Loading...
06-30-1999 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) MEETING 2 June 30, 1999 3 4 Following are the summary minutes of the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting on 5 June 30, 1999, held at City Council Chambers. 6 7 Members Present: Brian Denmark(PLNG) 8 Critt Coburn (Fire) 9 Robert Garza(Engineering) 10 Rollie Wright(Comm. Services Adm.) 11 12 Staff Present: Sheri Anderson(PLNG) 13 Lisa Bookin(PLNG) 14 Les Coffman(Utilities) 15 Lisa Fuselier(PLNG) 16 Mike Johnson(Traffic Operations) 17 Robert Kyle (PLNG) 18 Dahna Raugh(PLNG) 19 Dan Soriano (PLNG) 20 21 Others Present: Gayle Bonus (Alameda Southridge I Owners Association) 22 Mel Marcus " 23 Kyle Moberly" 24 Jack Pickle 25 Jodi Vasquez 26 27 28 I. CALL TO ORDER 29 30 Meeting called to order at 9:00 AM. 31 32 33 II. CASE INTRODUCTION 34 35 1. Four Hills Replat(pre-application meeting) 36 37 Kyle stated the major issues are: access (dedicated right-of-way or an easement) and how 38 frontage will be treated. The new design standards require that access to residential subdivisions 39 be from a dedicated city street. (Easements cannot access residential properties.) Another major 40 issue with access is its width. The standards would require 50 foot right-of-way versus the 27 41 foot driving aisle proposed. 42 43 Les Coffman of CLC Utilities has not yet viewed the area; therefore he said he could not 44 speculate on any problems that may exist with sewage until he sees the area. He said he did not 45 see any problem with the parcel on the left not having access as long as the utility easements are 46 there. 47 48 Regarding fire, access is not considered an issue due to the small size of the property. However, 49 the grade/slope could be an issue; if it is greater than 10%, it could be a problem; if it is 8%or 50 less and it complies with the driving aisle requirements in the Zoning Code (27 feet), then 51 Coburn would not have any problem with it. 52 53 The pre-application is fine with Garza as long as the design standards are met. 54 55 In essence, the application can continue as long as all standards are met and utilities are 56 addressed. At the end of this discussion, Denmark stated the main issues are sewage, fire flow, 57 the driving aisle, grades in the driving aisle, and fire issues. 58 1 1 2. Country Club Heights Unit 5 (road issue) 2 3 The issue was whether or not a connection to Triviz through units 5 or 6 was needed. The DRC 4 decided that an additional connection to Triviz over the outfall channel was not necessary since 5 the existing roads could fulfill the need. The DRC's consensus was to improve Pima Drive, get 6 off-site improvements done, and basically improve the area. 7 8 3. City of Albuquerque property (open space issue) 9 10 See separate document entitled"City of Albuquerque Open Space Neighborhood/City of Las 11 Cruces Meeting." 12 13 14 III. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 15 16 None. 17 18 19 IV. OTHER CASESASSUES MAY BE DISCUSSES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN 20 LISTED ON THIS AGENDA 21 22 None. 23 24 25 V. ADJOURNMENT 26 27 Meeting adjourned at 9:40 AM. 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 2 f JO h12 on DevP/op/)IpO7/- P�-2-OA) C,071-1 k ( c-� 1 QoC� o� day �QM6@� DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR June 30, 1999 The City of Las Cruces Development Review Committee will consider the following agenda at a meeting to be held Wednesday, June 30, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 200 N. Church, Las Cruces, NM. I. CALL TO ORDER II. CASE INTRODUCTION 1. Four Hills Replat (pre-application meeting) (Jodi Vasquez) 2. Country Club Heights Unit 5 (road issue) (Scanlon White) 3. Pre-a rland Net- 4. City of Albuquerque Property (open space issue) Ill. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IV. OTHER CASES/ISSUES MAY BE DISCUSSED THAT HAVE NOT BEEN LISTED ON THIS AGENDA (AS NEEDED) V. ADJOURNMENT The City of Las Cruces does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, or disability in the provision of services. The City of Las Cruces will makereasonable accommodation for a qualified individual with a disability who wishes to attend this public meeting. Please notify the City Planning Department at least 48 hours before the meeting by calling 528-3222 (Voice) or 528-3157 (TTY). This document can be made available h alternative formats by calling the same numbers listed above. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P.O. E )x 20000 LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO 88004-9002 Phone(505)541-2000 1 2 3 CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE 4 OPEN SPACE NEIGHBORHOOD 5 City of Las Cruces Meeting 6 June 30, 1999 7 8 Following is a transcript of this presentation at the Development Review Committee meeting on 9 June 30, 1999, at 9:00 AM in City Council Chambers. 10 1 1 Members Present: Brian Denmark (PLNG) 12 Robert Garza(Engineering) 13 14 Staff Present: Lisa Bookin (PLNG) 15 Lisa Fuselier (PLNG) 16 Robert Kyle (PLNG) 17 Dahna Raugh(PLNG) 18 Dan Soriano (PLNG) 19 20 Others Present: Gayle Bonus (Alameda Southridge I Owners Association) 21 Mel Marcus " 22 Kyle Moberly " 23 Jack Pickle 24 25 26 City of Albuquerque Property (open space issue) 27 28 Denmark: Fourth issue, City of Albuquerque Property Open Space issue. Jack? 29 30 Kyle: This is technically not a DRC case. 31 ;� � 32 Pickle: I didn't bring any maps. The Neighborhood Association [inaudible] the meeting, but I 33 think I'll be okay. 34 35 Kyle: As long as it shows the area. 36 37 Picky Yeah. We have talked with you before about this area. We changed the zoning several 38 years ago. Right through here, it's open space because of intermittent landfills in there and we 39 took ... there was R-2, R-1 zoning on that, about 109 acres, and we just bulked up zoning on the 40 other side of the hill just to C-2 to make up for the detriment. 41 � ��r c�,; �o we ? 7, about 109 acres for ultimate open space in that area along both 42 sides of Foothill Road. It just doesn't make sense to develop it, from my point of view. 43 The City of Albuquerque, our Contract Administrator over the years has said they'll get 44 something worked out with the City of Las Cruces to where they'll accept it, because 45 everybody's really looking at the liability of these old landfills, and of course Albuquerque had 46 nothing to do with them being there, but they also don't want to have continuing liability once 47 they convey the property, it's my understanding. Now of course, as in all cities, including Las 48 Cruces, any conveyance has to be approved by the City Council. The City of Albuquerque, this 49 issue has never been presented to them, so there is no representation on my part that this land 50 will ultimately donated to the City of Las Cruces. Now the City of Albuquerque did sign off on 51 the "Open Space" designation years ago, so my assumption is they will, but Contract 52 Administrators d staff guys,just like you guys are staff guys, he knows what he would like to 53 see. He has talked with the attorney that deals with our contracts and they are all in agreement. 54 The existing CAO, Chief Administrative Officer, like your City Manager, is in agreement, but 55 we have a new mayor and we have new councillors up there. There is talk about imposing a 56 Chief of Staff in between the mayor and the ChiefAdministrative Officer, and we have no idea if 57 that will happen and what his take on this might be. So I don't want anyone from the 58 neighborhood hearing me promise that this land is going to be given to Las Cruces. My promise 1 I ended when I got it designated "open space" by the City of Las Cruces. My assumption is: if, for 2 some reason, the land did not convey to Las Cruces and Albuquerque found somebody who 3 thought they could develop it, that developer would have to come here to get any zoning, and at 4 that point, you all and I would also be up there saying, "That's not what everybody agreed on." 5 But, you got to remember, cities are cities. You guys know that, I'm not sure you guys do. They 6 do what they damn well please and the elected officials change from time to time. Sometimes 7 they make different decisions than the staff recommends. 8 So that's basically my opening remarks on this. I think what the neighbors are interested 9 in it, I hope, is seeing that this conveyance does occur. And my sense of it has been that there's 10 probably more resistance on part of the City of Las Cruces in accepting the conveyance than 1 1 there is any concern about Albuquerque making the conveyance. 12 One final issue that always comes up in dealing with goverment property is the Anti- 13 Donation clause. In a sense, this would be government to government. My understanding is that 14 doesn't apply, so I don't think there would have to be any quid pro quo or phrase value; they just 15 have to say, "Let us out of any potential liability and here's the deed." Something like that 16 would occur. It's just a design issue. 