. 14 BUCHMAN: (inaudible) 15 CHAIR YOUNG: That was the recommendation, and I think we intended to have those 16 conditions included... 17 BUCHMAN: Yes. ~$ CHAIR YOUNG: ...is that correct? 19 BINNEWEG: Yes. 20 BUCHMAN: That's correct. 21 CHAIR YOUNG: OK. 22 BUCHMAN: You want me to go back and read the conditions, 'cause I made the motion? 23 CHAIR YOUNG: That would be fine, let's just do it for Case 022 and... 24 BUCHMAN: OK. 25 CHAIR YOUNG: ...it will be included for 021. -25- • • ~ BUCHMAN: OK, with the Conditions that the developer/engineer must coordinate with the City 2 of Las Cruces Public Works staff on a final engineering design issues including the appropriate 3 agreements with the City of Las Cruces for the development of the draining area, drainage area. 4 Number two, the developer/engineer must coordinate and resolve all utility issues with 5 the City of Las Cruces Utilities staff prior to submission of the final plat. 6 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you, is there a second? 7 BINNEWEG: I second. $ CHAIR YOUNG: Any further discussion? 9 Let me call the roll, Commissioner Buchman? ~o BUCHMAN: Aye, based on site visit, findings, and discussion tonight. 11 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Binneweg? 12 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on site visit, findings, and discussion 13 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Ford? 14 FORD: Aye, based on site visit, finding, and discussion. 15 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Ludtke? 16 LUDTKE: Aye, based on findings, site visit, and discussion. 17 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Camunez? 18 CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on findings, and discussion. 19 CHAIR YOUNG: And the Chair votes Aye, based on findings, and discussion. 20 All right, thank you. 21 It takes us then to Case 22556, is there a motion to hear this case? 22 BINNEWEG: So moved. 23 BUCHMAN: Second. 24 CHAIR YOUNG: This is a zone change request from R-1a (Single Family Medium Density) to 25 R-1 b (Single Family High Density) for 0.22 acres of land located at 821 Rio Grande Street. The -26- • • 1 purpose of the zone change is to allow three lots to be replatted into two lots for the purpose of 2 constructing another dwelling on the property. Submitted by JMB Investments, LLC. 3 CHAIR YOUNG: Is the applicant ready? 4 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, the applicants would prefer just to field questions of the audience. ~ CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. B KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this is a zone change request for property located at 7 821 Rio Grande Street, subject property is shaded in blue on the map. It's in a predominantly 8 R-1 Single Family Medium Density zoned area. 9 The subject property does contain three platted legally existing 25 foot wide lots and 10 there's an existing dwelling unit on the property that spands two of the lots and there's an 11 existing accessory building. The applicants are proposing to replat these three lots into two thus 12 actually reducing the net density of the platted subdivision and build an additional dwelling unit 13 which will be a townhouse; it will be attached to the existing dwelling. Townhouses are allowed 14 within the R-1 zoning district, R-1 a as well as the R-1 b. 15 There is...the existing dwelling on the property does have a nonconforming rear yard 16 setback and is outlined in your packet. Staff would like, merely for the process of cleaning up, 17 the fact that it's an existing nan-conformancy would like the Commission to approve a variance 18 that would address that rear yard nonconforming set back. 19 The real purpose for this rezoning essentially is being brought about by the need to 20 replat. As they are existing legally platted lots, they can be used. If somebody came in wanting 21 to pull a building permit wanting to put a structure on one of those, they would have to meet the 22 appropriate setbacks but we would have to give them a building permit. It is a legally existing 23 lot. 24 However, the Code, the Zoning Code does require that if you have one or more 25 contiguous lots being used essentially as a unified development, they need to be replatted into one lot. And, in the instance of this, part of the subject property has a dwelling spanning two -27- • • 1 property lines. And, so they need to replat to eliminate that property line, and in doing so that 2 subdivision would have to meet the requirement of the 2001 Zoning Code. 3 Even though we're reducing the number of lots with the acreage contained in the 4 subdivision, they don't quite have the density to put a second dwelling on there, even with the 5 exception allowed for town houses. Therefore, the zone change request to R-1 b will allow them 6 the appropriate density within that small replat to construct the second dwelling unit. ~ These are some site photos of the property; you can see the existing dwelling unit that I 8 spoke of, and then this is a small accessory...it's not that small, it's an accessory building that's 9 built on one of the lots. My understanding from talking to the applicants, this is a workshop of 1 o some variety. This would be, as part of the replat and reconstruction or redevelopment of the 11 property, would be removed and the new dwelling...new property line would come down the 12 middle of the property skirting this wall; the new dwelling would be attached to the existing one, 13 as I said, in a townhouse configuration and constructed on site. 14 This is the applicant's proposed site plan as was submitted, as you can see again, the 15 existing dwelling spans these two, the property line cutting right through the middle of the 16 house. Then you have the third lot here, which wholly contains that accessary structure. 