Loading...
06-09-1999Draft 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) MEETING 2 June 9, 1999 3 4 Following are the summary minutes of the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting on 5 June 9, 1999,held at City Council Chambers. 6 7 Members Present: Brian Denmark(PLNG) 8 Jorge Garcia(JU) 9 Robert Garza(CLC Engineering) 10 1 1 Staff Present: Sheri Anderson(PLNG) 12 Robert Kyle (PLNG) 13 Vince Sanchez(JU) 14 Dan Soriano (PLNG) 15 Rollie Wright(Comm. Services Adm.) 16 17 Others Present: Ed Dorbandt 18 Dan Lilley 19 20 21 I. CALL TO ORDER 22 23 Meeting called to order at 9:05 AM. 24 25 26 II. CASE INTRODUCTION 27 28 1. Lenox Places Subdivision (Master Plan - Preliminary Plat) 29 (Ed Dorbandt- Western Lands/Dan Lilley) 30 31 In the introduction, Denmark stated that the Lenox Drive issue is resolved and it has been 32 approved by City Council whereby the City is essentially building the second half of the road. 33 (The developer is building the first haW of the road.) The City had the developer relocate to be 34 consistent with what Bob Fishbac the north end. Kyle explained that their presentation was 35 concerned with their proposed mAt-er plan and preliminary plat for this development. It is set 36 into two (2)phases. Although the number of phases is currently not represented on the plan, it 37 will be. The area is single family residential. The original plan will be shifted over to create a 38 frontage road along the highway, and utilities and et cetera will be relocated accordingly. 39 40 It has been submitted for review. The master plan needs corrections, but it is close to being 41 approved. A final plat has been submitted in place of the preliminary plat and that is currently 42 undergoing revisions. 43 44 An issue Kyle presented on the master plan and the plat is regarding the 2.1 acre parcel that is 45 being held for future development. The City needs to know exactly what that acre is, e.g. that q� 46 needs to be identified as a tract, and its use needs to be identified. In response Lilley stated tha`C 47 its use will be residential,that the develor�'ants to put in apartments. Kyle suggested that he 48 label it"Tract- Reserved for future use.' =ark affirmed that the plan to develop it as 49 residential needs to be reflected on the master plan; there can be a range of uses and densities 50 there,but all these things need to be reflected in the plan. The Subdivision Code requires that all 51 uses be identified in the master plan. 52 53 question arose as to whether a section of the development was right-of-way or if it was an 54 existing easement. Lilley said he would verify what it was. If it is indeed right-of-way, it cannot 55 be used as part of the developer's lot configuration. Denmark explained that if the City 56 maintains it, that means that they do not have to contact the owner to say, `We're compensating 57 you for it.' (I'm not sure if I gleaned the correct meaning from the tape in this last sentence. Is 58 this correct?) 1 1 1 .T"es es d.drainage 2 At that time,filley explained that the arroyo comes in along the edge and proceeds along 3 Nemesh Drive, cutting across platted lots at one point. The sewer and the four-inch high 4 pressure gas line go down there as well. There is also a 12-inch water line. Garza`djkasked if it 5 was his intent to extend the fences back to ? (the cross there, 83). Lilley answered that he gave 6 the building envelope right there.QTo c` onfirm LiECYI—staterff-e'nt, Denmark made sure that the 7 lots in the front comply to the Zoning Code in width j p ttbuilding envelope and all 8 that; Lilley said that they did. "They were still, I think, 05 feef deep right now." Denmark asked 9 if he had utilities in addition to drainage in it. Lilley responded that in the area back there,there 10 is existing drainage and existing utilities. 11 0- 12 What they propose to do is rechannel the water so it will move in'troperly protected open 13 channel rather than meandering the way it had been. Garza wondered if the water would be 14 travelling over the utility line since the utility line is in that area. Lilley said they had two 15 options: 1)they can turn it into a ditch"here" so they won't experience erosion from the ditch 16 and just keep it sending it down where it went before, or(2) [he did not mention the second 17 option]. Regarding the first option, Garza expressed that he does not want residents having to 18 call in three months to tell him their walls are getting undercut. Lilley said the wall is getting 19 underexposed as it is; the gas line was exposed for awhile when they were working on parking. 