Loading...
03/23/2004• • 1 REGULAR MEETING 2 OF THE 3 PLANING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 FOR THE 5 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 6 City Council Chambers 7 March 23, 2004 g 6:00 pm 9 10 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 11 Quentin Ford, Vice-Chair 12 Bruce Buchman 13 William Ludtke 14 Elizabeth Camunez 15 Nancy Binneweg 16 STAFF PRESENT: 17 Robert Kyle, Planner 18 Kirk Clifton, Planner 19 Lani Ruth McCarson, Planner 20 Brian Harper, Associate Planner 21 Travis Brown, Fire Department 22 Richard M. Jacquez, Assistant City Attorney 23 Carmen Alicia Lucero, Recording Secretary 24 25 VICE-CHAIR FORD: The magic hourjust about arrived, so I will use my prerogative and call this session of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. -1- . • ~ 1 I wanted to make a couple of comments ahead of time. I think...did all you have a chance to pick 2 up a copy of the proposed agenda? I believe that...if that...Robert, are there still ones available around? 3 If anybody didn't get one... 4 ROBERT KYLE: There might be same on the table. 5 VICE-CHAIR FORD: It's an unusually long agenda, and I wanted to be sure that everybody had 6 an opportunity to get a copy of it. 7 You'll notice that on tonight's agenda, there are 12 Consent items. This is an unusually large $ number and I just wanted to make some comments ahead of time about this. Several years ago, the City 9 Council asked and the Planning Department did carry out a study of the Zoning Codes for the City, and 10 did a very comprehensive study. And, in 2001 this was put through this group for their approval, which 11 this...the Planning and Zoning did approve, sent on to the City Council and was accepted there. 12 So, we really are working under now the 2001 Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Codes, or 13 Zoning Codes. As a result of this, there were several properties, quite a few properties, within the City 14 that were perfectly legitimate and legal under the old Zoning Codes, but are not in compliance with the 15 current Zoning Codes; there had...changes had to be made and changes and usage came along. But 16 those were "grandfathered" in all of them. 17 However, the City Council did grant a moratorium period in which property owners could request 18 no charge assistance of the City's Planning Department to get zoning changes made to bring the property 19 into compliance under the new codes. They could stay in, if they wanted to, under the 19$1 Codes and it 20 would be perfectly all right, but if the property is to be changed, sold, ar something new happened, it 21 would have to be rezoned. 22 So, there has been this period which the studies have been made to get property properly zoned 23 to bring it into compliance. And, that's why you're seeing this number 12, the number up to 12 of cases, 24 which are, almost without exception in there, proposed with the City's blessing, the Planning and Zoning 25 Department's blessing. So, unusually large amount of Consent Agenda items; that's why you're seeing it. And, I just wanted to make sure that you're aware of this. -2- r • 1 We will, or I will ask now for approval of the agenda when we get a motion, I hope we get one, to 2 approve it, and get it second, then I will ask for any comments that anyone has, a request, or desire to 3 take an item off the Consent Agenda, and make it a part of New Business. If it is, it will become the next 4 item down in the New Business section. If it's left on the Consent Agenda, then when we approve the 5 agenda, that will automatically approve all the Consent items. I just want to make sure everybody's clear 6 on the procedure on this. 7 BRENT ROUSER: Inaudible. $ VICE-CHAIR FORD: Yes. 9 ROUSER: If it's a property that adjoins your property, and someone wanted to change the zone 10 on it... 11 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Just...l'm going to interrupt you just a second. One of the ground rules 12 that we have that's very, very critical; my major assistant here insists that you identify yourself clearly sa 13 that we know that we can have a name for anyone. And, I'm going to insist on that for everybody that 14 speaks 15 ROUSER: OK. My name is Brent Houser. 16 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. Now. 17 ROUSER: Anyway. There's a property adjoining your property and they're seeking to change 18 the zoning, and we're thinking that it might have a chance or negative effect on our property, is there a 19 point that we can let that zoning not change...not be made? 20 VICE-CHAIR FORD: That would be the time when I ask if there's anybody that wants an item 21 removed from the Consent Agenda and put under New Business, you can so request it at that time, and it 22 would become a part of New Business, and you'll have an opportunity to discuss it. 23 ROUSER: OK 24 VICE-CHAIR FORD: All right. Yes sir. 25 -3- • ~r 1 J.B. PRUITT: J. B. Pruitt. My comment ar question is in reference to Case 22545. Is it my 2 understanding that if the proposed re-zoning now brings those properties, as they are developed, 3 consistent with new City Zoning Cade (inaudible.) 4 VICE-CHAIR FORD: That is my understanding on all of these cases. 5 Commissioners, could we have a motion to approve the Agenda? 6 LUDTKE: Motion...l make a motion to accept the Agenda. 7 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Qo we have a second? 8 GAMUNEZ: I second it. 9 VICE-CHAIR FORD; All right. We are at a point now then where we can, if we have...make any 10 changes within the Agenda, ar make any additions or deletions to it, we do so. And, I will ask first from 11 the public, is there anybody that would care to remove any item from the Consent Agenda and make it a 12 part of New Business. You see the list, I'm not going to try and read through all of them. You have it 13 either in your hand or on the screen what these are. 14 RENA LOW: (Speaking away Pram the microphone, inaudible) I am Rena Low, and I think it's 15 case 22553. It was a piece of property that we have over on the..(Inaudible) 16 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Would you read...? Is it a request to remove that from the Consent 17 Agenda and place it under New Business? 1 S LOW: Yes. 19 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. 20 Are there any other requests? 21 LUDTKE: Was it 2553? 22 GAMUNEZ: Mh hm. 23 VICE-CHAIR FORD: 22553. 24 BRUCE BUCHMAN: Number two, you're talking about, right? 25 VICE-CHAIR FORD: That is correct, yes. -4- • A 1 BUCHMAN: OK. 2 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Yes, sir? 3 BOB TELLEZ: Z...My name is Bob Tellez, and Case Number 22550, I request that it be put on 4 Consent and.... 5 VICE-CHAIR FORD: That's Case Number Five, I believe... 6 BINNEWEG: Mh hm. 7 VICE-CHAIR FORD: ...on the Consent Agenda. 8 Are there any others from the public that would care to...? g Yes Ma'am? 10 CATHY VALDEZ: Speaking away from the microphone (inaudible) I'm sorry, Cathy Valdez, that 11 are replotting of the area by Elks? (Inaudible) 12 BINNEWEG: That's not an Consent. 13 BUCHMAN: That's New Business. 14 VICE-CHAIR FORD: That's not on the Consent Agenda. 15 That would come under...it will automatically be brought under... 16 BINNEWEG: Yeah. 17 VICE-CHAIR FORD: ...up under New Business. 18 Any others from the public? 19 Commissioners, are there any of you that would care to remove an item from the Consent 20 Agenda and place it under New Business? 21 BUCHMAN: Mr. Chairman, C-12,' I wish removed from the Consent Agenda, please. 22 VICE-CHAIR FORD: What number? 23 BUCHMAN: Case...l'm sorry, Case Number 12, which is... 24 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Oh, IDP... 25 BUCHMAN: ...IDP-19. -5- . • • 1 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. Any other Commissioners? Are there any other changes in 2 the Agenda that you would like to ask the Commissioners that you would bring forth? 3 Staff, do you have any comments on any additions or deletions to the Agenda? 4 KIRK CLIFTON: Mr. Chairman... 5 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Mr. Clifton, 6 CLIFTON: Staff would request at this time to postpone... 7 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Mr. Clifton, I'm going to ask you also to identify yourself. 8 CLIFTON: Mr. Chairman; members of the Commission, Kirk Clifton, Community Development 9 Department. Staff is requesting to postpone cases number five and six under New Business; the 1Q Arrowhead Estates proposal until the April 27t" meeting due to issues...additional issues that need to be 11 resolved with the developer, staff, and the residents. 12 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. 13 CLIFTON: Thank you. 14 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Did you get that, Commissioners? 15 BINNEWEG: Mh hm. 16 LUDTKE: Nine, and six? 17 BINNEWEG: Nine and six. 18 VICE-CHAIR FORD: I will ask one more time; any other changes? 19 You"ve heard the recommended changes, we have a motion to approve the agenda, I'd ask for a vote 20 now. I'm going to ask for an oral vote... 21 LUDTKE: What's the new numbers? 22 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Oh, excuse me. I did not...we will make item 22553 will become New 23 Business items number eight, as per your agenda. Now, we've taken one and two off, but it will become 24 eight, as per the appended agenda. 25 LUDTKE: Number five? -6- • • 1 VICE-CHAIR FORD: And then, number five, under the Consent, will now become number nine, 2 under New Business. 3 Yes sir? 4 (Speaking away the microphone -inaudible) Mr. Chairman, I am Qusay? We (inaudible) verify 5 exactly the part of Arrowhead Estates, is it all of it? Is that the Elks area? 6 CLIFTON: (Speaking way from the microphone) Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, 7 this is specifically the vacant parcel of land the case that's by the Country Club Manor (inaudible) 8 Subdivision, the Arrowhead Estates developers are wishing to develop a part of the Arrowhead 9 Development, specific to the Nemish-Heather area (inaudible) 10 VICE-CHAIR FORD; But it's...but Mr. Clifton, it's both items on the agenda, though... 11 CLIFTON: Correct. 12 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Correct. 13 CLIFTON: Numbers five and six. 14 VICE-CHAIR FORD: That would be 5-04-021 and S-04-022. 15 BUCHMAN: Mr. Clifton, to make it easier, Mr. Clifton, I know some of these people are confused 16 with the numbers and everything: we're a little bit out of sequence. Could you put that picture up there so 17 they can see exactly which one we're talking about? Will that take too long? 18 CLIFTON: Nat at all, Commissioner. 19 BUCHMAN: That's the one we're postponing. 20 BINNEWEG: Mh hm. 21 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Yeah. 22 BUCHMAN; So, I think it's just a cut and dry, simple postponement; there's no questions about 23 it, until next time. 24 UNKNOWN: Will the (inaudible)? 25 CLIFTON: Staff would hope so. -7- • • 1 SEVERAL PEOPLE FROM THE AUDIENCE POSING QUESTIONS AWAY FROM THE 2 MICROPHONE -INAUDIBLE. 3 MALE UNKNOWN: We made a special effort to be here. 4 FEMALE UNKNOWN: (inaudible) 5 CLIFTON: I would pace that question to the developer. 6 FEMALE UNKNOWN: So, is the developer (inaudible) 7 CLIFTON: Well, there's issues that are relative to staffs concerns in addition to resident's 8 concerns that will be addressed. Staff would rather not discuss the merits of the case at this time, 9 members of the Commission, if...l'd be more than happy to answer the public's questions outside, or 10 have them give me a call at the office. 11 VICE-CHAIR FORD: I apologize far any inconvenience this might cause. I wasn't aware of it `till 12 just now either, but... 13 BUCHMAN: I think we had a motion on the floor to approve the Agenda, Mr. Chairman. I think 14 we need to vote on that before we go much further. 15 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Do you want to... 16 BINNEWEG: Yeah, because... 17 BUCHMAN: Let get on with it. 18 VICE-CHAIR FORD: All right. 19 Commissioner Buchanan? 20 BUCHMAN: Aye. 21 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Binneweg? 22 BINNEWEG: Aye. 23 VICE-CHAIR FORD. Commissioner Camunez? 24 CAMUIVEZ: Aye. 25 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Ludtke? -8- • • 1 LUDTKE: Aye. 2 VICE-CHAIR FORD: And Chair votes Aye. 3 Now, we are ready to start with the agenda items. The first item on the agenda is the minutes; 4 the minutes for the February 23, 2003, meeting. Any comments...any... 5 BUCHMAN: Yes, I'd like to make a comment that... fi VICE-CHAIR FORD: 2004... 7 BINNEWEG: Yeah. 8 VICE-CHAIR FORD: ...even though your agenda says 2003, it really was 2004. 9 BINNEWEG: Mh hm. 10 BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ford did a very fine job as Chairman, but I'm wondering how he 11 could also be Chairman and a member? 12 VICE-GHAIR FORb: I had two votes. 13 BUCHMAN: No you didn't. 14 BINNEWEG: Yeah. 15 VICE-CHAIR FORD: The revised minutes, I think you have a copy, shows... 16 BUCHMAN: No. 17 VICE-CHAIR FORD: ...that was deleted. 18 BUCHMAN: OK. Just wanted to make sure it was deleted. I have no other corrections of the 19 minutes. 20 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Move approval. 21 BINNEWEG: So moved. 22 BUCHMAN: Second. 23 VICE-CHAIR FORD: All in favor say Aye. 24 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye. 25 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Opposed? Thank you. -9- • • 1 All of the items on the Consent Agenda then, are approved, except number two, Case 2553, and 2 number five Case 2550, and then we are... 3 BUCHMAN: And number 12. 4 BINNEWEG: And number 10. 5 VICE~CHAIR FORD: Excuse me, number 12, which was IDP-19. 6 BUCHMAN: Did somebody remove... 7 BINNEWEG: Oh, no. I'm sorry, sorry...you're right. 8 VICE-CHAIR FORD: So, we're now at New Business and Item number 12, by the way, will now 9 take on the number 10, under New Business. 10 Our first item under New Business then is Case ,22549. Mr. Clifton, do you want to comment on 11 that, or who is going to... 12 LANI RUTH MCCARSON: Chairman Ford, I'm Lani McCarron, I'll go ahead and make a brief 13 presentation on the case, as soon as I find the Power Point. 14 Chairman Ford, Commissioners, this is one of those cases that you were discussing at the very 15 beginning of the meetings. City initiated zone change request in order to bring these properties into 16 compliance with the changes in the 2001 Zoning Code. The properties involved are the Encantada 17 Mobile Hame Park, and the Onate Greens Mobile Home Park. Essentially, what staff is proposing is an 18 R-3 zoning district completely for both parks; only in order to bring them into compliance with the new 19 regulations. These zone changes will not affect any operations of the park and the zone changes do not 20 propose any new construction or any involvement with the operations of the parks. And, I can answer 21 any questions you might have. 22 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Is there...any questions from the public about 22549, the Encantada Park? 23 Seeing none, I would ask the same question of the Commissioners. 24 BUCHMAN: I have one question to staff before we vote on this, please. 25 Where'd she go? -10- • • 1 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Mr. Buchanan...? 2 BUCHMAN: Commissioner McCarson. 3 VICE-CHAIR FORD: .,.Buchman? 4 BUCHMAN: I only have one question; I think I know the answer. Can anyone do anything else 5 to this park, it's going to stay just as they are now; there's not any changes of any type? 6 MCCARSON: Chairman Fard, Commissioner Buchman, that is correct. 7 BUCHMAN: I make a motion we approve Case 22549. 8 LUDTKE: Second. 9 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Any further discussion? We will vote then, by voice, but oral ANA. 10 Mr. Buchman? 11 BUCHMAN: Aye, based on site visit and findings. 12 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Binneweg? 13 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on finding? 14 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Camunez? 15 CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on finding? 16 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Ludtke? 17 LUDTKE: Aye, finding, site visit. 