17 What staff is proposing, in talking with the applicants is, the new dwelling constructed 18 would replace the accessary building that's there, the new dwelling would meet the minimum 19 setback requirements of the R-1 b; they would respect the 15 foot rear yard setback requirement 20 as well as the five foot side yard, and again the new property line ar the replatted line going 21 through the middle of the lot that's splitting the three into two lots. 22 As I stated, there is anon-conforming rear yard setback; the existing dwelling is shown 23 here, it's about 9.1 feet from the rear yard, and again, it's existing just to clean it up, we'd like 24 this Commission to approve a variance, which you do have the authority to do as park of the 25 zone change request, to address that issue. -28- • • 1 With that, Mr. Chairman, the staff has reviewed the request, we feel it is...even though it 2 is attached housing, which is not consistent within that area, it is still single family residential 3 housing, it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan to provide a 4 mix of housing styles within an area as well as varying lot size to address the different socio- 5 economic levels and needs within the City_ 6 We would recommend approval of the zone change conditioned on a 5.9 foot variance 7 granted from the existing rear yard setback. 8 Staff has had, after packets went out, staff has had contact from an individual in the 9 neighborhood who did express same concerns regarding the zone change, the potential 10 increase in density, and as well as traffic to the area. Staff has had a verbal discussion with 11 them and has some materials to hand out to the Commission at this time, regarding that protest. 12 With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. 13 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. 14 At this time, is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this case? 15 Yes sir, please come forward and give us your name. 16 LEON GARCIA: My name is Leon Garcia, I think I'm the one that called, and I was sent by a lot 17 of the neighbors, everyone said they couldn't speak and neither can I, but I'm going to read a 18 letter here. 19 The neighborhood has been completely...a completely detached single family housing 20 area since its inception as a subdivision, and the older residents have lived there for 30 or 60 21 years in a somewhat peaceful, safe, and quiet environment with established families in 22 predominantly owner occupied homes. 23 The proposed zoning change would have a potentially negative effect on this 24 neighborhood and we believe it's unacceptable. If the high point density lot is allowed at 821 25 Rio Grande Street, then the lot next to it could eventually be changed to high density R-1 b also, -29- • • 1 consequently any other vacant lot in the neighborhood would have precedence to be rezoned to 2 R-1 b. 3 We feel this would be definitely...this would definitely be a change for the worse in our 4 neighborhood causing an increase in traffic, rental homes, and an increase in noise and safety 5 of some of the older residences. 6 Ultimately, this would decrease the safety and neighborhood quality for our families and 7 older residences. 8 This would be an unreasonable and unfair change to our neighborhood. The better 9 solution would be to allow the new owners to add to their existing home at 821 Rio Grande ~0 according to the current setbacks requirements and building codes. 11 The new owners also have purchased the lot next door, as my understanding, according 12 to the tax records that I pulled out, so, there's a potential for there to be actually four town 13 homes as they want to call them there. The residents are kind of saying they're gonna be more 14 like apartments. 15 And, so, we justfeel it would just cause a parking problem and just for safety reasons of 16 some of the residences would be just...what we're asking for is that one residence on each lot is 17 what the neighborhood consists of and it should be allowed to remain the same. 18 It would be nice to see renovations of new homes on these lots, but at the same R-1 a 19 Single Family Medium Density. 20 I have same signatures of...l was out...the letter came about a week from last Saturday 21 and I was out of town for two weeks before that. I got about seven or eight neighbors to sign; a 22 couple of them right across the street. And, I got a letter from Mr. Duffy, he wanted me to read, 23 but I can't read it. But, he's writing is kind of scribbley, so if you guys want to, I can just hand 24 me aver to you, but... 25 CHAIR YOUNG: That'll be fine. GARCIA; OK. Thank you. -30- • • ~ CHAIR YOUNG: Anyone else in the audience who would like to address this case? 2 Yes, Ma'am? 3 IRENE KEY: Good evening Chairman and Commissioners, I would like to address the 4 gentleman's concerns... 5 CHAIR YOUNG; Could you give us your name? 6 IRENE KEY: My name is Irene Key, I'm one of the investors in JMB Investments. 7 We're talking about a house that has probably three to four times larger front yard than 8 any of the other houses in the neighborhood. All we want to do is to use that inordinately large 9 yard and do something with it. I would venture to say that all of the houses up and dawn the 1 o street, if you look at their front yard, it's probably'/ as large as the area that we're talking about. 11 The other concern about additional traffic and noise and inconvenience, we're talking 12 about one additional dwelling, one possible additional family. We're not proposing to come in 13 and build 20 units and bring in 20 families; we're talking one additional family. 14 The other thing is, I don't know if you're aware of this but, there is a shortage of 15 affordable housing in Las Cruces; we provide a service in providing and investing in rental 16 properties, residential rental properties. Every time one of our properties goes vacant, we get 1 ~ calls like for a whole month, there is a severe shortage, so in that sense, we provide a service to 18 the community, a valuable service. 19 I really feel that what we're trying to do is accommodate both the investors, taking into 20 consideration the concerns of the community and I disagree that our proposed investment has 21 any adverse impact. Thank you. 22 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. 23 Anyone else? 24 Seeing no one, I'll close the public portion of the case and open it for the 25 Commissioners; any questions or comments? Commissioner Buchman? -31- • • ~ BUCHMAN: Yes, I do. Mr. Kyle, could you put up that drawing that shows the proposed 2 dwelling, I think it's two or three from where you're at, yes, there we go, OK. 3 Kind of questions far you and to Ms. Key, lots number four, five, and six, are they going 4 to be left as front yards or would you be coming back in another couple months or years to 5 put... 6 KEY: (Inaudible, speaking away from the microphone). ~ BUCHMAN: They... s CHAIR YOUNG: Excuse me, I'm sorry, for the benefit of our recording secretary, you need to 9 speak at the microphone. ~ p KEY: Our intention is that even after the new construction is up, these two dwelling will still 1 ~ have a much considerably larger yard then any of the other houses. So, the front of the 12 property would never be filled in; that would always be front yard, open space. 