20 Garza continued that in a certain stretch, residents would be neighbors because ? (the city? 21 "We're going to own this, 96), and he anticipates them calling every day asking, `What are you 22 going to doT Soriano also questioned whether, with the designated easement, the water would 23 maintain the flow without affecting the walls or the utility lines. Lilley then stated that it is a 24 gradual slope. 25 26 A question posed by Denmark was, "Once you've developed, are you going to pipe it under the 27 road or are you sheet flowing it across?" Lilley explained that there is a grade from"here to here 28 and that will be along the back wall of these. Right now we don't plan on ... actually, this is low 29 area right here. We plan on raising this grade a little bit on these lots above it. It's not as drastic 30 as over here,though. Right here, there's a grade down into Nemesh Drive of approximately 15 31 to 20 feet. I don't want to 'that, but that's why I said `Heck with these. I can grade it internal, 32 and leave something else down here."' 33 34 Following is a transcript of the rest of this topic. 35 36 Denmark: Maybe I guess I didn't ask the question right. You say you're using an open channel 37 along Lenox. 38 39 Lilley: Right. 40 41 Denmark: How are you getting the water across Lenox? Are you piping it? Or are you trying to 42 dump it across the road? 43 44 Garza: Open channel over here. 45 46 Denmark: Right, and then take it over. 47 48 Garza: And how do you get it to there? 49 50 Lilley: Oh, to here? Well, my original proposal was releasing it in this area, right where the 51 existing arroyo is. I mean,this is where the water ... Mars Pond lumps out probably another 52 100 feet this way. 53 54 Denmark: Yeah, but the road is going to continue on! So you're telling us you're trying toump 55 it around the road and then the next developer is going to be stuck dealing with water? 56 57 Lilley: Oh, I see your question. This is, essentially, the same kind of question Dan had, too. 2 I This is going to be an open channel right there. Whenever the City builds the road, I was 2 assuming that the channel just be buried, and the water would be handled within the street run- 3 off. 1 4 I have talked to the Highway Department. 5 6 ?: They're going to reduce it to 20 CFS total. 7 8 Kyle: It's a major local. 9 10 Denmark: Well, it's a collector being built as a ? (123). 11 12 Soriano: It's designated as a collector. 13 14 Kyle: Its function is going to be a collector. 15 16 Soriano then suggested that he, Paul Dugie, and Dan Lilley go look at it in the field to see if it's 17 feasible to release the water"here" as opposed to trying to bring the water down to release it 18 "here," saying they prefer to release it at a historical point. It may be possible that it could not 19 take on additional capacity. 20 kms) 21 Lilley stated that the water wilomewhat clean; it will come through a pipe and have only about 22 30-40 feet of travel before it gets into the ditch, across the right-of-way and into the channel. 23 The option, according to Lilley, would be to "diffuse it right in this area, or actually turning it a 24 little ways and then diffusing it into this area. Maybe the more appropriate way of doing it 25 would be to turn it first; that way there wouldn't be a cross-flow at 90 degrees to the existing 26 arroyo." When Soriano mentioned that the cleaner water is, the faster it flows, Lilley said that 27 silt will not be as much of a problem since the water will be coming right out of the pipe. Then 28 Denmark said that this may be okay from a deposit point-of-view, but that it will be picking up 29 more,too, because it is clean. In his response, Lilley stated it will have the characteristics of 30 cleaner water, "but that's why th riprap, CW and the velocity, we have to slow those down 31 with the ... you know, dissipate the energy when we fan it out. I don't mean to just stop the 32 channel and let it go." 33 34 Denmark summarized this discussion by stating that Dan Lilley, Paul Dugie, and Dan Soriano 35 should go out there. If the issue is resolved, that's fine; if it does not get resolved,they need to 36 come back to the DRC. Right now, the DRC is not sure if the developer's concept of how to 37 deal with drainage is okay. Once the concept is approved, they can work on the design. But 38 right now,the concept is questionable. 