Loading...
04-14-1999 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) MEETING 2 April 14, 1999 3 City Planning Department Conference Room 4 5 Following are the summary minutes from the Development Review 6 Committee (DRC) meeting on Wednesday, April 14, 1999, in the City 7 Planning Department Conference Room, 575 S . Alameda Blvd. , Las 8 Cruces, New Mexico. 9 10 Members Present : Brian Denmark (PLNG) 11 Jim Ericson (DSD) 12 Jorge Garcia (JU) 13 Robert Garza (CLC Engineering) 14 15 Staff Present : Tony Aguirre (JU) 16 Sheri Anderson (PLNG) 17 Paul Dugie (CLC Engineering) 18 Mike Johnson (Traffic Operations) 19 Robert Kyle (PLNG) 20 Vince Sanchez (JU) 21 Dan Soriano (PLNG) 22 Rollie Wright 23 24 Others Present : Bill Chapman 25 Harold Denton 26 Gerhard Muller 27 28 29 30 I. CALL TO ORDER 31 32 Denmark called the meeting to order at 9 : 05 AM. 33 34 35 II. CASE INTRODUCTION 36 37 1. Sandhill Village Phase 1 (DVI) 38 39 Kyle : There are two issues that need to be addressed. 40 The first one, from my end, is related to the easement that 41 they need to get across the City property to connect with Highway 42 70 . Do we want them to obtain that before we take the final plat 43 forward for approval? 44 The second issue is related to utilities and a water line that 45 is supposedly running up the property. 46 47 Ericson: On the easement, Lid juat :make the approvals conditioned 48 by . L' , ‚Äěcouncil to grant you an easement . We' ll prepare a 49 resolution and take it forward. You' re going to have to be there 50 to speak to it, explain to them what we' re doing. 51 We' ll need a legal description, a plat survey. 52 53 Chapman: It ties into the other road that' s going to loop around. 54 55 Denmark: You' ll need to show that as well . 56 57 Chapman then displayed the most recent map from Parsons 58 Brinckerhoff . 1 1 Chapman: It does tie in here . Basically it does tie in with the 2 new interchange . 3 4 Ericson: You need to look at that intersection angle, too. 5 6 Chapman: It' s about 80 [referring to the angle] . It' s not 60 . 7 8 Denmark: We want it 90 . I think what we want is to bring it in 9 like that, and then you' ll 90 off . 10 11 Ericson: We can give them some relief on our curve if we have to, 12 can' t we? 13 14 Garza: Yes . Just make it as near 90 as you can. 15 16 Chapman: Okay. That' s no problem. 17 18 Ericson: And like I say, you need to describe the easement and 19 then- 20 21 Chapman: Well, a temporary easement right now following this 22 alignment right here . It' s kind of straight . 23 24 Ericson: Do we want to just describe a temporary easement, or do we 25 want to describe a temporary and then the- 26 27 Chapman: It' s all within City property. 28 What we' re proposing right now is this temporary easement here 29 along this alignment here, which will basically tie into here- 30 31 Ericson: My question, though, is do we want the temporary easement 32 to not be the permanent right-of-way. So do we want to just deal 33 with the temporary issue now and just bring it back when we' re 34 ready? 35 36 Chapman: This will follow the permanent right-of-way. 37 38 Ericson: Okay. You just need to give us a plat survey and a legal 39 description. A 8 %x11 or 8; x14 plat of survey. 40 41 Denmark: That was all there was on the road issue? 42 43 Kyle : From my end, yeah. 44 45 Denmark: Okay. What about utilities? 46 47 Sanchez : What I'd really like to do is . . . See a way that we can 48 . . . the water line is going to be an easement [inaudible] show the 49 fence. 50 51 ? : [Inaudible] easement, right? 52 53 Muller: On the west side . 54 55 Sanchez : That' s good, but how you' re going to put the fence as you 56 develop the subdivision. 57 58 Muller: That' s correct, yes . 2 1 Sanchez : So what prevents a homeowner in the future going in and 2 putting the fence on the property line? I mean, you can' t be 3 policing . . . 4 5 Muller: [inaudible] in the covenants . In the covenants, you can 6 put them in there. 7 8 Sanchez : The other thing, you show this fence . . . the water line 9 going this way. Our records show it goes at a 90 . It probably 10 went from valve to valve, so you may not need to do this . We would 11 be glad to go locate it in the field and see where exactly that 12 line is . 13 But we show our plans going at a 90 here, and it doesn' t cut 14 across like you . . . 