13 BUCHMAN: My concern was, kind of addressing that, if somebody different owned those four 14 and they chose to close off that driveway, the people on back wouldn't have any access, but if 15 it's owned by the same people, and you're just going to use it as front yards, then I would have 16 no objection, but if you're gonna come back and try to put (inaudible) on that... 17 (Mr. Ford and Ms. Binneweg talking to each other at the same time as Mr. Buchman- 18 unintelligible) ~ 9 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Buchman, if I may? There'll only be these two lots 20 existing once the replat goes through. There'll be lot 5A, or 4A, or whatever turns out being... 21 BUCHMAN: OK 22 BINNEWEG: Mh hm. 23 KYLE: An individual would not be able to come in, whether these property owners or future 24 property owners, and draw a property line, essentially, that would bisect those and, create four 25 lots out of that, it would be number one, inconsistent with the zoning, and those smaller lots would violate not only lot size but access requirements for those rear yards since there is not an -32- • • 1 alley back there. So, what you're gonna have is very large front yards, the dwellings are set 2 back much further than is typical, with the exception of the new dwellings built, and they will, of 3 course, as I indicated, respect the 15 feet rear yard setback. There is not an ability to come in 4 in the future and otherwise replat where you would create buildable areas out of that. 5 BUCHMAN: That was the only concern I had, thank you. 6 CHAIR YOUNG; Commissioner Ludtke? 7 LUDTKE: The drive for that unit gonna be common? The other, are you putting a driveway 8 where that cut is? 9 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ludtke, in the field as it exists, I'll let the applicant answer, 1o but at it exists, there is an existing cut right here with the paved driveway. This is an additional 11 curb cut that exists in the field, this is dirt right now, but this is a curb cut and it lines up pretty 12 much exactly where you would want it to be to serve this, so realistically there'll be two 13 driveways. 14 FORD: Mr. Kyle, I think that drawing that you have up there now is incorrect in that there is a ~ 5 second curb cut in that, where lot, I believe its lot 4A. 16 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, it's not shown on that approved survey, but if you can see right here, the ~ ~ curb does fall; there is an existing curb cut and then further to the south is the paved access 18 which is shown an this drawing. ~ 9 FORD: At about 2 o'clock this afternoon it was there, I saw it. 20 LUDTKE; Right, I was just there, and I see two... 21 CHAIR YOUNG: Mh hm. 22 LUDTKE: ...I've seen one paved and one just a cut with dirt... 23 CHAIR YOUNG: Right. 24 LUDTKE: ...and that's why I was asking, is that road gonna turn into the access for that 25 second unit? That's the question. BUCHMAN: Yeah. ~33- • • 1 LUDTKE: OK 2 CHAIR YOUNG: Any other Commissioner questions or comments? 3 Commissioner Camunez? 4 CAMUNEZ: I don't have a problem with what they're trying to do, but my problem...what I 5 foresee is like Mr. Garcia stated before, is this gonna open the door far other people to want to 5 do the same thing and have multi-zoning in that area? 7 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, a property owner has the right to come in and ask; we 8 do have other vacant property in the area, as I indicated, they are legally platted lots, the City 9 would have to issue a building permit. This one's a little different than the property just north in 1o that we have existing structures and so that changes the rules a little bit and requires the replatt, 11 but, you know, yeah, the potential does exist. Plus we are in a care infill area within the City, if 12 there are vacant lots; they would be subject to, or allowed to use the City Infill Development 13 process... 14 LUDTKE: Exactly. 15 KYLE: ...in order to accomplish a desired goal of a property owner, if it's consistent with City 16 policy. I won't say there won't... 17 BINNEWEG: Yeah. 18 KYLE: ...to some degree, from the City's stand point we actually like seeing these vacant inter- 19 city lots developed and filled in; a more efficient use... 2a CHAIR YOUNG: Mh hm. 21 KYLE: ...of the infrastructure and everything else that's there, and as the applicant stated, the 22 City does have a significant shortage of affordable housing and, you know, we do look favorable 23 upon those types of applications. 24 KEY: Also, in answer to your question, in the immediate vicinity, I don't think there's any vacant 25 lots that anyone could ask for a rezoning and put another dwelling on it. We've been up and down that neighborhood and I don't recall any other large lot in the neighborhood. ~34- • • ~ CHAIR YOUNG: Also in respect to answering this question, Commissioner Camunez, we all 2 need to remember that as a Commission, actually we are not thinking of doing things on a 3 precedent basis, because we are to take everything on a case by case situation so it's dealing 4 with one case at a time and there really is no such thing as a precedent, because we can come 5 back on the next case and determine, based on its merits, really has nothing to do with previous 6 case. 7 Commissioner Binneweg? 8 BINNEWEG: Initially, when you drive down this street and look, the applicant is correct in 9 saying that very few houses have as much open space around them... 1o CHAIR YOUNG: Mh hm. 11 BINNEWEG: ...and I for one would not like to water and keep up all that grass that's all around 12 there, and the basic underlying fact is you have three...it's zoned for three 25 foot wide lots and 13 I look at that and I though, boy I had no trouble taking a saws all and remodeling that first one 14 and then coming in and building two slapped-together townhouses. So, then I'd have three 15 houses on that lot legally, so she's doing actually doing the neighborhood a service by keeping 16 with the scale that's going on in the neighborhood by having two homes there versus what I ~ ~ would do, put three. 18 CHAIR YOUNG: All right, have we exhausted our Commissioner comments and questions? 19 BINNEWEG: Very much. 20 CHAIR YOUNG: In that case, I'll entertain a motion on Case 22556. 