18 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Chair votes Aye, based on findings, discussion, and site visit. 19 Our next item, I believe, if I'm keeping all my notes correct would be, 2529. Who is going to 20 present that? 21 MCCARSON: Chairman Ford, that's me again; Lani McCarson, for the record. Chairman Ford, 22 Commissioners, this again is another one of the cases that you were discussing at the beginning of the 23 meeting. City initiated zoning conversion case, only to bring the property's zoning into compliance with 24 the 2Q01 Zoning Code. This property is currently zoned C-2, it's currently vacant. It's between, it's on 25 North Main Street, between the Blake's hamburger place, and the Sonic hamburger place, between Elks and Temple Street. -11- • • 1 Specifically, the property is 6.7 acres, as I said, it's currently vacant. According to the City's 2 records, this property was annexed into the City in 1957 and was zoned commercial at that time. 3 Basically, this chart analyzes, if you may, the differences between the C-2 zoning districts found 4 in the 1981 Code and the 2001 Code, and the G3 zoning districts found in the 2001 Cade. I've 5 highlighted the most pertinent part of the sections that apply to this case regarding maximum property 6 size. In the C-2 zoning districts from the 1981 Code there was no property size limit. The adoption of the 7 2001 Zoning Code limited the C-2 properties to a maximum property size of one acre. Again, because 8 this property is over one acre, staff is recommending the C-3 zoning designation which has no maximum 9 property size, and most appropriately matches the C-2 zoning districts from the 1981 Zoning Code. 10 A little bit of background on this case, late in 2003 staff did process a City initiated zoning 11 conversion case, which did include this property along with many other properties in the area. Due to 12 some neighborhood protest, the vacant properties were eliminated from the Ordinance when it was heard 13 at City Council, and that would include this property being eliminated from the Ordinance at that time. In 14 January, staff had a neighborhood meeting with the protesters from the neighborhood in an attempt to 15 hopefully educate and address same issues from the neighborhood concerning this property and the 16 zone changes. Again, in an attempt to clear any non-conforming zoning issues with the property, the 17 owners requested conversion to the C-3 zoning district. 18 F~ere's a couple of site photos of the property. Again, you've got Blake's Lotaburger to the south, 19 Sonic to the north, and the property is currently vacant. And, staff is recommending approval solely 20 based on compliance with the 2001 Zoning Code. And, I can answer any questions.you might have. 21 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Anyone from the public? Yes sir. Come up to the microphone if you'd 22 please, and identify yourself. By the way, our ground rules are, if someone is speaking for a group in 23 here, we will give you up to fifteen minutes, if your speaking individually, we'll give you somewhere 24 between one and three minutes, depending on how, any new information that you might have. 25 7OM WYLMAN: I'll try to keep it short. I'm part of that rubble rousing group. I live on Avondale, my name is Tom Wylman, and I live on Avondale. And, one of the main areas is the nature...there's two -12- C 1 areas, it's the nature of how that will affect the area, if there's a big business that goes in there, a large 2 traffic congestor or, when you give it a C-3, you have no control; a person can put anything an there. 3 And, so, what is the nature of what they gonna put in there, when it's open-ended, it's open land and you 4 give it a C-3, which gives them complete ability to put anything there. 5 The one thing that I am personally interested in is the traffic situation in that area. My daughter 6 lives in Albuquerque and up there, on the west mesa, and they've built these great housing area, except 7 they forgot the access roads to the great property and it was very congested. So, kind of now, they're 8 trying to work on the traffic problem that they have. And, I see the same thing. 9 We just completed this US 70, and that has caused the flow rate to be stranger. It's not in the 10 area, but there's housing developing up to the east and that's going to cause even mare traffic on 70, 11 coming into the town. Right now, that intersection of Main and Elks is very congested at certain times; it's 12 extremely congested. 13 And, all I can see is, there's gonna be some...yau gotta do something with that thing, either make 14 it like a highway with controlled access to that place. If there's a motel or another large truck-something- 15 or-other that goes in there, that we don't know about, that will only increase the amount of traffic and 15 congestion in that area. People will...if it's a motel, will be wanting to turn left going back to the interstate 17 Right now, that's a dangerous turn. And, we would have to da something about it. The only option they 18 have is to go down to guess where? The Elks interchange, where there's a controlled stop light. And, 19 that bothers me is, what is the plan for that area? Because right now the housing area are all funneling 20 into that area, and causing increased, and more increased, and mare increased to the paint where I 21 suspect that that intersection is gonna be; you know, untenable. 22 Right now, I've talked to a couple of people, and I do it myself, the way out of not going up to Elks 23 is to filter through the housing area, and many people are filtering through the hauling area, in the 24 morning, I heard in our newspaper there, talking about the raceway at Spitz, how they're using that as a 25 major arterial flow back into Main street, and people are dumping through the Elks housing area right now, you know, it's not an Elks Street, but it's running through the housing area. -13- • • 1 And I think these things need to be...these planning issues need to be addressed as to what the 2 heck is gonna go on that Narth Main area before somebody put something in there that, you know, will 3 cause some other problems for us. The unknown to us, you know, what's gonna happen? And, that's 4 one of my main issues, the other issues are, changing in the character, a lot of people that I know...the 5 change in character, the nature of the area. If you put this several story motel up there, it looks like, you 5 know, there's not control on that, if you pass the C-3. Even though it's bigger than an acre and all those 7 other nice things that the zoning law says, I don't think the zoning law is set up to cantral what the 8 situation is. 9 VICE-GHAIR FORD: Thank you. 10 WYLMAN: Thank you. 11 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Anybody else, and then I will ask for the staff to respond. 12 KAREN STULL: Chairman, and Commissioners, my name is Karen Stull, I represent the Stull 13 family on this piece of property. We've asked for a zoning conversion to C-3 from C-2 simply to keep in 14 compliance with the new Zoning Code. 15 This property has been commercial for many, many years, since 1957. We are aware that C-3 is 16 mare restrictive than C-2, which it is now. At this time we could put multi-family housing an that property. 17 There is a 10 acre buffer zone between this property and the residential and I just...we don't have a motel 18 planned, we don't have anything planned. This is just a piece of property that the Stull family would like 19 to sell and be treated just like other properties. Thank you. 20 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Yes Ma'am? 21 TAMMIE SMITH: My name is Tammie Smith, and although I don't five in the area, one of the 22 residents there who had planned to be here tonight is very sick and asked me if !would came and make 23 the presentation that she had planned to make for herself and for her neighborhood, so I suppose you 24 could say it's a group presentation. 25 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Are you asking for 15 minutes, or one minute? -14- • • 1 SMITH: Well, l hope I don't need 15, but I think - need more than one. 2 VICE-CHAIR FORD: OK. 3 SMITH: What I'd like to do is, I'd like to first start at one end to the other, I guess with you, Dr. 4 Ford, with some pictures that, by the way my presentation is for Connie Sharp and she lives on Avondale. 5 Is this map to scale? 6 VICF-CHAIR FORD: I don't believe so. 7 SMITH: OK. Well, in any event, she would be, I think, the fifth house in from the intersection 8 there of Elks and Avondale. The reason I ask is because these pictures will show you what the true 9 distance looks like between the backs of the houses on Avondale and where they would fence on to...l 10 don't know what road that is, I guess it's Lenox. 11 Anyway, I have some pictures and, which I had taken from her yard; she asked me if I would take 12 them, and there was a huge semi-trailer parked right on that road across from Avondale, and we were 13 trying to get some kind of a perspective for height `cause it's terribly hard for any of us to visualize the 14 height of a building or the distance, so perhaps these will help. 15 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you Tommie. 16 SMITH: This is a letter from Connie Sharp to the Planning and honing Commission -- Talking 17 points against motels and hotels, and that seems to be one of the big concerns is the building of a hotel 18 or a motel because this new zoning, C-3, would allow a 60 foot high building. Now, we don't know how 19 tall that trailer is; we are guessing that if a motel was built to the limit, it could be approximately three 20 times the height of that truck. Does that seem right to you? You all may have a better idea. OK, 21 because I want to be able to tell her that. 22 All right, here I have comments: 23 1. They are open 24 hours aday -- 7 days a week. These are normal business hours. This is 24 all based an Hotel, Motel, by the way. 25 2. There will be traffic all day long. Night time traffic in particular will be extreme. Early morning traffic when people are leaving will be noisy, with door slamming, talking and yelling. Ditto -15- • • 1 early evening and throughout the night. As per MPO staff member, Lisa ~uselier, this use will 2 generate eight trips per day per occupied room. A restaurant 130 trips per day per 1,000 sq. 3 ft. of gross floor area. 4 3. Delivery trucks on Lenox day and night. If truck drivers stay at motel, their trucks will be loud 5 and noisy, especially if they keep their motors running all night; which is common, especially 6 if it's carrying refrigerated goods. 7 4. People staying in the rooms will be able to see in the back yards of all the houses adjoining 8 the subject property. 9 5. There will be lots of light pollution. Lights in parking areas will be an all night, as well as room 10 lights and landscaping light. 11 6. If there's a bar with dancing in connection with the motel/hotel, the disturbance to neighboring 12 residential occupants would be intolerable. I feel sure that we'll be calling the police 13 frequently. 14 7. The public safe issue for the neighborhood would be accentuated. 15 8. A hotel/motel would adversely affect the property values on Avondale and Devendale, 16 because such high intensity use nearby is usually not found in a city with good planning 17 practices. In fact, this use should be listed as a "Special Use Permit," where the placement of 18 the development can be controlled. 19 9. The traffic on Elks, Lenox, and Temple Street will be dangerously increased. People staying 20 at the facility would most likely use our neighborhood streets. 21 10. Those of us who have homes on Avondale and Devendale that back up to the exposure of a 22 hotel/motel development will forever lose our privacy. Imagine living behind a 60 ft, tall 23 75,000 sq. ft. building containing windowed rooms that face north, from where people can 24 see us, but we cannot see them. Consider the loud music and N noise that would play all 25 day and all night from some part of that building. Would you like to live like that? -16- • • 1 Her continuation is: Mr. Earl Stull, the owner of the subject land, has owned the property since 2 some where around 1957. During all this time, 45 years, he has had an opportunity to sell the land for 3 any size hotel/motel or stand alone large commercial building. He's had the zoning that would allow 4 building up to 60' in height by the 1981 Code, with no square footage size limitation or land size limit. 5 Instead, he chose to sell to low-profile, single story businesses that benefited the neighborhood. hie 6 evidently knew he was fulfilling a need and the businesses have thrived. These types of uses do not 7 generate a lot of traffic on neighborhood street, such as Lenox, Temple and Elks Road. The people in the 8 adjoining residences do not want ahotel/motel, nor any other high volume businesses. To quote the 9 2003 Code, we want C-2 Commercial Medium Density, a district that facilitates and encourages 10 development of those uses which provide retail and service activities as a convenience to adjacent 11 neighborhoods and whose use generally serves a population of 5,000 to 30,000. 12 Mr. Stull has established a precedent throughout the years. We should honor and maintain that 13 precedent. Because of this precedent, we in the neighborhood believed in him. Now, we ask that you 14 follow in the same footsteps and consider the impact to our enjoyment of our property and the traffic 15 safety issue, and our property values that are at stake. To follow the existing precedent: 16 1. We want this property zoned C-2 according to the new code. We also want you to exclude 17 the motel/hotel use. And, that you exclude the height limitation thereon, and that you change 18 the land uses that do not fit in your maximum lot area of two acres, and 19 2. Furthermore, if you were to increase the C-2 lot size, we request that you move the allowed 20 hotel/motel use, plus other inappropriate medium density uses to the "Special Use" section of 21 the C-2 Zoning District. 22 Connie also gave me a letter from Mr. and Mrs. James Appleby. 23 And, this is: 24 Dear Sirs, this is a request that the zoning remain at C-3 by the 2001 Code. A rezoning to C-2 25 will adversely affect the property values and quality of life of the neighboring homes. -17- • • 1 Suggestions for the use of the 6.7 acres located at North Main Street from Elks Drive to Temple Street 2 are: 3 'A strip mall containing a cafeteria, barber shop, beauty shop, postal outlet, small hardware stare, 4 doctor and dentist office, family restaurant, bank outlet. 5 These small businesses would not impact the already existing traffic load and not use excessive 6 amounts of water, as would a hotel or a motel. 7 As property owners approximately 200 feet from the proposed zone change, we feel that noise $ and air quality would be detrimental to our health and quality of life of the homeowners in this area. 9 I~lease keep the 2001 C-2 zoning in place. Sincerely, Mrs. and Mrs. James Appleby. 10 I'm going to give that to you for your records and also Connie wants me to give you this petition; she 11 doesn't know if you had this or not, but there are two hundred names-.. 12 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Yes, we have them. 13 SMITH: You do have it, so you don't need another one. 14 VICE-CHAIR FORD: No, but we do need the copy of the two letters that you read. 15 SMITH: OK, well, OK. Now, I have notes on this one, you want the one from Connie, right? 1 fi VICE-CHAIR FORD: Yes. 17 SMITH: OK. 18 VICE-CHAIR FORD: But we would also like to have... 19 SMITH: Appleby's. 20 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Yes. 21 SMITH: By the way, I want to make one comment please. Behind my house, where I live, 22 there's a big piece of land that's approximately three acres at the present time it's a pecan field. I'm 23 concern at some of the zoning that does take place. I almost have the feeling that you're not safe moving 24 some place where there's blank piece of land because there's no telling haw is to be zoned and I would 25 like to consider that in your deliberations. Even though I'm not involved in this case, what is decided here can set a precedence. Thank you. -18- • • 1 VICE-CHAIR FORD: OK. Anyone else have anything that would be new? 2 Ms. Stull. 