15 16 Other members agree to go locate it . 17 18 Sanchez : So if we could put a note on that fence, that would be 19 important . 20 21 Denmark: Where are you talking about? Right here? 22 23 Sanchez : Yes . 24 25 Denmark: I don' t think it' s ? (built) a wall now. 26 27 Sanchez : That' s why we' re planning on doing it . 28 See the street lots right there, from the first phase? See, 29 we' re thinking about the line, but there' s also the next phase . 30 31 Denmark: Yeah, they made it part of their covenants and their deed 32 restrictions . Then they just build the back wall part . That 33 should provide you the security that they won' t . 34 35 Sanchez : The second phase at this point . 36 37 Denmark: No, the second phase will just do the same thing. 38 39 Sanchez : We assume that the 33-foot easement got vacated. Right, 40 there was an easement to the City? A road, and it is on that 41 section. 42 43 Kyle : They' re showing their half of being vacated on the plat . 44 45 Ericson: Let' s make sure the BLM local office is not going to come 46 back and . . . Because, you know, every time this happens and they 47 hear about it, we get hammered. So, I' d like you guys to get 48 something. 49 50 ? : We've spoken with Marvin. We haven' t gone into any details, but 51 . . . He gives these right-of-ways, not the City but the public, for 52 access . And when there' s an ? (overt) access . . . 53 54 Ericson: I know, I agree . But I don' t want to get another nasty 55 letter from their Assistant Director or mayor or manager. . . 56 57 Sanchez : See, the plans we showed them, the construction showed at 58 20 feet . I don' t believe that ever got filed. . . There was a 33- 3 I foot . All we need is a 15-foot, but it should probably be filed 2 with this plat 3 The utility easement right now is 33 feet . The line is in the 4 original easement . See what I mean? There is no 15-foot easement . 5 6 Ericson: So what you' re proposing is, instead of vacating a 33- 7 foot, just reducing it to a 15-foot? 8 9 Sanchez : That' s right . 10 11 Denmark: You might have to supply us with a survey of the road up 12 to the top because BLM might make us require to submit an 13 application for that to be designated as a future roadway. 14 What they've done in the past is they said, `Fine, we' ll let 15 you vacate that, but you've got to turn in an application for 16 this. , You might have to give us a survey of this once we approve 17 it . 18 19 Chapman: We' re providing the road all the way through the 20 subdivision. . . 21 22 Denton: We' re going to provide access to where they' re going over 23 here. This will be the future access right here . 24 25 Denmark: That' s not the issue. What BLM is going to look at is the 26 future, and this is part of the MPO' s map and you' re changing that . 27 So just be prepared for that . 28 I think they' ll make us submit the application and have you 29 give us the survey. If we' re satisfied with the design, the 30 vertical and horizontal on it, then we' ll go with it . 31 32 Denton: Okay. 33 34 Chapman: I can get this turned back in next week. 35 36 Sanchez : Come see me or Vince and we can schedule this operation. 37 38 Kyle : So what condition do we need on the plat related to that? 39 Just the wall along the west side of phase I will be built at the 40 time of roadway construction. 41 42 Ericson: And it' s going to be a 15-foot . . . They need to change 43 the thing to 15-foot rather than a 33-foot utility easement . 44 45 Denmark: Anything else, Robert? Everything else is based on the 46 PUD and all that? 47 48 Kyle : Yeah. 49 50 Ericson: I have one question just to make sure. You guys are 51 going to try not to stir anything within drain `A' and `B' . 52 53 Denton: Not within drainage `B' . That' s where there' s a major 54 ponding area. 55 56 Ericson: Okay. 57 58 Then a few people mentioned Sandhill arroyo. 4 1 Denton: Within the Sandhill arroyo. 2 3 Ericson: Right . But I guess my question is what are you going to 4 be doing in there? 5 6 Denton: We' re sacrificing drainage `B' for the Sandhill . This is 7 where all the ponding goes, in here . 8 9 Chapman: We' re ponding and ? (we' re seeding/receding/reseeding) it 10 in native grasses . 11 It' s 9/10 of an acre . 12 13 Ericson: Do you want to look at just a drainage thing, or at joint 14 use? 15 16 Garza: Can' t do much with 0 . 