2~ FORD: Mr. Chairman, I move approval of Case 22556 with the appropriate setbacks as 22 recommended. Variances for the setbacks as recommended. 23 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you sir. 24 BUCHMAN: Second. 25 CHAIR YOUNG: Any further discussion? Commissioner Buchman? -35- • • 1 BUCHMAN: Aye, based on site visits, findings, and discussion tonight. 2 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Binneweg? 3 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on site visit, findings, and discussion. 4 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Ford? 5 FORD: Aye, based on site visit, discussion, and findings. 6 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Ludtke? 7 LUDTKE: Aye, on site visit, and findings. s CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Camunez? 9 CAMUNEZ: Aye, on findings, and discussion. 1o CHAIR YOUNG: And the Chair votes Aye, based on findings, and discussion. 11 We are now ready for case S-p4-029, is there a motion to hear this case? 12 BINNEWEG: So moved. 13 CHAIR YOUNG: This is a request for preliminary plat approval of The Patios at San Miguel. 14 The subject property is located within the approved Mission Hills Master Plan on the east side of 15 Sonoma Ranch Boulevard, directly east of the intersection of Golf Club Road and Sonoma 16 Ranch Boulevard. The preliminary plat contains 54 lots on 10.085 acres (approximately 5.35 17 dwelling units per acre) zoned R-1 b (Single Family High Density Residential). Submitted by 18 Scanlan White, Inc. for Philippou LLC. 19 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead. 2d SCANLON: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Ted Scanlon,) represent 21 the applicant. This is a preliminary plat of a development that was part of the Mission Hills 22 Master Plan, which is the area that was recently annexed into the City, east of the Sonoma 23 Ranch area. 24 The zoning on the property is R-1 b and the development as proposed is, what's the 25 number of lots? I think fifty... BINNEWEG: Four. -36- • • ~ SCANLON: Fifty four. 2 CHAIR YOUNG: Mh hm. 3 SCANLON: Fifty-four lots, the subdivision complies, this is Sonoma Ranch Boulevard here, 4 Golf Club Road comes in right here, Sonora Springs Subdivision and the Boulders down in 5 here. EI Presidio Subdivision lies within this area immediately to the east of the property. We're 6 proposing extension of Galf Club Road into the property to intersect with EI Presidio, across 7 Sonoma Ranch another street down to the south and another one to the north. 8 The subdivision has been laid out designed to comply with the R-1 b zoning that exists 9 on the property and to meet with all of the design standards and so forth required, and 10 development standards required of the Zoning and of the Subdivision Code. 11 I don't know of any other issues with respect to the subdivision. We've been through the 12 DRC process and so forth with it, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. 13 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. 14 CLIFTON: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, this is a request for preliminary plat 15 approval of the Patios at San Miguel. This is part of the Mission Hills Master Planned area, that 16 was annexed May of 2003, if you recall. 17 The property is located on the east side of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard directly east of the 18 intersection of Golf Club Road and Sonoma Ranch. It contains 10.085 ~ acres, with 54 lots; the 19 zoning is R-1 b. 20 The zoning was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in December of 21 2003, and by the City Council on March 1, 2004. And just as a piece of historical information, 22 as part of that zoning approval, a condition was carried over that was approved on the Master 23 Plan in 2003 that there would be a 23 foot height limitation on this particular parcel. 24 Sonora Springs Subdivision phases are located within this area, the Boulders Phase I 25 approximately in this area, and Phase II to the south; Mission Hills approximately 234 ± acres of -37- • • ~ a mixed use development is contained within this area. The aerial photo, again, this is outdated, 2 it's a '99 photo, but it does show how the lots are plotting out as development occurs. 3 What you see occurring aver here is some R-1 a development within the Mission Hills 4 area called EI Presidio, I believe that's Phase 1; the subject property is located just west of EI 5 Presidio and east of the Boulders. 6 Here's a site photo looking down towards the property; this picture was taken from Lot 1, 7 Block G or the Boulders Phase 1. The subject property is shown by the arrows is, to the, what 8 would be the south, and the north. What you see under construction here is the other half of 9 Sonoma Ranch Boulevard being constructed with EI Presidio, and this will be the extension of 1 o Galf Club Road. 11 This is existing Sonoma Ranch Boulevard; these are the southbound lanes eventually, 12 right now it's a two lane road until the west...narthbound is constructed. 13 The Preliminary Plat contains 54 lots; the lots, you'll notice there's lots fronting Sonoma 14 Ranch Boulevard, what they're proposing to do is construct some access roads similar to what 15 you see on Golf Club Road, they're basically residential access roads. Current City policy does 16 not allow for direct residential access on the collector or arterials, so this mitigates that situation, 17 and I'll get into this with my condition, but what the City is requesting that these access roads 18 are one way only, that way we're not creating traffic complications with two-way traffic. 19 This is the approved Master Plan, and as I stated earlier in the presentation, the R-1 b 20 zoning was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in December 2003. This is one 21 of the parcels that was rezoned R-1 b. The Commission earlier denied approved this 22 development on consent, which was also rezoned R-1 b. The City Council approved, this is an 23 error; actually it should be 2004, approved the zone change March 1st, 2004. The 23 foot height 24 restriction on the subject property is pursuant to the original Master Plan since May 2003, so 25 what was occurring in this area has been a known factor since May of 2003, when the City Council approved the annexation. -38- • • 1 The DRC has reviewed this, staff has reviewed this as well, based on our review and as 2 stated previous, the conditions are as follows: 3 1) The residential frontage roads must be one way access only, and sign indicating that 4 the said road are one way only. 5 2) No lot shall have direct residential access to Sonoma Ranch Boulevard. 