39 40 Utilities 41 Currently,there is a 12-inch water line, a 1poO-inch sewer line, and a 4-inch gas line. The 4-inch 42 gas line and the water line go to a certain point, and then there is sewer-gas-gas-water coming 43 down another directio� Lilley maintained that the proposal is to, "once the road is vacated, re- 44 route the lines througT� ubdivision and actually use them as our mains, re-route them back 45 through the subdivision this way, and then put them out this drainage [inaudible]. This is the one 46 I want to call right-of-way, drainage and utility right-of-way. It would be paved and it would be 47 designed except that it would run off,too, because [inaudible, 173gthis way, and then retie. 48 And I was talking to Vince and he wants a wet tap on all this; he wants to not eliminate service 49 anywhere there, so retie to the lines that are going this way." 50 51 Denmark wondered if the developers were planning on vacating the right-of-way along there. 52 Along one portion, they do plan to vacate, because "this portion we'll leave there and put a little 53 turnaround into there. That way it will curl the traffic along here and in." Denmark asked if they 54 really would want it to do that, stating that they're changing their usAo a higher density use. Do 55 the developers really want the people to have ac*ssthrough the who e neighborhood and vacate 56 the whole thing and get more land? Denmark exp ained that they will get complaints from 57 people if there will be an apartment complex. He suggested, "Vacate all that. Put a utility 58 easement in there, but you'll be able to put in a landscape buffer and address your landscaping 3 1 requirements that you have to dt.Ayway while buffering yourself against,this, so it 2 mitigates... It will give you a liale more, bigger land." Garza said he would not want a deadend 3 street there anyway. Lilley then asked, if he took Denmark's suggestion, if they would be able to 4 access Lenox"this way(186)." Denmark replied, "Yes," remarking they would probably want 5 access to Lenox. Garza pointed out that it would depend on the density, e.g. single family 6 residences or family apartment complexes. Denmark then stated that"you have a chance to be 7 slapped by the condition on your zone to provide a landscape buffer along here, anyway. And 8 you've got a 15% landscaping requirement on top of that. And we don't want this. And these 9 people aren't going to want him coming around; they're going to want to isolate themselves." 10 1 1 Lilley asked what should happen if a lot is vacated, e.g. if the vacant lot should be given to the 12 nearest neighbor or if something else should happen. Denmark responded that they will work it 13 out, that it's not a big deal. Kyle provided that when right-of-way is vacated, this issue must be 14 taken to City Council. In this case, the relocation and realignment need to be reflected on the 15 plat, as well as the area that is being vacated. 16 17 Lilley (or Dornbandt) �� u that their plan is to move into the subdivision, show the duplex 18 plans to the neighbors, s�ell them on the idea and instead of four single family homes it may be p g g Y � Y 19 six(6) apartment rental units. They probably will be rental units "because nobody is going to 20 buy a house on an off-ramp. But if I can't talk the neighbors into letting me do a higher density 21 just for rentals, I'm not going to fight with them. We'll go R-1 and just rent houses..." Denmark 22 responded that"If you go that way, then you need to keep that part out of your phase one and 23 you need to include in your master plan both options. Because if you go with apartments, we 24 don't want that road, if you want to make like a driving aisle." Garza's feeling was to not even 25 show people what's on there for now and to leave the whole triangle [inaudible] "and we'll deal 26 with it later." 27 � 28 Dorbandt said that as long as their building ? (blue, 233) rentals they will be able to include 29 certain lots in phase one. Denmark and Garza responded that that would be limiting their 30 flexibility and ability to do more with it later. Then Lilley asked, if they do what the DRC 31 suggests in vacating the lots, leaving them the way they are for now, and do the other 32 development they plan on doing, and then if later it gets approved if they could come back and 33 "create this." Denmark asserted again that they should keep it as flexil se as possible. 