9 acres . How steep is it going to be? 17 18 Denmark: How are you going to stabilize it, put it on a slope? How 19 are you going to stabilize until the soil' s been- 20 21 Chapman: It' ll stay pretty well . 22 23 Denton: There' s not water flowing inside . It comes through here 24 where we have a rock channel and run down to the bottom . . . 25 26 Denmark: I don' t mind if they seed it and make it kind of a natural 27 grass area, but I have concerns about getting it to that point 28 because we've seen too many of them fail . And it ends up being an 29 erosional pit . 30 31 Chapman: The slopes will stay at a 3 to 1 . We' ll put it a 4 to 1 . 32 A lot of times if we go to a 2 to 1, it doesn' t stay in there at 33 all . A 4 to 1 will hold. 34 35 Denmark: No erosion? ! I'm sorry, I find that hard to believe in 36 the sand. My concern with the construction drawing, I guess is 37 what I'm saying: You' re going to have to prove that it' s going to 38 work that way. And we won' t take it until it' s established. 39 40 Denton: I guess it would depend on a couple of things . We could 41 put in some temporary irrigation. But if we go in with any kind of 42 mulch along with the seeding, I think it would . . . you know, maybe 43 grasses shouldn' t establish, as they did along the highway. 44 45 Denmark: Well, once it' s established, I think we' re okay. It' s 46 getting to that point . So just make sure you work with staff . . . 47 You' re going to be hitting a good time to do it . 48 Anything else? All right ! Thank you! 49 50 2 . Country Club Estates 22-B 51 52 Kyle : I don' t have the applicants coming in for the next two 53 because they are clean plats; I just wanted DRC to see them, to 54 take them for final approval . 55 56 Denmark: Next case : Country Club Estates, 22-B. 57 The big issue here was drainage, wasn' t it? And we addressed 58 it? 5 l Kyle: When I had talked to Jim about it, I figured we would address 2 the drainage issues at the construction drawing phase . 3 4 Soriano: Right . I know Paul and I have talked. I think this is 5 one of the long ongoing problems that Paul Dugie has had with the 6 drainage out here . But that' s basically what we had concluded. We 7 would go take care of that at the time of construction drawings . 8 I went and looked at it right now. They've got . . . I guess 9 sort of ? , was how they were going to divert that water down the 10 road and then zig-zagging it through that culvert . 11 12 Denmark: Dan, water turns on its own! 13 14 Soriano: They' d have to do all kinds of trickery with that 15 pavement . But basically they've got, I forget, 90 CFS coming down 16 this street on a 100 year storm and it' s got to turn here and here 17 and go into that culvert . 18 . . . The temporary pond that they built for 22-A sits right 19 there . That pond will be taken out . 20 21 Kyle : I know at one time we had talked about them putting in a 22 drop-inlet . . . 23 24 Denmark: Well they' re crowning! They' re going to have to inlet it 25 on the other side. 26 27 Kyle : Well, the inverted crown up here supposedly, but it you go up 28 there and look at it, you can' t see it . 29 There' s supposed to be, what, 2% going in and it meets ADA 30 requirements . 31 32 Soriano: The original drainage report was based on an inverted 33 crown of like 20, I think, which they did not get out there . In 34 fact, the construction drawings for 22-A reflect like a 0 . 30 or 35 0 . 5% inverted crown. So that reduces the capacity of the street . . . 36 So I commented on that during this review. So they' re going to 37 have to reword the whole drainage plan out in this area, too, as I 38 made those comments . 39 There' s a lot in that corner. 40 41 Ericson: They need to come back with something different on this . 42 43 Kyle : Well, okay. But this is the final plat of an approved 44 preliminary plat . 45 46 Denmark: Yeah, their argument is they didn' t build according to 47 master plan. . . 48 49 Soriano: That' s basically what my comments were, that they didn' t 50 build according to what the master plan was based on. This 51 upstream subdivisions, I don' t remember ever seeing that lot 52 sitting in the middle of a pond. 53 54 Kyle: Yeah, they had it there from the beginning. They were going 55 to bring the water in, dump it here, it would fill up, and then 56 release over there . 