6 And I would like to point out after the packets went out, I did have a resident of The 7 Boulders come to the office, we met, and he does he some concerns; he will provide you a brief 8 presentation tonight on his behalf. Thank you very much. 9 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. OK, at this time, I will open the floor for the public. Who would 10 like to be first? Yes, sir? 11 GARY KLINE: Good evening, I'm Gary Kline, I live at (inaudible). 12 CHAIR YOUNG: Mr. Kline, could you get into the microphone just a bit more? 13 KLINE: OK. I'm Gary Kline, I live at 1760 Boulders in The Boulders Subdivision. I've got a 14 concern...(Pause to set up computer). ~ 5 I have a concern with a potential view blockage from certain lots within The Boulders. I 16 received a package a week ago Saturday, couldn't quite read the elevations involved, guessed ~ 7 at some of them, did some preliminary masses, pops, we might have a problem here. I came ~ ~ down, got copies of the expanded, where I could read the elevations, I guess that was Monday, ~ 9 I went and did some physical work, took some pictures, came and talked to Mr. Clifton, I believe 20 it was Tuesday, and from that...see if I can get this up. I came up with the following scenario. 21 This happens to be my block, this is the plot that you're discussing tonight, and views for 22 me is the Organ Mountains, the needles portion of. And shooting off the south edge of my 23 property it almost catches the north end of the needles, and shooting off this view is basically 24 the south part of the south peak there. 25 What I did is I read the elevation, my property is at 4233; the one that starts to affect me here is at 4229, which is only four feet bellow me. Looking at the train here, what the -39- • 1 developer's done is build up this lot, and he has reasons for that and he can address those, but 2 what it means to me is I went from being eight feet above the train across from me to four feet, 3 and that doesn't sound like much, but when you're talking an the distance...his first house could 4 be 185 feet across from me, whereas the mountain's set out here about nine and a half miles, 5 and it's like a magnifying glass, you can visualize that. 6 So, I got concerned, and like I said, I went down, got the elevations and the next thing 7 we did is this is the wall that I was talking about to the south of my property; shooting off that 8 wall I went out 185 feet, which would be the first possible location of a house, and we've already 9 discussed it could be 23 foot tall. If it is 23 foot tall, at the existing elevation and because the 10 elevations drop off, I retain some view, however, this is based on the existing terrain, 23 feet, if 11 the developer builds to 23 feet and builds his property up four feet, what it means is my 12 blockage becomes somewhere right about here, and then it will drop off to the right, so I'll retain 13 same. 14 My concern, that's what raised my concern, and I went and talked to Mr. Clifton, he 15 explained to me the City can control the 23 feet, evidently you don't have a way to control the 16 plot elevation even though when I bought it, it was eight foot lower than what it is...four to eight 17 foot lower than what it will end up being, and when that happens, I loose my view, ar a 18 significant part of it; and most of the interesting part of the view. 19 Now, Mr. Clifton said, go talk to the developer, I did; I talked to Mr. Philippou, very 20 friendly conversation, he assures me they want to be good neighbors, well we da too. And, 21 from that he suggested I talk to Mike Floyd who'll be doing the buildings out here and the 22 concern is, are you really going to build to 23 feet? Talking to Mike Friday, he said basically 23 maybe a few of the houses out there will be 23 feet, or in that region, two story. The majority of 24 the houses will be like ours, single story, and will not be a problem. I'm comfortable with him 25 coming up four feet, if he comes down a reasonable amount off the tap, so that's what I said, a potential blockage of the view. -40- ~. • 1 I wanted to go on record, answer any questions, make you aware of the potential 2 problem, any questians? ~ CHAIR YOUNG: There may be, but we'll get to them. 4 KLINE: OK, thank you. 5 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you, sir. Any one else that would like to address this case? Yes, 6 Ma'am? 7 BARBARA HANSON: I'm Barbara Hanson and I have question for Mr. Scallion. I would like 8 him to explain definitions. I've been to all three meetings, and one time it was called Height 9 Density Multi-Family, then it was referred to as Town Homes being built, and now it's called the 1o Patios at San Miguel. I would like to know, are they Detached Single Family Homes, are they 11 going to be one or two story, and the proposed square footage was two to three thousand 12 square feet, and is that a binding agreement...requirement? Thank you. 13 CHAIR YOUNG: OK, anyone else from the public and then we'll let these questians be 14 answered. Yes, sir? 15 REYNALDO MESQUITA: My name is Reynaldo Mesquita, and I live in Coyote Ridge, that's 16 neighbors from these people here. And, I have a concern about the traffic, it's really terrible. 17 And, they're gonna add 440 more day trips and how are they going to control the traffic? 18 There's a lot of golfers out there and I can expect an accident will happen soon, 'cause there's 19 no speed limit, no traffic control, there is sloppy carrying the materials back and forth on that 20 Golf Club Road, and it's gonna be a concern if somebody gets hurt out there, `cause I see...l 21 walk that street every morning, and I see a lot of golfers out there crossing, walking, traffic, earth 22 movers, big, big wheels with, I don't know how good their brakes are, but it's a potential danger 23 right there. 24 And, I just wonder they have...if they can address that issue there, maybe it has nothing 25 to do with development, but it's...there's also a concern there's only one access road to all this _41_ • • 1 construction, all over that area, that's that one road. What happened to other access roads? 