3 STULL; Karen Stull again, for the Stull Family. We already have C-2, we already have the ability 4 to put in a motel or a hotel, we have policed this property since 1957 and have never put anything there 5 that would be detrimental. We still don't intend to do that. We...l mean we want to be in compliance, we 6 want to be neighborhood friendly. We haven't had...many years ago somebody trying to buy a piece of 7 property for a hotel; that didn't fly, he couldn't get his funding, and that was many, many years ago. We $ have na idea why they're talking about hotel/motel, except for that. Thank you. 9 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. 10 Anyone else in the public that would be something new? 11 The gentleman in the back was first. 12 DR. DANIEL DURAN: I'm Dr. Daniel Duran, and I have an office right across the street from the 13 proposed rezoning. And, my concern is that traffic an that North Main area. If we get something high 14 density into that area, anything real high commercial is gonna be...my concern is for the staff and stuff is 15 for the planning an the traffic flow in that area, 'cause right now if you go through at 8 o'clock, ar 5 o'clock, 16 you can realize how much traffic is in that area. And, that is detrimental to the businesses in that area. 17 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. Naw. 18 BRAD EUBANKS: My name is Brad Eubanks, and talking in...speaking in behalf of the Stull 19 Family_ I'd just like to point out two things: One, the uses and the traffic generation fears that have been 20 expressed tonight will exists whether it's C-2 or C-3. The uses that were allowed under C-2 that are 21 allowed on C-3. The bottom line is that C-3 zoning under the new Code is the only zoning that would 22 make this property conforming. Thank you. 23 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Staff, do you have anything 24 that...any comments to make on this? Ms. McCarson? Anything else? I will then close this portion and 25 ask the Commissioners, do you have any questions ar comments? -19- • • 1 One, two, three... 2 BINNEWEG: OK. 3 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Nancy. 4 BINNEWEG: Yes. People who bought in the neighborhood have known this as C-2, they've 5 known it as commercial for 40, 50 years now. I see it as the implementation of the Zoning Code, which 6 when you have a piece of property over an acre it goes to C-3. The only thing the neighborhood could do 7 would be to try and make them chop this up into one acre places to keep it C-2, but it's not possible, you 8 can't tell a property owner what to da like that. The commercial all along there benefits the neighbors. I 9 live the University end of town, I'm rarely up here, so, I mean at this end of town. 50, the, you know, the 10 traffic problems are generated within that area. If it's, you know, a lot of people five there. And, the fact 11 that they could've put a hotel in there, you know, ten, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, and it hasn't happened- 12 I don't know if I'm willing to try and do some gymnastics to pull this particular piece of property out of the 13 new 2001 Zoning Code, when the whole town...we're trying to get the whole town into compliance. So, 14 the same issues that the people have had whenever any application comes from the owners of the 15 property, they'll have...the same issues will always come to the surface, which is, traffic, and imposition of 16 priva...you know, deterioration of privacy, deterioration of property values, those are the issues we hear 17 all the time on this board. And, I can understand, be sympathetic but this is a major arterial through the 18 City, thanks. 19 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Buchman? 20 BUCHMAN: I agree very much with Commissioner Binneweg. We're going to have a....l can 21 understand the concerns of the people, the biggest concern I heard was high density and traffic. No 22 matter what goes in there, it's going to generate traffic. Whether it's a small strip center, another doctor's 23 office, there's going to be traffic in the area. And, like the rest of the Gommissioner and a lot of people in 24 the community, we want to see this grow; we want to give the developers a chance to sell the land to 25 build on it, to make our community better. Yes, we're gonna have to pay a penalty with more traffic, but -20- • • 1 again, I think this is something that could fit within the zoning laws that we have now. There's not much 2 we can do on this. 3 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. 4 Commissioner Camunez, did you have anything? 5 CAMUNEZ: No comment. 6 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Ludtke? 7 LUDTKE: I have to mirror what was said by the Commissioners previous. I live on Del Rey, out 8 on Del Rey. I travel this area all the time. I know the concerns are genuine for traffic, that is a City 9 government problem, and it's up to the law enforcement and the City government to enhance that area 10 and make improvements to that Elks area all the way down out, it's a problem. North Main is a problem. 11 So, the zoning for that vacant property there, to bring it into compliance, we've been going through this for 12 months now, is going to follow, in my opinion, the trend to bring it into code and any traffic problems that 13 are generated there by a business are going to be a local Gity government problem to fix. 14 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. Mr. Kyle, can I ask kind of a general question? Maybe it 15 applies to several of these. This is simply the first step in the process, I believe, isn't it? If the zoning is 16 changed, before anything can be done, application has to be made for building permits and so forth, and 17 this could well come before us again, many times. 18 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this is the first step in the zone change process. From 19 here, it will go to City Council who will ultimately decide whether to approve or deny a zone change. If the 20 zoning is converted to C-3, you're right, the next step would...unless somebody wants to do something 21 that would require a public hearing, a Special Use Permit or something like that, it would go straight to 22 building permit. A building permit is not a public reviewed process; if the use is allowed within the zoning 23 code, and their construction plans meet all applicable building codes and other City regulations, they are 24 issued a building permit. 25 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. -21- • • 1 LUDTKE: Would that go to a, Robert, to a like a, planned development there? Will, you know... 2 something bring it back again, right? 3 KYLE: The only thing that would bring this piece of property back would be if a potential user 4 wanted to do something within the Zoning Code that required a Special Use Permit, then they have to 5 come back before this body for approval of that Special Use Permit, or if they were going through 6 potentially, the subdivision process. If they wanted to master plan that acreage for same reason, to 7 accomplish some planning goal, they would need to come back before this Commission for Master Plan 8 approval, and potentially, further subdivision approval depending on what the ultimate use of the property 9 is. 10 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. 11 Commissioners, are you ready? 12 BUCHMAN: I make a motion we approve Case Z2529A. 13 CAMUNEZ: I second it. 14 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Let me make a comment at this time, that's pertinent to all of these. All of 15 our motions you will hear will be made in the positive for approval, and then we will either vote to accept 16 that or to reject that. Thank you. Are you ready far the vote? 17 Commissioner Buchman? 18 BUCHMAN: Aye, based on site visit, finding, and discussion tonight. 19 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Binneweg? 20 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on site visit, discussion, findings. 21 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Camunez? 22 CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on site visit, discussion, and findings. 23 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Ludtke? 24 LUDTKE: Aye, findings, site visit, discussion. 25 VICE-CHAIR FORD: And, Chair votes Aye, findings, site visit, and discussion. Thank you. -22- w • 1 We are now ready for item three, which is 22537. Who is to present that, staff? 2 MCCARSON: Chairman Fard, you may want to consider suspending the rules to hear 3 items...the next two items concurrently on X2537 as well as 5-04-091. 4 VICE-CHAIR FORD: These are both for the same piece of property, aren't they? 5 MCCARSON: That's correct; they're both involving the J. Chisholm Subdivision property. 6 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Is that satisfactory, Commissioners? 7 BUCHMAN: I have no abjection. 8 BINNfrWEG: Yeah. 9 VICE-CHAIR FORD: We will hear them both concurrently then, and both separately. 10 LUDTKE: Do you have to make a motion to suspend the rules? 11 MCCARSON: You need a motion to suspend the rules. 12 LUDTKE: I make a motion to suspend the rules and hear these cases. 13 BINNEWEG: Second. 14 VICE-CHAIR FORD: All in favor say Aye. 15 COMMISSIONERS: Aye. 16 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Opposed? OK. Go ahead Ms. McCarson. 17 MCCARSON: I'm going to let the developer go ahead. 18 VICE-CHAIR FORD: All right. 19 HAROLD DENTON: My name is Harold Denton, I'm Architect/Plannerhere, representing the 20 Chisholms. This is not...l'm gonna start out and give you a little bit of background 'cause this is not a new 21 proposal, it's something you've seen before. In front of you is the subdivision plat actually, that was 22 presented at the time of approval far the first step building. It's actually under construction right now. I'll 23 point to the site, it's on this piece of property right here. This piece of road and this piece of road along 24 with all utilities are in place, and complete. 25 A lift station has been installed at this location here, which serves all of this property. It was done with cooperation of the City, enlarged at the City's request so it can, at a later date be extended up and -23- • • 1 handle some of the sewer problems that exist in the neighborhood up in this area. Extremely shallow 2 sewer in that area, it doesn't drain well, it smells, and that kind of problem. 3 I wanted to point this out, and this drawing also shows the underlying the zoning, which is on the 4 property, and I'll show you that on the Master Plan in a minute also. But, the existing zoning under the 5 old zoning, the current...it's current, but it's old, is R-1 in this area, R-2 in this area, R-3 in this area. A 6 little piece of R-2 along here, and G2 on the entire remaining parcel. 7 This approximately five acre parcel here is currently zoned old C-2; it's not a part of the 8 Subdivision that was submitted to you before, but it is included in the Master Plan. 9 They also have purchased, a couple of years back, the old gas station that was located on this 10 site right here, and tore that down and cleaned that up. 11 This is the proposed Master Plan for the project. It also shows the underlying existing zoning. 12 The different colors that are showing in the Master Plan represent the proposed 2001 zoning. 13 I want to say that this is not totally new zoning, I mean, this is...we're approaching this as if it's a 14 new zoning hearing, because there are some changes in zoning that I'll point out. 15 For the great deal of this is also conversion zoning, as you can see. For instance, this is the old 16 C-2 properties in here, and we're proposing to zone those C-3. There are some little pieces that was R-3 17 in this are, and R-3 in this area, that we're really doing housekeeping on, it doesn't make any sense to 18 have one lot was C-3 and R-3 zoning on it that were adjoining those. 19 The use that was actually proposed for first step was an O-2 kind of a zone, and so we're 20 showing that as O-2 and we're proposing an adjacent O-2 area in here. 21 Let me kind of step back. We've had...we've had a neighborhood meeting about a week and a 22 half ago, and presented this plan to the neighborhood. We also had a neighborhood meeting about three 23 years ago, and we have listened to what the neighborhood said, and this plan tries to approach and 24 address those concerns. One of the concerns was we don't want to impact Forney, but we don't have 25 any access onto Forney. Another major concern was that they preferred the office and commercial type of uses to a lot of high density residential, I'll get to that in a minute. -24- • • 1 There was a desire for buffering. So, we're showing an open space zone here in the dark green, 2 an open space recreational area; it's 250 feet wide across here, That's a substantial buffer. 3 This area is the only residential area that is left remaining; we're proposing R-4 zone, but it's not 4 an R-4 zone that's pushed up to where you think of R zone...an R-4, I mean, under the new Code R-4 is 5 set, you know, it's what you make it in that way. We're limiting it to two story, we're limiting it in number of 6 units- 7 This is just a blow-up of the Master Plan, that kind is of the tabulation at different areas. To kind 8 of go through some of these...well I think to point out first, under the existing zoning, if you look at the, 9 let's just call them right in here. Now, this does consider the residential uses that are allowed on the R-4, 10 on the commercial, the C-2 areas, but if you add up all the units that could be built in those different 11 areas, under the existing zoning that is there, we could have 1323 units. We're proposing to reduce that 12 to a total of 168 units. 13 You might also notice that if you just took the underlying zoning that's just under the area that 14 we're talking about, the old zoning ar the current zoning, allows 162 units, so we're really staying right in 15 the ball park of where we were in that way. 16 Go back here... The OS-R or the open space recreational area is tied to the residential area. It 17 becomes one area, but the residential can only be built on this area here, the lighter green color. 18 Is there anything I'm missing? I think I'll leave it at that and answer any questions. 19 V1CE~CHAIR FORD: Thank you, Mr. Denton. 20 MCCARSON: And, Chairman, Commissioners, I'll just run through this briefly; Mr. Denton pretty 21 much covered anything I was going to discuss. 22 This is the existing zoning in the vicinity map of the area, as discussed and seen on the other 23 slides. On the properties located off South Main Street, along Forney Lane, and Boutz Raad is bounded 24 an the north side of the subject properties. 25 You can see now a variety of zoning present in the area. You've got same single family residential on the property, as well as to the east of the property. Some multi-family zoning within the -25- r~ • 1 property as well as to the south of the property and some commercial zoning on the west side of the 2 property as well as adjacent across South Main Street, there's some manufacturing property and some 3 commercial zoning also to the north of the subject property. 4 You just saw the slide from Mr. Denton's presentation. The property was originally Master 5 Planned in 1986, and did include a variety of uses, such as commercial and both low-density and high- 6 density residential. That Master Plan did expire and the developer, and applicant are coming back now 7 with this Master Plan proposal, also consisting of mixed use, containing approximately 53 acres, and, as 8 Mr. Denton discussed, including proposed mixed land-use of open space, high-density residential, office, 9 and commercial. 10 This is a comparison of zones that is on the property, in the upper right hand carnet as well as the 11 proposed zoning on the property. 