57 6 1 Denmark: You've got to put a ramp there, your sidewalk! So how are 2 they doing that? 3 4 Ericson: You need to get a drainage report back from them before we 5 take this forward. 6 7 Soriano: That' s what we've asked him for, for a revised master 8 drainage report . 9 10 Ericson: Or they can figure they' re not going to get . . . If they 11 push taking it forward, then they just won' t get a building permit 12 until they show up it' s going to work. 13 14 Dan (?) : And no doubt they' d want to dedicate . . . 15 16 Kyle : Oh yeah, they've already . . . it' s dedicated drainage area. 17 18 Denmark: I would recommend denial . Let them appeal to Council . 19 Council won' t support it . 20 21 Kyle : I will call them. I didn' t have them come because I didn' t 22 think there were going to be any issues, but . . . 23 24 Denmark: I don' t think there' s really much to discuss until they 25 revise their master plan to show us how they are going to address 26 it . 27 I think our argument is the fact that they didn' t [inaudible] 28 the master plan. . . 29 30 Kyle : Well then, I' ll call and let them it' s not going to go. If 31 they want it to go, we' ll recommend ? (not) . 32 33 3 . Ameriwest Subdivision No. 2, Replat No. 3 34 35 Kyle: He set up a master plan so he can come in and ? (summary) it 36 off, but he just wants to go ahead and plat it in that direction. 37 38 Denmark: What are the little lots for? 39 40 Kyle: They' re one (1) acre, "A" . I think it' s so he could combine 41 them if . . . I talked to him about it and that' s what he wanted to 42 do! Because he said he set up some potential users set up that 43 worked well for him, so he explained to me not to go through the 44 replat process now to change anything. He didn' t care from his 45 end. 46 It' s going to P&Z . Plat this out like that, and then . . . 47 48 Denmark: Do we need to take right-of-way from him? 49 50 Kyle: Believe me, I checked and made sure he had five (5) feet on 51 that . 52 53 Ericson: I don' t know! Do you want to condition it to limited 54 access? Shared curb cuts . 55 56 Denmark: Ultimately what' s going to happen is Mike' s going to end 57 up telling Mike to shift everything over if we don' t do that, 7 1 because everyone is doing that now. People are trying to turn into 2 Roland' s . . . 3 4 Garza: Well, didn' t we tell people to use their put 5 acceleration/deceleration lanes on? 6 7 Rollie : We've got a bike lane down that road now, on both sides . 8 9 Garza : But being that it' s only a two (2) -lane road, why can' t we 10 require that they put acceleration /deceleration lanes in . . . ? 11 12 Ericson: We ? (can/can' t) . 13 14 Garza: Is there anything we can precondition to make them to do 15 that? 16 17 Denmark: It' s either that or joint access . Just give them the 18 choice ! `Those are your options . ' 19 20 Kyle : Okay, so either joint access on the lots or construct decel . 21 lanes . 22 I told them joint access was most likely to be initiated. The 23 only concern Eddie had on that, the way he had the buildings set 24 up, if I remember right, having joint access was going to screw 25 with the way the ponding was arranged. 26 27 Denmark: You just need to show us a proposal . . . Or you can give us 28 more right-of-way. 29 30 Soriano: With bike lanes out there, wouldn' t it preferential just 31 to have limited access rather than decel . ' s? Because you don' t 32 have that to the south, do you? I mean, we don' t have . . . the bike 33 lane' s a four-lane section. They won' t be having decel . ' s in and 34 out . 35 36 ? : No, back by Kentucky Fried and Norwest . 37 38 Kyle: . . . I' ll just pass along that the plat will be condition that 39 there either is joint access for the lots or- 40 41 ? : We should make him connect these lots, too, so they can drive on 42 the lots without entering the street . 43 44 Ericson: That would be one way . . . 45 Give him some options and tell him to come back. 46 47 Kyle: I' ll go ahead and advertise the case, then, and then have him 48 come back Wednesday. 49 50 51 III. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 52 53 Denmark: Anything else? 54 55 No response . 56 57 8 1 IV. OTHER CASES/ISSUES MAY BE DISCUSSED THAT HAVE NOT BEEN LISTED 2 ON THIS AGENDA (AS NEEDED) 3 4 None . 5 6 7 V. ADJOURNMENT 8 9 Denmark adjourned the meeting at 9 :30 AM. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 9