2 It's a lot of traffic. Thank you. 3 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. Any one else? 4 Seeing no one else, Mr. Scanlon, are you ready to answer some of the questions that 5 have arisen? 5 SCANLON: Thank you Mr. Chairman, yes I would. With respect to Mr. Kline's concern about ~ the height limitation, my client, Mr. Philippou, met with a number of people from The Boulders 8 Community, prior to even bringing in his application for annexation of this property; they talked 9 at great length about restricting the height of the buildings within this area and it was agreed 1o upon, at least by a majority of the people present at that meeting, that 23 feet was a reasonable 11 number to restrict the height to far the buildings within that area, and Mr. Philippou agreed to 12 that restriction at that time. ~ 3 That agreement from that meeting was brought before the P&Z Commission and the City 14 Council with the Annexation, with the Zone Change Request, and with the Master Plan Request 15 that was brought forth, and we've never argued or tried to, you know, wiggle out of that or 16 anything like that. That is a commitment that Mr. Philippou made before he ever brought in the 17 Annexation Petition and he is still complying with and intends to comply with that condition 18 through the end of the development and he has informed Mr. Floyd, who will be building the 19 houses in there; Mr. Floyd is well aware of the condition of the 23 foot building height. 20 We have designed the lots along Sonoma Ranch to be as absolutely as low as the 21 minimum distance as Sonoma Ranch Boulevard that is feasible to build them and have the 22 drainage and the sewer work correctly far the houses within that area. And, so, you know, we're 23 trying to be good neighbors and trying to be as unobtrusive as we possibly can within the area. 24 We understand that there's concerns, you know, this property two years ago was BLM land and 25 people may have had a preconception that since it was BLM land it would never be developed and that sort of thing, but we have, I think, gone a long way towards designing the entire -42- • • 1 development so that it conforms as closely as possible with the existing terrain out there, and 2 have, in fact, limited the height of the buildings by accepting zoning conditions, master plan 3 conditions and sa forth with respect to those areas adjacent to existing developments. 4 With respect to Mrs. Hanson's question, the patio homes that are proposed on this are in 5 fact, basically single-family detached homes. There in a higher density zoning than the normal 6 R-1 a zoning; which means that the yard is smaller. There is a, with all the retirees and so fort 7 that we have moving here, there is a market demand for lots that utilize more of the lot for living 8 space and less of the lot that has to be maintained with landscaping and yard work and that 9 type of thing. 10 I don't recall, and I've been at all of these meetings, ever mentioning, or ever having said 11 in the record, or provided any type of condition as to the actual square footage of the houses 12 that would be built on the lots. And, so I can't really respond to her assertion that there was a 13 promise that the houses would be 2,000 to 3,000 sq. ft. I don't ever recall that. There'll be 14 a. _ _the houses that will be built, within there, will be built to conform to the lots, and to conform 15 to the set backs, and so forth, and basically, I don't know exactly what the square footages will 16 be, but they will vary; they'll be a number of varying floor plans in there within that area. I don't 17 know exactly what the square footage are and I'm not certain that they've actually...the houses 18 have actually been designed at this paint in time, where that could be determined. 19 With respect to the traffic concerns that the gentleman had, we are at the present time, 20 building our half of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard, adjacent to the development. We'll continue as 21 we develop through the Mission Hills Master Plan to build that part of the road. Now, I know 22 that, certainly if you read the Sun-News lately, you've read some of the concerns about how the 23 Sonoma Ranch ... 24 (Paused to change tape) 25 ...if from the very beginning, with the Mission Hills Master Plan, to complete our required improvements on Sonoma Ranch Boulevard as we develop along that roadway. We're -43- • • 1 constrained to the north by the fact that Sonoma Ranch passes through properties of other 2 owners and likewise to the south Sonoma Ranch passes through properties of other owners 3 and the BLM. And, we have stated and met with those other owners and with the City people 4 from time to time over the course of developing this Master Plan and the development within it. 5 In regards to how we can cooperate in the construction of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard, 6 with the other developers and the other parties of interest, including the City, and still maintain 7 that cooperation, that spirit of cooperation, but we are absolutely bound to do our portion of it 8 that's required by the Codes and required by the Subdivision Code, and the Master Plan, and so 9 forth, and will continue to try to work with the other developers within the area to try to develop 1o an overall plan to whereby Sonoma Ranch can be completed at the earliest date that we can 11 help it get there, between...at least between Lohman Avenue and Highway 70. 12 So, there are active discussions on the part of my client and on the part of the other 13 developers to get that done; that would greatly relieve some of the traffic within the area. 14 You know, right now there are, you know, Golf Club Road and, you know, Sonora Springs, I 15 think, is the other road down on the southern end of the development that go through the 16 Sonoma Ranch and over to Roadrunner Parkway and by one, Sonoma Ranch connection is 17 made, that will greatly relieve a lot of that traffic that's going through the existing developed 18 areas, and like I said, we are doing everything that we can to see that that happens as early as 19 possible. 20 If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer. 21 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. 22 Was there anyone else from the public that wanted to address this case? 23 Seeing none, I'll close the floor for the public. 24 Commissioners, you have the floor. 