12 As proposed, you"ve got 26 acres of C-3, 7 acres of R-4, in the middle of the development, to be 13 limited to 24 dwelling units per acre, and a maximum height of 28 feet. 14 You've got a little over 8.5 acres of open space recreational zoning along Forney and along the 15 adjacent single family residential areas to the east of the property. 16 And, last, but nvt Ieast,10.8 acres of O-2 zoning, including the first step women's pediatric 17 facilities, that the applicant mentioned, as well a little bit more of O-2's proposed zoning in the center of 18 the development. 19 The aerial photo of the property, this was taken in 1999, but the property primarily exists this way 20 today, with the exception of the interior roads being fully constructed and beginning of construction 21 occurring on the first facility here. 22 The DRC did review the Master Plan Proposal for this and did recommend approval and the staff 23 recommendation on the zone changes is approval based on the mixed-use concept found in the 24 Comprehensive Plan. 25 And, just to note, and the applicant did mention, that they did hold a neighborhood meeting on March 11th. And, I can answer any questions you might have. -26- • • 1 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Any questions from the public? 2 Miss Ames? 3 JUDITH AMES: I'm Judith Ames, the property holder on Farney. I want to thank the developers 4 far eliminating the 17 curb cuts an Farney that existed in an earlier plan. I would like to know, however, 5 what assurance we have, was it illegal if this passes for curb cuts to be made on Farney? It appears to 6 me that that R-4 would need more access that this thing allowed to it just from Bautz. So, I want to know 7 what assurances we have that an entrance would not be cut onto Farney. I also would like to know who 8 would care for the open space recreational area. And, another question, I don't see why we need R-4, if 9 it's not going to be developed as three story apartments. If the plan is not to have really high density, 10 then why do we need that zone? I find that difficult to understand, and once it is zoned that way it could 11 be done, it appears to me. 12 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. Any one else from the public? 13 Yes, sir, you way in the back. 14 SAM REYES: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Sam Reyes. I am current Master of Aztec Lodge 15 #3, and we would like to be good neighbors, but we are concerned about traffic. Our lodge sits right 16 where the road accesses on Boutz and our parking lot is right at that corner. 17 And, we're concerned with traffic, there is no lights there, no...the only light is at the corner of 18 Main and Boutz. And, the other concern was brought up, and that was the negation of any access to 19 Farney and we feel that, simply because it is servicing that other end. We're taking the voice of many 20 and negating the voice of one. And that's about it. 21 VICE-CHAIR FORb: Thank you, Sam. 22 Any one else form the public? Yes sir. 23 KARL LUCA: My name is Karl Luca, I live right at the intersection of Dixon and Farney, right 24 across the street from the open space recreational area. I think Mr. Denton and the Chisholms have 25 adequately explained that this development on the R-4 and the open space will be only sold under the understanding that nothing ever will be punched through to Farney. -27- • ~ 1 2 The high traffic density on Forney now, is not the result of the possibility of the development over 3 there; it's growing on its own. 4 I think that 3 %2 years ago the opposition for development of this area seemed to be, and any 5 further development in this general area, has been simply for apposition to develop. People have been 6 unwilling to understand the provisions offered by the developments. The developers and I think that 7 they've adequately expressed the controls that they will hold on any development that is made in here to 8 the point where I don't think there's going to be any problem at all. Thank you. 9 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. 10 Anybody else from the public? Yes sir. 11 JOHN MOSLEY: I have a question, please. Good evening, my name is John Mosley and I live 12 on Crescent Circle, which is just down the way. And I either didn't get a letter of notification for the 13 meeting, or missed it in the publications or whatever, but I just have a couple of questions. 14 And, the area that I was wondering about is what is going on in here in this area that's adjacent to 15 Farney? And was it that square right there? 16 DENTON: May I answer, Mr. Ford? 17 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Yes, sir, Mr. Denton. 18 DENTON: This is the old gas station lot. It still exists as a separate lot... 19 MOSLEY: OK. 20 DENTON: ...the intention is to do away, combine that lot sometime in the future, and deal with 21 this as a total parcel or some other way. And this is currently C-2 and it is proposed for C-3. That's as far 22 as I can answer. 23 MOSLEY: That's great. And this area right here, that we're moving the cursor on, what is that? 2~4 BINNEWEG: Road, a new road. 25 MOSLEY: That's a new road? Is that on to Farney? BINNEWEG: No, that's Main Street. -28- • 1 2 MOSLEY: That's Main Street? OK. 3 DENTON: This is Forney over here, coming in right here between the shopping center and this 4 property. 5 MOSLEY: OK. 6 DENTON: Going up through here-.. 7 MOSELY: OK. 8 DENTON: ...Interestingly enough, Farney is shown on the MPO Plan as a collector. So we get 9 kind of...we talk about traffic...you know, why the access on Boutz has been discussed with Traffic 10 Engineering at length, and the way it is, it's what was approved and we were directed to do, even though 11 this is identified as a collector, on the MPO Plan, I think the City Engineering believes it will never be a 12 collector, and so, stay off of it. So that's what we did. 13 MOSLEY: This green way that you have proposed here, for a park area, with the amount of units 14 that's being put in here, I think you said it was 162 units, possibly 168 units? 15 DENTON: 168. 16 MOSLEY: The usage, this will be...is by the general public? No, it will only be used by those 17 persons there? I was concerned a little bit of parking, you know, Farney gets quite busy, and...very goad, 18 that answers my questions, thank you very much. 19 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you Mr. Mosley. Anybody else? Yes sir. 20 JOHN HANCOCK: John Hancock, I'm a resident on Crescent Park...Crescent Drive. I've got a 21 couple of questions. Number one, I don't understand why they want to burry high-density apartments in a 22 commercial complex. It doesn't...that may be some of the City's Master Plan. Whoever master planned 23 that needs to rethink it, I would believe, `cause I don't want to live in a commercial area. When I bought 24 my house there, it wasn't a commercial area, and there weren't a bunch of apartments around it either. 25 And, you know, (...that's why I bought my house there and that's why most of the people did buy their house there. Also, they're showing, you know, this large massive green area; who's gonna water it? -29- ~ ~ 2 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. 3 Anybody else from the public. Mr. Denton, do you want to make any comments, or do you have 4 any rebuttal? 5 BINNEWEG: Someone in the back. 6 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Oh. Excuse me, I didn't see you. Come on up. Both of you. Which one is 7 going to do the speaking, now? 8 UNKNOWN FEMALE: Oh, it's the wrong one, thank you very much. 9 VICE-CHAIR FORD: I'm sorry if I embarrassed you. I apologize to you very much. 10 DENTON: Harold Denton. Nok a rebuttal. We just try to put the best plan we thought we could 11 together, to fit all the constraints and pushing and pulling that goes on in this area. That open space 12 recreational is tied down on the Master Plan, it's far use by the apartment complex will be maintained by 13 the apartment complex, it can have uses in it like trails, play courts, a pool, and arecreation-type building, 14 could be in that area. No units, no living, nothing like that. It's a big area, it's an area that the City didn't 15 want, it's not a public park, its... 16 LUDTKE: Is it...is it a fenced area? 17 WANCOCK: Is it closed to the public now? 18 LUDTKE: Is that...? 19 bENTON: I don't know, you know, I don't think it's fenced off. 20 LUDTKE: ...I mean your proposal. 21 DENTON: Our proposal does not say anything about fencing. I wouldn't be surprised if it would 22 be fenced or walled in. I would think that would be a kind of logical kind of thing, but I don't know...was it 23 250 foot butter that we need to require a fence be built along there. 24 Yes. 25 BINNEWEG: It's very, very low right now. Is that your ponding area also? -30- • ~ 1 DENTON: There is some ponding in a portion of it, I mean, it's sized about 50 to 100 times 2 bigger than the required ponding far this development. 3 BINNEWEG: I know, it looks massive. 4 DENTON: It is very large . That's partially because this whole area, including the housing, is all 5 in the flood plane area, and so we removed dirt from there to raise the other portions; that also works 6 hydraulically to not raise the flood plane level in the area, so it was a combination of those things. It's 7 tapered down at a pretty gradual 1 in 6 kind of side slopes or less and it's not an area where there's going 8 to be green lawns and that type of thing. It's all gonna be covered with rack, I think- I don't have a plan 9 for it, but it can be developed, and we've had discussions with the City Landscape Architect and different 10 people on that. 11 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Any other public comments? Yes sir? 12 TOM (inaudible): I'm Tom (inaudible) on the corner of Turrentine and Forney. This really isn't a 13 planning thing, this is a comment. From our neighborhood meeting and what we've had over the last 14 couple of months since the excavator left. The 250 foot buffer zone is going into our front rooms and our 15 kitchens or swamp coolers. I, for one, appreciate your meeting and all, we'll spot you one windy season, 16 one spring, but next spring, I think it won't be so funny, it won't be so glamorous as to get some 17 development. In other words, it's all denuded, we've got some spray on it now, which I don't know how 1$ often it has to be done. I'll talk to you later. This is not planning but this is what...the buffers are good 19 idea, if it stays a buffer and doesn't become part of folks that live on Forney and Turrentine, and Milton, 20 and Apollo. Thanks. 21 VICE-CHAIR FORD: We didn't...sir, we didn't get your name. 22 TOM GORHAM: Tom Gorham. 23 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Yes sir? 24 TAT EVERHEART: My name is TaT Everheart, I'm the manager of Chisholm's Land LOC, the 25 developer of the property. I just wanted to address his comment. One of the main things that we did do at our neighborhood meeting was to profusely apologize to the neighborhood for the blowing sand that -31- • • 1 occurred. It was...it wasn't something that we had anticipated or we didn't know we were going to run 2 into sugar sand, so when that problem arose, well, once we were notified of the problem, I...we sent 3 landscaping crews to clean as many yards as possible and, you probably don't want to hear all of this, but 4 what I'm leading to is, we did a lot of research and then we hired a company that actually does dust 5 control for the EI Paso Airport, which obviously for an airport would be very important, not to have 6 blowing sand going across the runways. And, they came out last Monday and applied this dust control 7 product over much of this property; mostly on the area that were heavily sugar sand areas...there's alot 8 of clay out there also, and those areas once we had a large rain, are hard as a rock- So, what we did with 9 this dust control product is go over the areas that were sugar sand and supposedly the way the product 10 worked is that we posted no trespassing signs and no people to drive on this property so that it won't 11 damage the soil and the crust that's been created. And then, the way this product is supposed to work is 12 that after it rains, it actually reactivates the product and hardens over the soil again. So, I can tell you that 13 we've done that at this time. Thank you. 14 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Yes sir? 15 ARTHUR HOPE. I'm Arthur Hope, I live on Forney, and at our meeting 10, 12 days ago, my 16 question was who is going to maintain that 250 foot fish hook, I call it. One of the families said that it 17 would be the property of the Chisholm's. if I understood correctly, a few minutes ago someone said that 18 that drain way would be part of the property in behind. I'm not a developer, but I have...would like to 19 know of any place in the t)nited States where you can sell a lot, where you can build, and have 250 foot 20 space fior weeds. If you look around town, you'll find a few of those empty lots we talked about one a few 21 minutes ago. I doubt very much that you can get owners of an apartment development who will accept 22 and faithfully dress that fish hook. 23 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. One mare time, any public? Going, going... 24 MOSLEY: I just have one additional question. 25 VICE~CHAIR FORD: A short one. -32- • • 1 MOSLEY: It's concerning that apartment complex. 2 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Again, identify yourself. 3 MOSLEY: John Mosley, I'm sorry. My...was there any consideration given to the amount of 4 people that they are going to put in that area and that 168 units, and what that may, you know, impact like 5 our school system. Las Cruces High School, which is just around the corner, is already overcrowded, 6 and then we have Mayfield High School, and we have Onate, which is just out on the East Mesa. And, I 7 was just wondering if that was addressed and if you could, you know, might comment on something like 8 that. 9 DENTON: I've had several meetings with the school district; most of them on subdivisions of 10 1250 units and 600 units and that type of number. A hundred and sixty-eight units is a relatively small 11 impact and I guess you'd have to first analyze what type of housing it is, what the uses are going to be, 12 what the ratio of kids would be, all that type of thing. We haven't done that, no. That's something that 13 would have to be done when there's a proposal to build something there. But I, you know, all I'm saying 14 is that if you look at 168 units in comparison to, how many building permits this year in the City? Five 15 thousand, nine thousand, something like that. Does it amount to anything? Yes. Is it significant? 16 Somewhat, 17 VICE-CHAIR FORD: I'm waiting. No? Miss Ames? 18 AMES: I had two questions, and (speaking away from the microphone, inaudible). 19 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Come to the microphone, identify yourself, and pose the other two again. 20 AMES: I'm Judith Ames, I live on Forney. I asked can curb cuts be made; can access be built 21 from Forney? Or does this zoning absolutely preclude that, because Forney just isn't wide enough. The 22 other question was, I truly don't understand why new need R-4 if there will not be three story apartments 23 built. I understand that that's not the current plan, but when the property is sold, you know, I don't see 24 what control Chisholm would have then. 25 DENTON: No access on Forney; that's controlled by the Master Plan. The new R-3 does not allow for more than three attached units. It's very restrictive. You know, the existing R-1 allows eight -33- • • 1 units per acre; the existing R-2 that's on there, allow 15 units per acre; the existing R-3, 30 units per acre; 2 the existing C-2, 40 units per acre. We're talking 24 units per acre. I truthfully doubt it when we get there, 3 but that's the maximum. The C-4 gives the flexibility to say, only two stories, and only 24 units per acres. 4 And the Master Plan states that clearly and become controlling and we can't go to three story and we 5 can't do the other. I shouldn't say that. Yau never say never, I mean, we'll come back and go through a 6 hearing, I suppose and do that, but that's what will be required. 7 AMES: (inaudible) R-4. 