17 Did the neighbors have anything they wanted to add to my comments? 18 19 Marcus'One thing, and that is that the uh ... I've lived there longer than anyone else, almost 9 20 years. That probably was a landfill for 50 years or more. There has been no toxic effects or 21 anything ? ... (like that but you know what I'm talking about [inaudible]257)i The liability, l 22 think, it is pretty minimal. [Inaudible,260]. 23 24 Denmark: I think it's premature to say what the City feels about it because I don't believe the 25 issue has even gone before the City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission is aware 26 that it is open space because that is what was adopted as part of the master plan, and there was 27 discussion at that time that there was possible consideration of the dedication of that land to the 28 City. 29 I guess I have a couple of questions. One, is the south boundary there inappropriately 30 marked? And you're wanting us to consider the arroyo as well? 31 32 Pickle -I believe the arroyo has already been dedicated ?... [somewhere/same where I'm at, 2661:' 33 34 Denmark: And so are you formally requesting the City to consider the issue, or where exactly are 35 you at, Jack, to make sure I understand? 36 37 iPickll Well, we've had our master plan revision and replat number 3 on hold now, pending 38 finding out what's going to happen on a couple of tracts. I think we're about to figure that out in 39 the next month or so, and so at that point [inaudible] revive that and ? ?(beep wanting, 2711the 40 the process. It would be nice if we knew by then whether we should make this dedication part of 41 that process, because as I get Albuquerque to sign off on things, it would be a whole lot easier to 42 just have that dedication plat as part of the package, but I don't want them to do it if it's not 43 likely that it will be accepted. 44 45 Denmark: Okay. 46 Just for the benefit of the Committee, Lisa has been working on a corridor plan based on 47 the Lohman plan from Walnut to the city limits line, and it's not supposed to be specifically 48 addressing land uses because a lot of that has already been established through master planning, 49 but it's supposed to deal with urban design or aesthetic issues. And she was going to be getting 50 with Jack to talk about the proposed draft. From my point of view, I would like to see us tie this 51 issue with that project because we've been looking at, there's several things going on: one is the 52 plan that she's working on, the other is the Brownfield's project and they've been looking at that 53 old landfill as a possible site for some funding that could be used to do something with it; and it 54 would be nice to maybe tie those two issues together so when we go before the Council, it's kind 55 of a package deal so they have some concepts or ideas of what could be done with the property or 56 what the impacts might be to that property. I think timing-wise, we're pretty close. I don't know 57 if she's contacted you yet, or if she's been trying to contact you. 2 I We've been kicking around a few ideas, and so I think it would probably be to your best 2 interests if it was packaged to the City Council in that way so they see, you know, what are some 3 of the uses that could be determined on this. That will also give staff time to think about it, 4 because I know there's various staff that I don't think we've even talked about it since the issue 5 hasn't even come up yet, and address it that way. 6 7 Pickl(f We should [inaudible] ?... (going south on this}' 8 9 Denmark: Yeah, it's not going anywhere. 10 Any comments or questions from the Committee? 11 12 Garza: I just have a concern on that northern boundary, that's where the Lohman extension will 13 go through. As you know, Jack, there are some pretty significant grades, slopes that are going to 14 be in there from that ridge back down to Lohman. I think we need to address what we're going 15 to do with all that. 16 17 Picky: Yeah, that's one of the reasons ? ? ? (we've pushed for, 304ffar more than we could in its 18 elevation now [inaudible]. I?... (agree with ?the deliberation) [inaudible]0part of the design at 19 Lohman was [inaudible]. 20 21 Denmark: Well, we can tie that issue in along with that plan as well and kind of dovetail the 22 design of the future road along with your project and try to get that taken care of because the 23 design that y�u were showing us was pretty substantial. 