25 Commissioner Binneweg? -44- • • 1 BINNEWEG: I have a question, it says on the front on Background, these single family 2 residences will be detached, and then on your Development Statement, the proposal 3 information says under Type of Proposal, it says townhouses, and then it says Proposed 4 Square Footage Range of Homes, two to three thousand square feet. So, where are we here, 5 are these attached, detached? 6 CLIFTON: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Binneweg, the development statement was provided to me 7 by the consultant; I can't answer as to the square footage of the homes, but these are detached 8 patio home... 9 BINNEWEG: Detached? 1o CLIFTON: ...they are not townhouses, they are single family detached zero lot line, mind you, 11 patio homes. 12 BINNEWEG: OK, I was just curious, because it seems there's conflicting information here. 13 Detached, zero lot line, OK. 14 CHAIR YOUNG: Mr. Clifton, I think Mr. Philippou would like to address that question too. 15 PHILIP PHILIPPOU: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Philip Philippou, I am the 16 developer. I have Mr. Floyd here, who's actually going to build most, if not all, of these homes. 17 And, I would like him to address the issue of the square footage. The square footage was put in 18 by our consultant, because that's a general square footage in that area. Now, Mr. Floyd is here, 19 I would be...l'll be happy to address the issue, but they will be detached. All they will match 20 what's across the street, which is the Boulders. 21 We strive to stay with the neighborhood, so Mr. Floyd? 22 MIKE FLOYD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Mike Floyd, I happen to be building 23 all the units there. A patio home is, the definement I have of the actual house, that's the 24 detached, on a smaller lot, the square footage that we're proposing is 1,500 to 2,400 square 25 feet. If we go to 21 to 2,200 square feet and above, I can guarantee you that at least 75 to 80% of the houses will have to be two floors because on that size of lot you have to go up instead of -45- • • 1 out because you've run out of room. So that's why we're proposing the 1500 to 2400 square 2 feet. 3 A number of years ago, I developed and built The Greens, over close to University, there 4 were 42 lots in that project, approximately 10% of them were two floor homes. Six of those ten 5 houses were bought by people over 65 years of age. We're leaving that door open only 6 because of the square footage. There area a few people, and the design that we have in the 7 one-floortwo-story home that we have is a two master bedroom concept, where one would 8 have a master bedroom down stairs, a master bedroom upstairs, primarily because if they had a 9 mother-in-law or somebody living with them, that they needed the extra space. 1 o My assumption would be that we would probably build out of the 56 lots, probably no 11 more than 10%, again in two floor homes. We'd like to leave that door open, we're gonna be 12 sensitive to all the people across the street, to their elevations and, like I said, I would say the 13 majority of all the houses will be less than probably 15 feet in height, probably 14 feet. 14 Our ceilings will be nine feet, you have a two foot truss, then a parapet wall, and that 15 would be your single floor home, and again, the supply and demand will regulate that, but my ~ 6 guess would be that 90% of the houses will be one floor homes. 17 Again, if you look at The Boulders, will be a continuation of that style, that look, will be 18 less a gate, less a swimming pool, less a rec room, but it would be a concept very similar to The 19 Boulders. 20 And the price will probably be very compatible as well, so the valuations in the area 21 would probably not be changed. 22 And I'd be glad to answer any other questions you might have. 23 CHAIR YOUNG: OK, thank you. 24 Any other Commissioner questions or comments? 25 Commissioner Ludtke? L.UDTKE: Are there any structures on this property now? -46- ~ • ~ LUDTKE: Are there any structures on this property now? 2 CHAIR YOUNG: Uh hu. 3 SCANLON: No, the property is vacant at this time. 4 LUDTKE: The grey building that's going up by the home right now, that's right there lot 20, is 5 that...? s SCANLON: That's actually... 7 LUDTKE: ...that's actually in another subdivision? 8 SCANLON: That is, that is within a lot, within EI Presidio Subdivision is on that lot, right there, 9 in EI Presidio Phase 1. 1o BINNEWEG: Mh hm. 11 SCANLON: And I do apologize, I do want to apologize, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for 12 there were obviously a clerical error in the development statement with my technician that 13 prepared that with the 2,000 to 3,000 square foot statement, I do apologize for that and I'll have 14 a little talk with him in the morning. But, no, that existing house is on that lot that I'm painting to 15 right there. 16 CHAIR YOUNG: OK. Other commissioners? 17 Commissioner Binneweg? 18 BINNEWEG: I just have a comment, I had out of town guests and so we drove through and 19 looked...walked through the models at The Boulders and my first thought looking at their view 20 was, "Mh I know there's gonna be more between this house and the mountain," and I wasn't 21 even on P8~Z at the time, but it's...l can remember years ago in California visiting friends 22 abutting a vineyard and how nice it was, now I visited them two years later and there were just 23 roof tops as far as they could see, because the vineyard was gone. So, I think that people who 24 buy in these areas have to realize that they're not at the edge of the development. The 25 development, because of the phase that the City's in right now, development is going go to, well, there's a border there, but the border's moved, so heaven only knows where the border's -47- • • 1 gonna be...where the edge of development will be in the desert there. Nat a nice thought, but a 2 realistic one. 3 FORD; All one needs to do is go to Albuquerque about 40 years ago and look at it, and you'll 4 see exactly haw it was Mesa forty years from now. 5 SCANLON: That's correct, and you know, when we did the High Range, back in about 1980 6 and did the first phases in there, it felt like the edge of the world, you know. 7 BINNEWEG; Mh hm. 8 CHAIR YOUNG: OK, any other Commissioners comments? 9 All right... 1o BUCHMAN: I make... 11 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead sir. 12 BUCHMAN: I make a motion we approve Case S-04-029. 13 BINNEWEG: Second. 14 CHAIR YOUNG: There are conditions. 