8 DENTON: It says R-4, and R-4 is the number of units that are allowed, is whatever is specified, 9 and the height is whatever is specified, and so that's what R-4 is. You could say 40 and four stories, but 10 24 and two stories. 11 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. 12 I'm going to close the discussion now. 13 Commissioners? That's for the public. Mr. Buchman? 14 BUCWMAN: Yes, staff, and Mr. Denton, I guess, and we've heard...this bathers me OS-R, the 15 open space area. I realize that you've done a control of the blowing sand and I would like to see 16 something put into the Master Plan, as to how soon, if it's possible, how soon you would develop that land 17 with something, vegetation or some type of growth to kind of help the residents on the other area. Again, 18 we're going to have traffic congestion, we're going to have some problems, but it's growth. The 19 developers are...had this land, they want to change it, they want to develop it, but I do have a little bit of 20 problem. I wonder what the rest of the Commission thinks about that open space area. 21 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Nancy? 22 BINNEWEG: This is where I live, and I have to say that the developer coming back with the 23 reduced number and a concentrated number of residential units is a bonus for the single family owners in 24 that area, because their previous plans had, you know, multi-family right up against the exterior 25 perimeters there, which would be other people's back yards. And, I live in a high density - I call it the "student ghetto." I live right over by the University's property. And I kept looking at 11 acres over my -34- • ~ 1 back fence, and my kids used to walk out in the field `till it got developed by Mr. C7enton, and I had a'/4 2 inch dust in my swamp coolers for that first season, and now I have probably five or 600 new neighbors 3 aver the fence, which made me plant cactus all on my side, because it's like roaches in the spring, you 4 know, those students cut and cross over the fence to get to school faster. But, I knew what was gonna go 5 in there, and I really can say that you all are lucky that you're not going to have six or 800 college 6 students over the fence from you now, and 160 units, actually it's really quiet. Those six, 700 kids over 7 there are very quiet. And there are no little kids. I doubt that there are apartments, especially with the 8 prices they charge for them, they don't have kids in there. You know, a two bedroom place is like 750 9 bucks; that's more than most of our house payments. So, they don't have children in there, it's very quiet. 10 I think that the developer will be responsible and will be on the hook until they get their public 11 facilities built in that strip, other than dust control, I don't think there's anything we can tell them about 12 planting or whatever, because, if Mr. Denton's hypothesis is right, there will be, you know, swimming 13 pools, basketba!! courts, some sort of things that will sort of anchor down all the dirt eventually. It can't all 14 be done right now, and in the meantime, the owner, property owners are scrambling to keep the dirt down 15 as best they can. 16 I just...it's interesting to see so much commercial going in there, but I suppose they are...have 17 their ear to the market. The ear to the market wouldn't be a whole lot of residential in there. 18 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Camuriez? 19 CAMUNEZ: No. 20 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Ludtke? 21 We're ready for a rnotian then. 22 BUCHMAN; I...I'm still...another question. How, staff, who presented this? Miss McCarson. 23 How...how big is that ponding area in there now? 24 MCCARSON: Chairman Ford, Commissioner Buchman, the open space recreational area, as 25 proposed, is 8.64 acres. -35- • • 1 BUCHMAN: Could we see that overhead...could Isee that overhead picture that you had, 2 please? We show no ponding area in there now. 3 MCCARSON: No, this aerial photo was taken in 1999, so it's not showing it... 4 BUCHMAN: Isee. 5 MCCARSON: ...but generally, you can tell from the other slide, it's along here... 6 BUCHMAN: Yes. 7 MCCARSON: ...the fish hook, as the gentleman earlier was describing it, along here, and then 8 down Forney... g BUCHMAN: So that area...OK, Mr. Denton, that area... 1 p DENTON: Let me add a couple of things about that. 11 BUCHMAN: OK, go ahead. 12 DENTON: First off, this area right here, that existing area is at the depth to the new pond. 13 BUCHMAN: Pardon me, it's what? 14 DENTON: It's basically the same depth as the new pond, or the new...the open space area, 15 we're talking about, that now is located about like this, OK? It's at this depth. 16 BUCHMAN: OK. 17 DENTON: OK? It was previously at that depth. There's a very tall retaining wall along there. On 18 the landscaping, the vegetation, we've considered a number of different things and at the neighborhood 19 meeting we stated very clearly, and we have to staff. I'm not sure it was stated clearly here. But, we've 20 taken several steps to control dust, and, you know, including a silk fence along there. If that doesn't work, 21 if there is a problem, we'll take more steps. And, that step may be some re-vegetation of site slopes and 22 that type of thing. 23 The problem is that we're kind of doing it out in the open space where we don't have the 24 infrastructure that would happen with some development. But, we've committed that we would do that. 25 VICE-GHAIR FORD: Thank you. Are you satisfied, Mr. Buchman? -36- • • 1 BUCHMAN: No. 2 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Do we have a motion for approval of this...ah, wait a minute, since we took 3 these...suspend the rules on it, we will do first, the Case 2537, which is a request for a multiple zone 4 change, then we will do the other, which is the Master Plan. 5 KYLE Mr. Chairman? 6 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Yes. 7 KYLE: Point of order. The Commission needs to make a motion to unsuspend the rules... 8 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Yes. 9 KYLE: And then... 10 VICE-CHAIR FORD: All right... 11 LUDTKE: Make a mation...l'It make a motion to unsuspend the rules. 12 BUCHMAN: Second. 13 VICE-CHAIR FORD: All in favor say Aye. 14 COMMISSIONERS: Aye. 15 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Opposed? Thank you. 18 Now then, could we have a motion for approval of the Case 22537, which is the multiple zone 17 change. 18 BINNEWEG: Sa moved. 19 BUCHMAN: Second. 20 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Any discussion? I'll call the roll then. 21 Commissioner Buchman? 22 BUCHMAN: Aye, based on finding, discussion, and site visit. 23 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Binneweg? 24 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on site visit, discussion, findings. 25 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Camunez? -37- • ~ 1 CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on discussion and findings. 2 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Ludtke? 3 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 4 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Aye, based on discussion, findings, and site visit. 5 So, that is approved. The next one would be Case S-02-019, which is the Master Plan for this J. 6 Chisholm Subdivision. Do we have a motion? 7 LUDTKE: I make a motion for approval of Gase 5-04-q19. 8 BINNEWEG: Second. 9 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Any discussion? 10 BUCHMAN: Yes, I...staff, on your recommendations, do we need to add that the developer will 11 be limited to 24 units per acre and 28 feet of height, or is that automatically included in your 12 recommendations; I'd like to see it added. 13 MCCARSON: Chairman Ford, Commissioner Buchman, that would be automatically included in 14 the zoning that you just approved. But if you'd like to condition the Master Plan, that's also fine. It's 15 written on the Master Plan and the documents, but if you'd feel more comfortable, it's definitely 16 acceptable to staff. 17 BINNEWEG: Yeah, it's there. 18 VICE-CHAIR FORD: It's in the Master Plan. 19 BUCHMAN: OK. I have no further discussion. 20 VICE-CHAIR FORD: All right. Are we ready for the questions, then? 21 BINNEWEG: Mh hm. 22 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Buchman? 23 BUCHMAN: Abstain. 24 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Binneweg? 25 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on site visit, discussion, findings. -38- • • 1 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Camunez? 2 CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on discussion and findings. 3 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Ludtke? 4 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 5 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Chair votes Aye, based an findings, site visit, and discussion. 6 So, that is approved. 7 Thank you all. 8 The next item that we have would be the 5-04-019. Who has that? 9 CAMUNEZ: You just approved that. 10 LUDTKE: Wait a minute, we have to... 11 BINNEWEG: That's Chisholm, yeah. 12 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Excuse me, excuse me. 13 LUDTKE: We're on the 5-04-010... 14 BINNEWEG: Postponed. Number seven. 15 VICE-CHAIR FORD: 5-04-010. 16 LES BLACKHAM: Zoning Commission, my name is Les Blackham, I represent the engineering 17 firm of Blackham, Roman and Gunaji, Inc. We're the engineers representing the developer on this 18 project. It's located next to Del Rey Boulevard. And, currently...it was zoned approximately about three 19 years ago, and we had to update the zoning to meet the current zoning. 20 And, there is a piece of commercial property and there is residential. We're phasing it in nine 21 phases and we're...we currently have three phases that we're...that we'd like to get approved this 22 evening and then we can start on the construction drawings and things. 23 And, it's all vacant land at this point in time, and there is a flood zone going through it, which we 24 will have...we'll run a submittal through the FEMA and get...the zoning to match the current plans to run 25 the flood zone...flood waters through the streets and through an underground system. -39- • • 1 We need to run offsite sewer, we need to boar under the interstate and it will probably be about 2 1500 feet of sewer line that we'll have to build to sewer this project. 3 There is existing water and gas mains and Del Rey boulevard was recon...will connect to...it is 4 the...this is part of the Dona Ana Mutual Water Service area and there'll be agreements between the 5 developer and the City and the Dona Ana Mutual Water to transfer the utility services at some point in 6 time in the future, in the mean time the City will service the area. 7 That's about all I have at this point in time. Any questions? 8 VICE~CHAIR FORD: Staff? Let staff make a presentation, then we'll have questions. 9 BRIAN HARPER: Commissioners, far the retard, Brian Harper, Community Development. This 10 is Case S-04-010, Sandhill Center Subdivision Phase I-III, Preliminary Plat. On the screen you see the 11 vicinity map, as the applicant, I'm sorry, as the consultant stated, it's just east of Del Rey Boulevard, 12 about 0.4 of a mile north of the intersection of Settlers Pass and Del Rey Boulevard. The property size in 13 question for these first three phases is approximately 29.92 acres, proposed 138 lots in the first three 14 phases. On the screen, you'll see an aerial photo of the property. You can see, once again, Del Rey 15 Boulevard, this is the future extension of Engler Road to the north of the property boundary; Sandcastle 16 Avenue here. There is a major arroyo running, or drainage way running through the property and as the 17 applicant said, this will be...much of this will be channeled underground. They're currently in the works 18 with Public Works and we'll be working with Public Works concurrently with the development and have 19 that occur. 20 The existing zoning shown on the screen, the property is outlined in black here. R-1 a for a 21 portion of the property, and this orange-yellow line here, separating what is R-1 b on the southern portion 22 of the property here. Phase III of the development will be occurring on the southern portion of the R-1 b 23 zoning. Phases I & I I will be occurring to the north of that line, and R-1 a area. 24 Primary access, obviously, at this point is from Del Rey Boulevard, classified as a principal 25 arterial. Future access, starting at Phase IV, will come from the extension of Engler Raad, which is just -40- • • 1 north of the property here. At the...the applicant will be required to build that half arterial section of 2 Engler Road at the time of development of Phase IV. 3 In the mean time, for this development, the City Fire Department has asked that the developer 4 provide emergency secondary access along this Engler Road alignment here, to the earth, to allow for 5 emergency access to Phases I, II, & Ili, since primary access won't be from Del Rey Boulevard at the 6 beginning. 7 As the consultant stated, utilities are provided by, gas will be provided by the City of Las Cruces, 8 Sewer by City of Las Cruces, and Water are in the works with Doric Ana Mutual Domestic, and the City to 9 came to an agreement on the actual provision. Currently, the City would be providing, but there would be 1 ~ reparations possibly made to Dona Ana Mutual, or Dona Ana Mutual may take over this service area. 11 General site photo from Del Rey Boulevard looking right at the property; as you can see, it's 12 currently empty and vacant, just north of some other development down here. 13 Important to note the phasing diagram here showing all three phases as they will be constructed 14 and developed; Phase I entering off Del Rey Boulevard; Phase fl further to the east, and north; and 15 Phase III to come in at a later date here, just south of the entrance road. 16 Also included in your packet are, and I do have overheads, are all three of the Preliminary Plats 17 individually for you to look at. And, I'm just ganna...unless there's a specific question on each phase, I'm 18 just gonna go through them, here. 19 Phase III, last phase. Findings, the Preliminary Plat does conform to the Sandhill Center Master 2p Plan, as amended. The Preliminary Plat is in conformance with City Subdivision Codes, Zoning Cade, 21 Transportation Plan, and Storm Water Management Plan, and staff has reviewed this Preliminary Plat, 22 and no significant outstanding issues exist. As such, the DRC has recommended conditional approval 23 with the following conditions: 24 1) The consultant, or developer, must work with the City of Las Cruces Utilities Department to 25 resolve any potential issues; this can include water service, and or the underground channeling of drainage to the property. -41- ~ • 1 2) The developer must provide secondary emergency access along Engler Road for the 2 alignment for the first three phases of development; and 3 3) The developer must pave the required portion of Engler Road upon the construction of Phase 4 IV of the Sandhill Center Development. 5 That concludes my portion of the presentation. If you have any questions of staff, 'I'd be happy to 6 answer them, 7 VICE-CHAIR FORD: For the public, any questions of the two presenters? Anyone from the 8 public? No one? You guys did...must have done a wonderful job. I will close that portion, now anybody 9 from the Commission? 10 Commissioner Ludtke? 11 LUDTKE: Question for staff. What phase...what's the access road for the emergency vehicles? 12 For Fire Department? 13 HARPER: Chairman Ford, Commissioner Ludtke, yes, the emergency access would be here; 14 showing the phasing diagram. It will be a graded road here...obviouslyfnr access through the 15 development potentially in the future. 16 LUDTKE: The water, is supplied by the City at this time? is that correct? 