24 25 9'(Uol): They're huge. Thirty, forty feet long. 26 27 Denmark: Anything else? 28 29 Bonui My name is Gayle Bonus. I wonder if the Homeowner's Assocation because they're the 30 most active here of neighborhoods, if residents could be involved in this because we would like 31 to see that property involved for recreational uses for the residents in that area. But at this point, 32 there's nothing and nothing is planned for us, either. I move to continue development to the Las 33 Alamedas subdivision and?(Du&os31 7� egentary School. A number of residents there, 34 there are residential units that are emg propose . There's well over 1500 of them, in very short 35 periods of time. 36 37 Denmark: If you can leave your name and number with Lisa, she can contact you and set up a 38 meeting with the organization to talk about that because that, one possibility might be 39 dovetailing on the Adopt a Median program, where the Neighborhood Association might 40 participate in maintaining some of that open space, if they're wanting it for recreational 41 opportunities. 42 43 13=# Well, I think it's going to lay off the Homeowner's Association ? ? ? ?(325 subdivision 44 that SRS is involved in east of us and has to be included in that. I think that because we have, 45 you know, mandated the Homeowner's Assocation, we have been the most organized one that 46 went global. The other name which ? ?(Jim:Mackam)06rganized is ?(Sam AdaslSt. Madams, 47 328)1 although there are ?ObrV in that subdivision because of the ?(toxic, 330quality of life. 48 49 Denmark: We've recently ... the City Council recently adopted a maintenance agreement dealing 50 with some properties on the north end of the city and it required that the neighborhood actually 51 form a non-profit corporation as a neighborhood association, and maybe that's what needs to be 52 looked at as well, because from our point of view, we have concerns in that area that we don't 53 want to have too many separate, identified neighborhood groups or associations. It would be to 54 our benefit if that whole section was just one neighborhood association, so when we had cases 55 going before us or before the Planning and Zoning Commission, we'd know who to contact to 56 advise you of what's going on in the area. So we can look into that issue as well, through the 57 plan that we're doing. 58 3 I Marcus My name is Mel Marcus. I think there would be, depending on how hard it is to, T?(g 2 away, 339) I think there would be great difficulty in getting the neighbors to do this, to agree to 3 one association. We've had difficulty just getting ours in our own neighborhood to join the 4 Association. It's mandated by CC&R/CC and R. 5 6 Denmark: I would agree with that, it's probably true. But from our point of view, we don't have 7 the resources to worry about 7 or 8 different little groups when, in our point of view, it's the 8 same geographical area. And we have a substantial problem in this area where anything that 9 happens within that general area, everyone from the High Range all the way down to Mall Hill 10 Estates believe that they should be notified, and obviously we're up to several thousand people 11 living in that general area and we don't have the resources to notify several thousand people 12 every time one issue is brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission. And that's just 13 something that we need to work at and see if we can resolve so you're getting the notice that 14 you're wanting, and at the same time it's something that we're capable of doing with the 15 resources we have. But I think the City is aware and acknowledges the fact that that's the 16 difficult issue for that particular area, that that has been a problem. 17 18 Bonus: I think we ought to recognize that that probably is one of the most active areas as far as 19 growth and change in this area, and at least that's not a large [inaudible]. 20 21 Denmark: Yes, yes, and I think we all recognize that the ... if you look at the 22 Roadrunner/Lohman quadrant, it's probably going to be the true hot spot over the next 2 to 4 23 years; it will probably be the fastest growing area in the city. 24 Any other comments or questions? If that's all right with you, Jack, we'll just proceed it 25 that way. 26 ... All right. The meeting's adjourned. Thanks. 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 4