15 BINNEWEG: With the conditions, and go ahead and read them. 16 BUCHMAN: With the conditions that the residential frontage roads must be one way access 17 only, and signed indicating that said roads are one way only. And number two, no lot shall have 18 direct residential access to Sonoma Ranch Boulevard. 19 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you, did I hear a second? ~o BINNEWEG: Second. 21 CHAIR YOUNG: Is there any further discussion? 22 Let me call the roll, Commissioner Buchman? 23 BUCHMAN: Aye, based on site visit, discussions, and findings. 24 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Binneweg? 25 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on site visit, discussion, and findings. CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Ford? -48- • • 1 FORD: Aye, based on site visit, discussion, and findings. 2 CHAIR YOUNG: Commissioner Ludtke? 3 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 4 CHAIR YOUNG. Commissioner Camunez? 5 CAMUIVEZ: Aye, findings and discussion. 6 CHAIR YOUNG: And the Chair votes Aye, based on site visit, and discussion, and findings. 7 Thank you for your participation tonight, if any of the public would like to stay around for 8 the election of officers, you are welcome. Before we get into that, if there is anyone in the public 9 that would like to address us concerning anything, I'll open the floor for that at this time. 10 Seeing no one. 11 Commissioners, I want us to go ahead and proceed with our election of officers at this 12 time. And I'm going to ask you if we can suspend the normal rules for the election of officers. 13 Normally, at this time, the Chairman would turn over the election for the position of Chairman to 14 the Secretary, far the Secretary to handle it through the election of the new Chairman. 15 However, I see a potential problem in doing that this time. Since I will not be running for the 16 Chair for the coming year, I would ask that you would allow me to go ahead and conduct the 17 meeting through the election of the Chairman so we don't have a potential problem, if the 18 Secretary is nominated for the Chair's position. Is that all right with the Commissioners? 19 FORD: You are the Chair; therefore you stay there unless we take action to remove you, rather 20 than leave you there. 21 CHAIR YOUNG: Yeah, but I'm just saying that we normally turn it over to the Secretary to 22 handle the meeting during the election of the Chair. 23 FORD: Proceed, my feeling is to proceed. 24 CHAIR YOUNG: OK, anyone have an objection? All right, at this time then, I will open the floor 25 for nominations for the position of Chairman. -49- • • 1 FORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like, without asking his permission, but I would nominate Mr. 2 Buchman, AKA Buchanan, for the position of Chair. 3 CHAIR YOUNG: OK, thank you. 4 Are there any other nominations? 5 According to Robert's Rules, I have to ask again. Are there any other nominations? 6 FORD: Mr. Chairman, I move the nominations seize if you elect by acclamation. 7 CHAIR YOUNG: Is there a second? $ CAMUNEZ: I second it. 9 CHAIR YOUNG: OK, all in favor, and we won't call the roll here; all in favor say Aye. ~~ COMMISSIONERS: In unison Aye. 11 CHAIR YOUNG: Any opposed? 12 Commissioner Buchman, you are the new Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. 13 At this time I'll open the floor for the office of Vice-Chair, are there any nominations? 1a FORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to nominate Ms. Binneweg also, no, I won't put an AKA on 15 her, far Vice-Chair. 16 BINNEWEG: We haven't known each other long enough. 17 CHAIR YOUNG: Is there a second? 18 CAMUNEZ: I second it. 19 CHAIR YOUNG: Would you also like to make a motion... 20 FORD: I make a motion that this be made by acclamation. 21 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. All in favor? ~~ COMMISSIONERS: In unison, Aye. 23 CHAIR YOUNG: Any opposed? 24 OK, we have one more. I'll open the floor far nominations for the position of Secretary. 25 BUCHMAN: I nominate Commissioner Camunez as Secretary. FORD: I would second that. -50- w ~ . 1 CHAIR YOUNG: OK, do we have a motion to do it by acclamation? 2 BUCHMAN: I make a motion that we close the motions and accept her by acclamation. 3 CHAIR YOUNG: OK, all in favor? 4 COMMISSIONERS: In unison, Aye. 5 CHAIR YOUNG: Opposed? There are none. We now have our new slate of officers for the 6 coming year, the only other things that we have on our agenda tonight, staff do you have any ~ comments? 8 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of quick announcements; we, at this particular time, we are 9 planning on having a Work Session in May, I believe that would be the 18t" 10 CHAIR YOUNG: OK. 11 KYLE: ...we will be coming to the Commission with some proposed amendments to the Zoning 12 Code that we've been working, in coordination with the Committee comprised of different 13 sectors of the community, so put that on your calendars tentatively for the May 18th Work 14 Session. And, I think I can personally, I think I can speak on behalf of staff, would like to thank 15 Commissioner Young for his abilities and leadership as Chairman over the past term and a half 16 or so. Henry, I think you have done a great job as Chairman to the Commission and it's been a 17 pleasure working with you in that capacity. 18 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. And with that, next meeting you sit here... 19 BUCHMAN: I get to sit there. 20 CHAIR YOUNG:...we get to trade seats, OK? If I'm still here 21 BUCHMAN: I'd like to thank Commissioner Ford for the nomination. One thing I noticed in my 22 time, and I think by the Mayor's chair here, there's a gabble and in the two years that I've been 23 here, I've never seen Mr. Young had need for a gavel, you've always done a fine job, I 24 commend you for the way you've run the meetings and controlled them, I hope I've learned a 25 little bit, and I'll use your knowledge in the future. And, no, I won't leave it open for suggestions during the meetings. -51- • • 1 CHAIR YOUNG: ~K, thank you, I appreciate all of these things, but don't send accolades, send 2 money. 3 With that, is there a motion for adjournment? 4 FORD: So moved. 5 CHAIR YOUNG: We are adjourned, I would appreciate some help here in my last official act, I'll 6 be signing plats. 7 LUDTKE: What time did we adjourn? 8 BUCHMAN: Seven fifty-four. 9 10 Adjourned at 7:54 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 zz 23 24 25 -52-