17 HARPER: Based on the conversation, yes, Chairman Ford, Commissioner Ludtke, based on 18 conversation that...l was present at DRC, the understanding is that this is potentially in Dona Ana Mutual 19 Service area. I want to defer all the legal issues of whether...the legal issues of that to our legal staff, but 20 the understanding was the City would provide services initially and there maybe reparations made based 21 on the encroachment of the service area, possibly, or Dona Ana Mutual may actually be the service 22 provider. That's being worked out, and that's why that condition has been attached for the developer to 23 work with the City on the water issue, prior to it going forward for final plat. 24 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioners? 25 -42- • • 1 One comment I would make, I compliment you on keeping Engler Road through there; it seems 2 like Las Cruces has a propensity for breaking up roads every black and changing names; Engler goes all 3 the way across. 4 Commissioners? May we have a motion then? 5 BUCHMAN: I make a motion we approve Case S-04-010. 6 LUDTKE: Second. 7 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Discussion? 8 BUCHMAN: With the recommend...three recommendations to be added as a mation...or as 9 mention by staff. 10 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Do we...? 11 BUCHMAN: Do we need those recommendations read? 12 BINNEWEG: Conditions. 13 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Approval with these recommendations... 14 BUCHMAN: That's right. 15 BINNEWEG: The conditions. 16 VICE-CHAIR FORD: OK, all right, thank you. 17 Commissioner Buchman? 18 BUCHMAN: Aye, based on discussion and findings. 19 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Binneweg? 20 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on site visit, discussions, and findings. 21 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Camunez? 22 CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on discussion and finding. 23 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Ludtke? 24 LUDTKE: Aye, findings, site visit, discussion 25 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Chair votes Aye, based on discussion, findings, and site visit. -43- • • 1 Thank you. 2 If I am correct now, and I hope I am, under New Business, or the number eight, which was 3 previously on the Consent Agenda as the number two, Case 22553. 4 MCCARSON: Chairman Ford, Commissioners, this is one of the cases that Commissioner Ford 5 described at the very beginning of the meeting, described as a zoning conversion. As a part of the 6 adoption of the 2001 Zoning Code, the City initiated zoning conversions on properties in order to bring 7 them into compliance with the 2001 Zoning Code. $ This is an example of one of these cases. 9 The subject property, indicated in blue, is at 5315 Morningside Road and is currently zoned C-2. 10 Because the property owners are using the property as, for residential purposes, they're requesting the 11 R-1 a mobile zoning district to be placed on their property. And, I can answer any questions you might 12 have. 13 VICE-CHAIR FORD: For the public? 14 BRENT ROUSER: Yes sir. 15 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Will you come up? 16 Introduce yourself and ask your questions. 17 ROUSER: I'm Brent Houser, and we can see by this meeting that when you have residential next 18 to commercial, people in a residential situation get very concerned and some almost up in arms. And, we 19 have commercial property there, and that's commercial property that butts into our property. And, we feel 20 that by you changing this to a residential, that we could be facing the same problems and discussion that 21 these people are facing; we'd like to request that it just stay with the commercial zoning that it already 22 has, which is the same as our property. 23 We have....although we have five acres there, they have one acre, but it is C-2; we'd like it to see 24 it stay C-2, so that we're not, you know, have something like this to deal with; where people are feeling 25 that the tranquility of their residences being inhibited by the commercial use of their property. -44- • • 1 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Yes sir? 2 DAVID ARRINGTON: Hi, my name is David Arrington, I'm the owner of the property. We have 3 residence all down the street. My place has been established there since '87, it has a mobile home on it, 4 I'm doing a simple R&R. I'm replacing...ground setting it 32x8(), makes my black look nicer, makes my 5 neighborhood look nicer. 6 I don't know if these people live around there or have a residence there, but I would like my place 7 changed over from C-2, so that we can just ga on and something happens to my place being in C-2, 8 burns down, I can't ever put nothing on it again. So, I want to change my over so that I can raise my 9 children. Thank you. 10 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. 11 Yes sir? 12 HOUSER: Brent Houser, David, even though you've lived there this amount of time, you still put 13 a residence on a commercial property. You must have realized that that would be a problem. Instead of 14 putting your mobile, or your home on a residential area, you know, you put it on a commercial property, 15 and that's something you're dealing with, but we're sitting there also with these five acres that we want to 16 sell or develop in some way, other than what it is, and you with a residence there, with your family like 17 you've said, feel like these people didn't (inaudible) upset by this. And, we're up here trying to justify what 18 we were trying to do. You as a commercial property, you know, you're actually decreasing the value of 19 your property to want a residence in that infill. But, at any rate, irregardless, we're requesting (speaking 20 away from the microphone -inaudible). 21 CHRIS ARRINGTON: Good evening, Chris Arrington. That street has only residence on it. 22 Payan was just changed because it's residence. And, as far as my understanding, in September, all 23 those properties that have homes on them, will be changed to residential to comply with the new zoning 24 law. Thank you. 25 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Anyone else, any other comments? -45- Y • • 1 Ms. McCarron, will you comment an that last statement that was made, please? 2 MCCARSON: Chairman Ford, in September of 2004 there's an expiration of a grace period that 3 the City was involved in between the 1981 Code and the 2001 Code. Upon expiration of the grace 4 period, the land use provisions from the 1981 Code no longer apply. Mrs. Arrington is correct, in some 5 regards that the C-2 zoning district does not permit residences ofi a sole use in the 2001 Code. 6 Ideally, before September, she's correct that the City will hopefully initiate changes to convert 7 these properties from residential...to residential from commercial zoning districts. If this doesn't occur, 8 they will be allowed to continue as such under "grandfather status." 9 Mr. Arrington is correct that if his property were to burn down, that he would have trouble 10 replacing it as a C-2 zoning district as a primary use being residential. 11 I hope that answers your question. 12 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. 13 BUCHMAN: You can't have the same one again, and again. 14 ROUSER: Brent Houser. So, in other words, this isn't going to be automatically rezoned as R-1, 15 that's why you all are here, and so the only way it would be changed from commercial to a residence 16 would be to get all, I assume, the OK of all the neighbors that butt into your property. Am I correct in 17 that, Ma'am? 18 MCCARSON: Chairman Ford, Commissioners, Mr. Houser, the zoning process is as you've 19 seen tonight. The first step in the zoning process is obviously to make application to the City Community 20 Development Department, or as stated, the City can initiate the zoning process. The first step is this, or 21 the Planning and Zoning Commission and then the next step for final approval would be the City Council. 22 It's not required that you get signed off or approval from all your neighbors to accomplish the zone 23 change. The decision is up to the decision makers, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the elected 24 officials, the Gity Council. 25 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. -46- • • 1 One more time. 2 ROUSER: So, then, for us our voices just to express an opinion and then hope that you all keep 3 this as C-2. Is that correct then, is that correct Ma'am? 4 VICE-CHAIR FORD: That is correct, yes sir. 5 ROUSER: OK, well, that's what we're hoping for. 6 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. Anyone else? I will close it to the public then, and 7 Commissioners, questions? 8 I believe, Commissioner Buchman, you asked to have this off the Consent, didn't you? 9 BUCHMAN: No. Some one from the audience did. I make a motion we approve case... 10 SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 11 LUDTKE: (Inaudible) Ms. McCarson? 12 MCCARSON: Sir, I don't think your mike is on, Commissioner Ludtke, I can't hear you. 13 LUDTKE: Do we actually believe that this is a property use for this land then, residential, or do 14 we defer from commercial to residential, value-wise and...? 15 MCCARSON: The property as Arringtons indicated, has been used residential for a number of 16 years; it was probably annexed into the City being used for residential purposes. It's the property owners 17 that are requesting that the change occur from commercial to residential understanding that there may be 18 consequences to doing that then, you know. 19 LUDKTE: As planners, I mean, we believe that this is... 20 MCCARSON: The intent of the 2001 Zoning Code is to apply zoning districts to the use or the 21 intended use of properties, and if it's being used far residential, solely as a residential use, then it should 22 have a residential zoning district attached to it. 23 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Ms. McCarson, what is the other use, da you know, along that Morningside 24 Road? 25 MCCARSON: Chairman Ford, as you recall from the site visit, pretty much everything in the area is being used for residential purposes, mobile home...manufactured homes, with the exception of -47- • • 1 properties directly on Bataan Memorial West. Even some of those properties, you recall, from site tour 2 are in fact being used for residential purposes. 3 VICE-CHAIR FORD: That's what prompted my questions, I remember there was quite a few 4 homes in there, at the present time, aren't there in that....kind of, the whole neighborhood. It's a rather 5 difficult neighborhood to get into. 6 MCCAR50N: Vice-Chairman Ford, that's correct, there is a substantial residential, you know, 7 land use occurring off of Lemo and Morningside where Mrs. Arrington mentioned Payan Road. That was 8 recently changed, probably six months ago, to all residential because of the use occurring as residential. 9 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. 10 BUCHMAN: It's closed to the public Mr. Ghairman, point of order. 11 VICE-CHAIR FORD: I'm sorry, I have to agree with... 12 ROUSER: This...l'm Brent Houser, this property that we have right there is commercial, on the 13 corner of Porter Road and the Bataan Memorial West there; that was just recently old. I understand 14 they're putting in a restaurant there; that is commercial. And then, we have a mobile home park that 15 takes in... 16 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Sir, I'm sorry, but I have to cut you off. 17" ROUSER: OK. 18 VICE-CHAIR FORD: All right. 19 ROUSER: But, I mean, it' just not residential. 20 VICE-CHAIR FORD: All right, thank you. 21 Commissioner again, one final thing. 22 BUCHMAN: I make a motion we approve Case 22553. 23 BINNEWEG: Second 24 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Now, any final discussion. We will vote by roll call, Commissioner 25 Buchman? -48- • • 1 BUCHMAN: Aye, based on discussion and finding. 2 VICE-CHAIR FORD; Commissioner Binneweg? 3 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on discussion and findings. 4 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Camunez? 5 CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on findings. 6 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Ludtke? 7 LUDTKE: Aye, based an findings, discussion. 8 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Chair votes Aye, based on discussion, findings, and site visit. 9 Thank you. 10 Case, let me find it, 22550, I believe. 11 Ms. McCarson, you again. 12 MCCARSON: IYs me again. Chairman Ford, Commissioners, this is another City initiated zoning 13 request, in order to bring the subject properties into compliance with the 2001 Zoning Code. The area, 14 the existing zoning, as you see on the overhead, is M-1; all M-1 indicating the bl-ue. 15 This property area is off of Seventeenth Street, West Amador, North Motel, and bounded by 16 Hadley Avenue on the north, and also includes Westgate Street as well as Westgate Court. 17 Upon field verification and property research, staff has identified, what we feel is the mast 18 appropriate zoning districts far the properties involved in the zoning conversion case, and they're 19 identified in your packet as well as in the overhead screen. 20 And, I can answer any questions you might have. 21 VICE-CHAIR FORD: From the public? 22 Yes sir? 23 The gentleman in the back first, he was up...he bounced up first. 24 Yes? 25 BOB TELLEZ: Chairman Ford, members of the Commission, my name is Bab Tellez, we applaud the city in their plan to rezone this entire area. Our concern is, and I have, I'm here an behalf of -49- • • 1 one of the property owners that abuts to this plan. That property owner owns this two parcels right there, 2 who has requested me, as of yesterday to be here in his behalf. He can't be here because he's got a 3 sister in the hospital that he's taking care of. 4 Mr. Manuel Holguin has asked that he missed the deadline in regards to him applying for being 5 consistent with the zoning plan that the City is doing here, and he's asking that he be...his property be 6 considered as part of the M-2 zoning requirement, and if the City doesn't have any problem in doing that 7 at this point, I'm not sure what proper protocol is, he would like to have that be considered as part of this 8 plan. 9 MCCARSON: Chairman Ford, I guess I could defer to legal, but as proper notification process, I 10 don't believe we can add these properties at the last minute; we did serve proper notification, according to 11 State statutes, including those two properties. The reason they were left out, looking back on my notes, 12 is because they'd been use for residential purposes and so instead of changing them to residential zoning 13 at this point in time, I elected to eliminate them from the area being rezoned. 14 VICF-CHAIR FORD: What zoning do they have currently? 15 MCCAR5ON: It's currently M-1. 16 LUDTKE: M-1? 17 VICE-CHAIR FORD: M-1, yeah.., 18 MCCAR5ON: Right, everything...well, everything in blue is my subject area that's being 19 modified, but the zoning boundaries, you can see the M-1 goes up this West Palms Court. Everything 20 within the red in the boundary line is zoned M-1. So these properties are currently zoned M-1; they're 21 being used primarily for residential purposes. 22 VICE-CHAIR FORD: What would be the necessary procedure to have this zoning changed? 23 MCCARSON: The property owner would need to initiate that change; come down to our office 24 and fill out the necessary paper work. 25 VICE-CHAIR FORD: And then it would have to be duly advertised, signs put up and so forth? -50- L' • 1 MCCARSON: That's correct. We've been treating that as a zone change, I'm not sure what the 2 property owner's intention for the property, or what his desired zoning district would be. As a 3 resident...as a sole residential use, the M-1, M-2 or an M-3 would be inappropriate for that property. 4 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. Yes sir? 5 RALPH RICHARDS: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Ralph Richards, 6 I'm an officer with Jobe Concrete Products, Inc., And, we own three tracts that are affected by this, and 7 basically what I'm seeking is information. This packet didn't make it to my desk `till late this afternoon. 8 And the tracts we have are the ones where Westgate ends, the circle we join those two and the next one 9 to the north. 10 And, my only question is clarification, we have concrete botching operations an this site now; I do 11 not find in the Code under M-2, how concrete botching is going to be addressed. And, I wanted to know 12 what affect this change would have upon our existing use. I was asking for clarification. Again, I 13 apologize; I did not get this packet to my desk `till this afternoon, so I did not get to check with staff before 14 hand. Thank you. 15 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Ms. McCarson? 16 MCCARSON: Chairman Ford, upon my initial research, the concrete botching appeared to be 17 appropriate in the M-2 zoning district. Robert Kyle is at this second is, verifying the Zoning Code. It may 18 not be an actual line item listed in the code, but because of the other appropriate uses in the M-2 zoning, 19 staff can make the interpretation that concrete botching would be permitted in the M-2. 20 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Mr. Richards, the reason that the M-2 would 21 be the appropriate zone for this, staff would categorize this as stone, glass and clay products as found in 22 Section 38.331, Manufacturing and Related Land Uses, for the Zoning Code. it's a conditional use within 23 the M-1 zone, and the condition of course is that it's research and development oriented as all businesses 24 within the M-1 are supposed to be. So, bumping it up to the M-2 is actually the appropriate zone for it to 25 continue as a permitted use by right. And that's why staff made that determination so it's more beneficial to Mr. Richards' client than leaving it M-1, under the new code. -51- • ~ 1 VICE-CHAIR FORD: All right. 2 RICHARDS: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, again, this had come up, I believe, in 3 2001 when the changes were made and at that time, 1'd understood there was some question as to what 4 was going to be the classification far concrete batching under the...then it was in M-1 and where it was 5 going to require special use permit, ar special permit. And, I guess my concern was whether or not that 6 was ever resolved, and I didn't as I said, did not get to visit with staff beforehand. If staff is interpreting 7 the provision regarding stone, glass, and clay, 1 did find that it's not really quite concrete batching 8 although we da use stone and concrete hatchings, but as long as our existing operation that's been there 9 over 10 years is not going to be affected, then we don't have a further concern. Thank you. 10 VICE-CHAIR FORD: OK. Thank you. 11 Now, Mr. Tellez. 12 TELLEZ: Pending that staff is absolutely confident that the existing property for Mr. Holguin is an 13 M-1 zone, he's....his plans for that area will be consistent with that type of zoning, sa we've got no 14 problem. 15 VICE-CHAIR FORD: All right. Thank you. 16 Any other questions from the public? Seeing none, I will close it. Commissioners? 17 Mr. Buchman? Mrs. Binneweg? Mrs. Camunez? 18 CAMUNEZ: No. 19 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Mr. Ludtke? 20 LUDTKE: No. 21 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Then, we've got a motion (inaudible) 22 BUCHMAN: I make a motion we approve Case 22550. 23 LUDTKE: Second. 24 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Any further discussion? 25 How do you vote Commissioner Buchman? -52- • • 1 BUCHMAN: Aye, based on findings and discussion 2 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Binneweg? 3 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 4 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Camunez? 5 CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 6 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Ludtke? 7 LUDTKE: Aye, findings, discussion, site visit. 8 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Chair votes Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 9 Thank you. 10 We should be to IDP-19 now. 11 Mr. Kyle? 12 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, I'll let the applicants make the presentation and I'll... 13 VICE-CHAIR FORD: All right. 14 Who is speaking for the applicants? 15 VIRGINIA HERNANDEZ: Hi, my name is Virginia Hernandez, and tonight we started at number 16 12 on the Consent list; we have no objections from the public. Me and my husband, Richard Hernandez, 17 we started as investors in 1988. 18 In 1990, we developed property on the East Mesa, where we also own rental properties. What 19 we're trying to do is we're trying to build two duplex on that property right there; on Paxton and Ash. 2p And, we also built a duplex in the year 2001 at 1253 West Van Patten, and they were also rental 21 properties. The reason we sold that property is 'cause we wanted to move on to a nicer area and invest 22 our money on that property an Paxton and Ash. 23 When we were informed by Patty Olson, she works with Exit Realty...Realtors, she told us that 2A what we could do is sell that property that we built, you know, the property that we had at 1253 West Van 25 Patten and do a 1031 Tax Exchange, and she looked into the property and said that she even bought her, -53- • • 1 you know, herself a building six duplex there, so we thought, you know, we're not gonna have any 2 problems. 3 And, according to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Las Cruces, it would be an ideal location 4 for this type of construction given its close location to a large pocket of R-3, 64 unit complex rented 5 through housing and other multiple family units in the vicinity. We also intend to provide much needed 6 affordable housing units rented through the City of Las Cruces Housing Authority and the Dona Ana 7 County. 8 Uh, let's see...we also submitted a multiple drawing showing access from only Paxton, and 9 drawings as (inaudible) in our packet tonight. We were advised by the City of Las Cruces, the Planning 1 Q Department, that the back...to the back layout with access from the alleyway was better to maintain 11 residential look. That's it. 12 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this is an Infill Development Request. The subject 13 properties are outlined in blue. They're in a predominantly R-1 single family zoned area. To the east you 14 do have a high density residential project, Tres Arboles; it is operated by the City of Las Cruces Housing 15 Authority and does contain about 63 units of family housing. And, a couple of blocks to the west you 16 have some R-2 zoned property containing very small town houses; single homes on single lots, but the 17 area is predominantly single family zoned. 18 As stated, the applicants are seeking to utilize the infill process to seek land use approval to allow 19 these vacant parcels to be utilized to construct two duplexes on the property. 20 Based on information received by staff, and it's part of your packet, the intent is to provide these 21 duplexes far rental purposes; to provide affordable housing, through the Las Cruces Housing Authority. 22 Staff, in reviewing it, did not feel that the request, although in the middle of an R-1 neighborhood, 23 was that inconsistent. In looking at the existing uses within the neighborhood as well as the adjacent 24 land uses ar the land uses in the near vicinity, staff felt that it was a decent match. 25 This aerial gives you a little flavor far the area. The subject properties are outlined in the blue, this is the R-3 zone, Tres Arboles property. These are the town homes I spoke of. There's an incredibly -54- • • 1 small pocket park, dedicated City park on the back side of the property located in this small triangle. 2 There's a large electrical transmission line easement that runs through here, and there is an alley which 3 does serve the property. 4 These are some site photos looking at the subject property. This is at the intersection of Paxton, 5 this being Ash. There's a 25 foot lot right here in front which is not part of this request, it's owned by a 5 different property owner. I believe the applicants are, or have made attempts to acquire this property 7 farm that individual in the past and may make future attempts. If that can be worked out, it would be 8 incorporated into their request, which would simply allow the lots to be replotted to be a little larger. 9 Again, this is the subject property. Essentially it's this area as well as this. Yau have a single 10 family home immediately to the south, but beyond that you have this tiny little park and that transmission 11 line easement. 12 Again, this is lacking at the adjacent land use to the south immediately, and then this is looking a 13 little toward the north, northeast; this being Ash Street. This is Paxton, again, you see predominant single 14 family uses. This is the start of the Tres Arbales project. 15 As indicated, the applicants do have several options. When they presented this to staff, staff felt 16 that this proposed lay out worked best for the area, for a couple of reasons. The primary one being which 17 you can have access from the alley to a single family or duplex lot so you could have one dwelling 18 fronting the alley, another fronting the main street. And, what staff liked about this is it would give the feel 19 from the street side that it's more a single family residence. It would fit in, we felt, the character of that 20 immediate area a little bit better than having two dwellings side by side necessarily on the property. 21 Although the applicants certainly can put side by side units on the property and potentially meet all the 22 setbacks and staff can work with them. 23 Staff simply provided this potential layout as our first choice, and I believe the applicant's first 24 choice. It's the easiest for them to accomplish from a building code stand point as well in regards to 25 sharing common walls and that sort of thing with the new International Building Codes are in effect. -55- • • 1 With that, Mr. Chairman, it is an infill request. This is the appropriate body to review that and 2 make this land use determination and staff would recommend approval of the request as presented with 3 no conditions. 4 With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. 5 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. From the public, any questions? No questions? Seeing none, 6 I will close that and ask the Commission; Commissioners? 7 BUCHMAN: Mr. Kyle, I have a couple of questions. Could you please give us a pic...that 8 overhead map again? And while he's doing that, my contention is the use of the alleyway. I don't think 9 that this would be convenient for that second house that will be in back. 10 I know what you're saying about the look of a single family, I have no problem with this being 11 zoned per se, but my contention is, that triangle where the park is, has railroad ties, round posts that 12 prevents you from coming into the back area. Your picture shaws...yes, and that's the triangle area. The 13 picture shows a alleyway, but there is only a little area of rock going back about 20 feet from the curve cut 14 and there is no alleyway in there now where cars can get back there; you have to put an actual alleyway 15 in there, and I would have no objections to a different layout, but the people who are the lower income 16 people who would get this back one, are gonna be completely wiped out with any place to park, and I 17 don't think it's gonna be fair to them; I would like to see a different type of plan set up. 18 Can you understand what I'm saying, Mr. Kyle about that park area? 19 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Buchman, I can, I do understand that that is closed off in 20 this area. There is access to the property from this southern side off of Juniper. I've been out there, I've 21 driven on it, I know that it's not optimal, but it does exist, and under the zoning code they are allowed to 22 have access. 23 I don't think staff, or necessarily the applicant, has a problem with a different layout, I'm not 24 necessarily presenting that what we want is a conditioned an this particular layout. Staff felt that this fit 25 the area better, but certainly we support the proposal because it's providing affordable housing; much needed affordable housing within the City. We felt that it was a good use for the property, considering -56- • • 1 that it's been vacant since, I believe 1955 is when this subdivision was platted, and it shows no use since 2 then. 3 So, staff can certainly work with the applicants to provide a layout that provides full access off 4 Paxton if you want, for one or both of the lots, specifically the northern lot, if that's the one that's of most 5 contention. 6 But, again, we weren't necessarily conditioning or asking condition on that specific layout. The 7 applicants are simply seeking that land use approval to be able to put the duplex and staff felt that that 8 was the best layout. But, they have other options. 9 BUCHMAN: I think in behalf of the Commission, we all agree, yes, afFordable housing very 10 needed in the community and again, we have no objection to that. I just don't want to see anybody stuck 11 without access to some parking. So, if staff would work with the applicant, I would have no objections. 12 KYLE: They will, if I could point out, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Buchman, they will be 13 providing the required two off street parking spaces on the property, in accordance with the zoning code 14 requirement, whichever way it happens. 15 BUCHMAN: OK. 16 KYLE: I mean they would have to provide two parking spaces for each dwelling. 17 BUCHMAN: OK. Thank you. 18 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Mr. Kyle, I have the exactly same comment as Commissioner Buchman. In 19 the drawing you just showed there that shows the layout with the parking, that's only for the south one, 20 what about the north one? I'm not sure that... 21 KYLE: If, Mr. Chair.... 22 VICE-CHAIR FORD: ...it's almost using your imagination to call that an alley down through 23 there. 24 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, it would be, excuse me, as presented it would be the same layout on both 25 the lots, but they could potentially use this layout on, say the southern lot because it does...the alley is a -57- • • 1 little bit more established at that point, and da a layout where you have both dwellings fronting Paxton on 2 the northern piece of property. 3 I mean, I think if the concern is access from the alley for one or bath of those lots, then we can 4 work with the applicants to provide a layout that accomplishes I think what you all are looking at for. 5 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Would it be more realistic though to have more assurance that a better 6 access would be provided. I'm thinking in terms of not only of the convenience, but also of an emergency 7 case or anything in there. I would be concerned if, for example, if an ambulance had to back down that 8 alleyway, it would be quite difficult for them. 9 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, we can...we certainly can check with Public Works or Land Management 10 and find out if those bollards which do lock...there's bollards, if I remember right, all the way across here, 11 and certainly they...we could change on the feasibility of those being removed at this point and then 12 some kind of treatment being done, bladed or otherwise, to provide more passable, more direct access. 13 We can look at that as an option or I think we can work with the applicants to rearrange the 14 layout. 15 VICE-CHAIR FORD: But I think this is a concern that we all have about this. 16 BUCHMAN: Yes, yeah, we did, did you want to say something, Nancy? 17 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Nancy? 18 BINNEWEG: No. 19 BUCHMAN: I'd like to hear what...the applicant wanted to say something, Virginia, Mrs. 20 Hernandez? 21 HERNANDEZ: I just want to let you know that it's already like an alley and it's right...you can tell 22 it used to be like a real small park, so there is access for them to come through that alley. And I believe 23 that's the City property so wouldn't they have to do the improvement on that little road they want us to 24 put? 25 BUCHMAN: That's what we're very concerned about. -58- • 1 HERNANDEZ: It's there already. 2 BUCHMAN: It's not there. 3 HERNANDEZ: It's just have to put like gravel, I guess, but you can see it's a track because right 4 across it there's like a little park. 5 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Are you saying then that the alley really doesn't go all the way through? 6 HERNANDEZ: it goes all the way though, but there's notjust...on the opening, it...l mean, 7 there's not a, you know, to came down the cement's right there... 8 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Not a curve break. 9 HERNANDEZ: Yeah, a curve break, but there is, you know there is a road already there, and 10 then a little park right by there. 11 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, there is, as the applicant said, there is curve and gutter standing here. I 12 think the bollards are located along here. Again, this is a platted alley; it is a 20 foot dedicated piece of 13 City property. The zoning code does allow it for access and that's why I said staff will definitely work with 14 Public Works or Land Management to find out from their end if the City can make those curve cuts and 15 provide any leve- of improvement that's necessary, otherwise, I think that the...should the Commission 16 wish to approve the proposal, as the proposal, they can do so. We can condition it that the northern lot 17 does not have access to the alley unless the alley is punched through, something along those lines. I 18 think that you can approve it and get same legal room, so we can work with the applicant, if it's not going 19 to work to utilize that alley, to do something else where we have access off Paxton. 20 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioners any other questions? We're ready for a motion then. 21 BUCHMAN: I make a motion we approve Case IDP-19. 22 CAMUNEZ: Second it. 23 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Do you care to put any condition on it? 24 BINNEWEG: Yau can condition it... 25 BUCHMAN: No...(inaudible) _,g_ • • 1 BINNEWEG:...if they open up the alley? Oh. 2 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Is there a second? 3 BUCHMAN: Yes, there's a second. 4 VICE-CHAIR FORD: OK. We will then vote roll call, Commissioner Buchman? 5 BUCHMAN: I vote NO, based on the (inaudible) I don't believe there is adequate provisions 6 made for the alleyway and access to the second lot. 7 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Binneweg? 8 BINNEWEG: I'm going to vote NO, for the same reason that Commissioner Buchman has 9 expressed. 10 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Camunez? 11 CAMUNEZ: I'm also gonna vote NO for the same reason. I'm afraid if an emergency vehicle has 12 to get in there, there won't be enough room for it. 13 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Ludtke? 14 LUDTKE: I vote Yes, on the presentation and findings. 15 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Chair votes NO, because of the concern for access. 16 But that takes care of IDP-19 and I believe that's all the cases that we have in New Business, for 17 Consent and items removed to New Business. We are at that point now on the agenda, Other Business. 18 BUCHMAN: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment? I think Robert is probably telling Mrs. 19 Hernandez this. We have no objection you coming back again with another proposal, but what we're 20 saying is this particular proposal we didn't like. So there are other ways that you can deal...so, we're not 21 voting down low cost housing; we're voting down this proposal. So, that was the only comment that 22 wanted to make to let you know that we're open to seeing you again, and I hope that you do come again. 23 Thank you Mr. Chairman, that's all I have to say. 24 VICE-CHAIR FORD: I would only felt like saying, I second you again on this. 25 Yes sir, very briefly. -60- t 1 RICHARD HERNANDEZ: My name is Richard Hernandez, I'm a co-applicant for this...we made 2 several options that we could access. If we accessed it from the Paxton area then there'd be no 3 complaint with the alleyway. But, seeing that the City is recommending the alleyway as a better option, 4 you know, if we had presented it to you with total access from Paxton, how would that have gone? 5 BINNEWEG: Fine. 6 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Fine. 7 I think that the opinion is that there's no objection tp what you're proposing, we're just concerned 8 for access to it; and particularly emergency access, in my case. 9 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, a couple of options present themselves. If the Commission doesn't have a 10 problem with it, if there's no access to the alley, and that was Staff's preferred layout, the 11 Commission...the applicant can appeal and go to City Council, if they want to, or the person in... 12 (Speaking to unidentified persan...get him off the phone...) 13 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Affirmative... 14 KYLE: ...the person in the affirmative, the winning party could make a motion to reconsider and 15 you could approve it, conditioned to no access from the alley, and then we could move forward with the 16 revised lay-out. 17 VICE-CHAIR FORD: (inaudible) in the negative. 18 BINNEWEG: Yes. 19 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Mh. 20 KYLE: But there would be...there would need to be a motion for reconsider by the winning side, 21 which would be one of you four that voted NO. 22 BINNEWEG: (Inaudible) 23 VICE-CHAIR FORD: No. 24 BUCHMAN: None from me. 25 LUDTKE: For other access? -61- • ~ 1 BUCHMAN: No. 2 BINNEWEG: I would be willing to, because with other access...l'm just not in favor or alleys and 3 it gives people a strange address and strange directions on how to get to their house. And, I think that 4 people should...that Paxton is not a heavy street that you have to worry about traffic backing in and out. 5 BUCHMAN: But, I don't believe that... 6 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Just a second. We have a motion that hasn't been second it. 7 LUDTKE: I'll second it. 8 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Can the one on the other side second. 9 LUDTKE: Can I second? No? 10 BUCHMAN: No. 11 RICHARD JACQUEZ: Anybody can second the motion. 12 BUCHMAN: All right. 13 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Now, it's been moved and seconded. 14 BINNEWEG: OK. 15 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Now, any other comments? 16 BUCHMAN: Now we have discussion? 17 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Yes, we'll discuss it. 18 BUCHMAN: OK. Are we doing here what staff's is supposed to be doing? Is it ourjob to 19 automatically change this now? Or is it the staff's job to get new proposals from the applicant? 20 CAMUNEZ: No. 21 LUDTKE: I'm certain that if that proposal that was made there was in concrete. 22 BINNEWEG: In concrete, na. I just... 23 LUDTKE: I just can't believe that I heard a person to... 24 BINNEWEG: They wanted the zoning. 25 LUDTKE: (inaudible) the way it is. -62- • • 1 KYLE: They want land use approval.... 2 BINNEWEG: They want land use approval. 3 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Yeah. 4 KYLE: That was our preferred layout, but as I indicated, they did provide drawings that had 5 another option, it just wasn't our preferred, and we felt...staff felt this was...the applicant, as well, like that 6 layout, but if you can condition approval on no access from the alley... 7 BINNEWEG: OK. 8 KYLE: ...they'll redo their side... 9 BINNEWEG: OK. 10 KYLE: ...it will still comply with the zoning and then... 11 VICE-CHAIR FORD: If you recall, I asked you... 12 COMMISSIONERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME 13 BUCHMAN: ...the main concern, right? 14 CAMUNEZ: Mh hm. 15 VICE-CHAIR FORD: And you remember, I asked if you wanted condition it? 16 BINNEWEG: Yes 17 VICE-CHAIR FORD: It was my concern too, but I think if we put a condition on that we have 18 better or.. 19 BUCHMAN: No, access. 20 VICE-CHAIR FORD: ...more proper access... 21 BINNEWEG: Off City street? 22 KYLE: No access to the alley... 23 BINNEWEG: Yes. 24 KYLE: ...make it simple and very clear... 25 BINNEWEG: Yes. -63- ~ ~ 1 KYLE: ...and then we'll move forward... 2 BUCHMAN: Yes. 3 KYLE: ...with the applicant, instead of 4 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Fine, fine. 5 KYLE: ...having to wait another month. 6 BINNEWEG: Great, 7 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Can we have a motion to that effect? 8 LUDTKE: We have properties in the City that have alley access. 9 BINNEWEG: They have better alley... 10 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Wait a minute... 11 BINNEWEG: ...oh, never mind... 12 LUDTKE: No, I'm just... 13 BINNEWEG: OK. 14 LUDTKE: ...saying we do have them in the City right now that have alley access, correct? 15 CAMUNEZ: How do you address them? 16 LUDTKE: That's the City's problem. 17 BINNEWEG: Yeah. 18 KILE: Mr. Chairman, the... 19 BINNEWEG: They want the land use... 2q KYLE: ...Commissioner Camunez, to answer that, because it's multiple dwellings or multiple 21 structures an one property, it would be...there'd be one physical address and then the unit A and B. 22 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Well, that's a minor housekeeping problem too, we had a motion to 23 reconsider... 24 BINNEWEG: Yes. 25 VICE-CHAIR FORD: ...and then...and we have not voted an that yet. BUCHMAN: But we're still discussing it, though. -64- • 1 LUDTKE: We're... 2 VICE-CHAIR FORD: We're not discussing the motion to reconsider, we're considering the 3 contents of it. 4 Could we have a vote on the reconsideration? 5 BINNEWEG: So moved. 6 VICE-CHAIR FORD: All in favor say Aye. 7 COMMISSIONERS: Aye. 8 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Opposed? OK. Now. 9 LUDTKE: There seems... 10 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Now we can have a motion to approve or, if you'd like again.. 11 LUDTKE: And have more discussion... 12 VICE-CHAIR FORD: OK, yeah. 13 LUDTKE: Then, is it up to us to determine who's responsible for punching that alley through? Or 14 is it that you just don't want access from the alley? I'm trying to get your feeling on this. 15 BUCHMAN: I don't feel that it's safe there, or equitable to the people who live in the back to 16 have to try and come through a mud hole to get to their parking. And, it could be a mud hale on a real 17 rainy day. And, it could be a detriment if there was, say, a blockage on the front and the emergency 18 vehicles had to come through the back. 19 LUDKTE: Mh. 20 BUCHMAN: Because, in that area there, there is, say no alleyway cut, there's just a curve cut on 21 one side, so what they're saying...what Robert's saying... 22 LUDKTE: So who does the alley? Does the City... 23 BINNEWEG: It's the City'S alley. 24 ALL THE COMMISSIONERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME 25 LUDTKE: Who's responsible... _65- • 1 BINNEWEG: And actually, 20 feet wide is not very wide. 2 VICE-CHAIR FORD: You can't turn around in it. 3 BINNEWEG: ...far City vehicles, or anything else. 4 LUDTKE: They'd better be able to drive down a 20 foot road. 5 VICE-CHAIR FORD: They couldn't turn around... 6 ALL THE COMMIS510NER5 TALKING AT THE SAME TIME. 7 LUDTKE: They'd better be able to drive dawn a 20 foot road. 8 BINNEWEG: Yeah. 9 BUCHMAN: Mr. Kyle, you have a comment? 10 KYLE: Only to say that, for one, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, staff nor the applicant have a 11 problem with the condition of no access to the alley, primary access off of Paxton. As a point of 12 information, however, that alley is platted and does exist and if somebody wanted to come in and put a 13 single family home in there, and they wanted access ofl the alley instead of Paxton, they would get a 14 building permit to put that in. 15 i3ut, that being said, staff nor the applicants have a problem with the condition of no access from 16 the alley. 17 BINNEWEG: OK. 18 KYLE: And that's all, I think, everybody's... 19 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Yeah. Do we have a motion to that effect then? That this be passed with 20 the condition, as Mr. Kyle stated, no access from the alley. 21 BINNEWEG: I move that we pass...we... 22 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Approve. 23 BINNEWEG: ...approve Case IDP-19 conditioned on no primary access to the duplex dwellings 24 of the alley. 25 CAMUNEZ: I second it. -66- • • 1 VICE-CHAIR FORD: All right, then moved and seconded, now any discussion on that? 2 BUCHMAN: No primary...no access, why do you say primary access? 3 BINNEWEG: They have to have their parking and garage access ofF Paxton, because now it 4 shows that the...this parking lot is off the alley, that's their primary... 5 BUCHMAN: Yeah. 6 BINNEWEG: ...parking area. 7 BUCHMAN: Oh, OK, I gat you now... 8 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Thank you. 9 BUCHMAN: ...I vote Yes, OK. 10 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Any further discussion? 11 CAMUNEZ: No. 12 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Are you ready for the motion? I mean, for the voting? 13 Commissioner Buchman? 14 BUCHMAN: Aye, based on discussions we presently had, and the change in the motion. 15 VICE-CHAIR FORD: All right. Commissioner Binneweg? 15 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on the discussion and the new motion. 17 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Camuriez? 18 CAMUNEZ: Aye, based on discussion and new motion. 19 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Commissioner Ludtke? 20 LUDKTE: Aye. 21 VICE-CHAIR FORD: And the Chair votes Aye, based on discussion. 22 Now we can have secondly disposed of that. Now on to New Business. Commissioners any 23 other business? Hearing nothing? Public participation, anybody from the public would like to make a 24 comment or...? 25 Get up and leave, or something. -67- • ~ 1 Now, staff comments? 2 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners just a little bit of news far next month. It is the annual 3 meeting; there will be election of officers as well, at the April P&Z meeting. 4 BUCHMAN: When do we set the agenda for the year? 5 KYLE: The agenda, or the meeting schedule for the year, was approved... 6 VICE-CHAIR FORD: In December, I believe. 7 KYLE: In December? I think that's correct, that's when you adopted the calendar. Well do the... 8 BUCHMAN: No. We've never had a calendar presented to us, did we? 9 LUDTKE: I believe so. 10 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Yeah... 11 BUCHMAN: And all the meetings are scheduled for here? 12 61NNEWEG: I think the work session... 13 VICE-CHAIR FORD: (inaudible) Council, not meeting in... 14 KYLE: When are we meeting? 15 BUCHMAN: No, we have never had a calendar, that's my point. And the point 16 being...rememberthe problems we had when we went to Munson Center. Remember what problems 17 what problems we had when we went to the library? 18 VICE-CHAIR FORD: No. 19 LUDTKE: What is your point? 20 KYLE: Mr. Chairman, the meeting...) don't... 21 BUCHMAN: (Inaudible) 22 KYLE: ...at this point in time, I honestly don't know where the meeting will be next month, or 23 whether it will be in Council Chambers, or we will have an alternate site. We will find out as soon as we 24 can, it's all depended on the Budget Hearings. tf City Council says this room is not available, this room is 25 not available... -68- • • 1 BUCHMAN: I understand, but if we go to City Council right now, we go there tomorrow morning 2 and say, we want this meeting 3 KYLE: It doesn't matter. 4 BUCHMAN: ...if, but if there's nothing in #here. __ 5 CAMUNEZ: Budget overrules 6 KYLE: Budget overrules, and there might not be anything scheduled there now, but the day 7 before, there might be, so we'd like to just have the alternate rooms. I know... 8 BUCHMAN: But, where will we go? 9 KYLE: ...staff doesn't like it any more than you do. 10 BUCHMAN: But, where will we go for an alternate? 11 KYLE: At this point in time, I don't know. 12 BUCHMAN: Do you have some room in your garage? 13 KYLE: Actually, I do. 14 VICE-CHAIR FORD: Anything else, Mr. Kyle? 15 Any other... 16 KYLE: No, Mr. Chairman. 17 VICE~CHAIR FORD: Motion to adjourn is in order. 18 BUCHMAN: I make a motion we adjourn. 19 CAMUNEZ: I second. 20 VICE-CHAIR FORD: All in favor, say Aye. 21 COMMISSIONERS: Aye. 22 23 VIC -C I 25 -69-