34 35 At that time, the developers clarified what phases one and two are, stating that they're going to 36 build from Lenox first. The easement is staying where it was. Denmark commented that they 37 could put a driving aisle on the easement; it's a utility easement, so they have access to it. 38 Continuing on, he said, "But if you're putting apartments in there and a street and a cul-de-sac, 39 we don't want it. We would rather you come off of Lenox, and then what you do is maintain 40 your utility easement. Because most likel"ou're going to get stuck with conditional zoning 41 that's going to require opaque landscaping and a buffer, so you're automatically going to have 42 part of that 50-foot right-of-way utilized for screening purposes." 43 44 When asked if they were indeed planning on building duplexes, Dorbandt replied, "Oh, we're 45 just looking at R2 just so we can do some attached, some duplexes... There may be three (3) 46 triplex lots, three separate owners." 47 48 k l enmark affirr�hed that th RC is giving advice to keep that section as flexi e as 49 possible. Obert gave you an opti0 , we gave you an option on the vacation." He stressed that 50 they will probably want to outline those options for that tract. Kyle said that they need to detail 51 their master plan, including what their options are for what they want to do. He continued with, 52 "Because if you are going to come in and further subdivide that as opposed to keeping it a 2.1 53 acre parcel with multiple dwellings on it, then I think I ? (could, couldn't, 275) consider that." 54 Denmark agreed with Kyle, that he could not really support those three (3) lots going in there 55 since there is so much question as to what the developers want to do. The developers can come 56 in at a later date and replat that tract. Denmark then said, "I think it behooves you to separate 57 that out as one tract and then give it a range of single family residential distance up to yourduplex 4 1 density request, and then list possible options, such as vacation of the right-of-way, utilization of 2 the private drive, or just a utility easement, etc." 3 4 In further discussion of the easement, they were told to leave a 50-foot easement. If they put in 5 single family housing, they'll probably wa t ul-de-sac because they won't want the access; 6 they're going to want to be buffered from . Phe highway. 7 �. 8 Concerns with the utilities are that everything has to be kept live except for city gas. It'sDosa 9 whether the gas will be through Rio Gran Nemes r city gas. The sewer comes up to 10 Nemesh, which means it will come out of ah easement1here into a resident's backyard. (This is 11 all according to Garcia.) It will have to be re-routed to keep it from going to his backyard. An 12 option from there would be to keep it going to the City property and then up. Garcia said, "once 13 we get those located, we'll want to address how [inaudible]. And then if it is an easement, we'll 14 want it done like it was done at Sandhills where we'd want the wall built at the time�f�lo S , 15 construction. A backyard wall." This wall would be needed for drainage,tog)dere woul, 16 have to be some physical separation from the lot to maintain the flow all the way through there. 17 That may be the only way for it to run across 3 or 4 lots to get from one point to another. 18 19 Lilley summe p their advice by stating they would build it along the very edge of what is now 20 the easementor sewer, they will have to adjust where that goes. Lilley obtained confirmation 21 that the re-routing through the subdivision will not be detrimental. Denmark stated that the issue 22 with the master plan is "the drainage and how it affects utilities and the easement issue. 23 Conceptually,that has to be resolved. The rest can be the prelinar p t" n the a * i 24 plat, the easements need to be shown around the right location;) t ea u � cf 25to your Preliminary plats typically are supposed to s the existing utility �cG � 26 lines,. iz3"'etc. Garcia suggested scheduling a meeting with Utilities to address the re- 27 routing, eeping it live, and how that is going to be handled. -7C �E 28 ` 29 When the three men go out to view the area, they will try to address all of the issues, including 30 utilities and drainage. 31 32 Then the developers asked if they are in the advertising envelope or if they need to address this 33 today. Kyle responded that there are a lot of issues that need to be cleaned up before presenting 34 this developme to P&Z, especially on the preliminary plat. Denmark commented that they 35 may be able to in the master plan, but the preliminary plat may not make it in in time. But it 36 won't really slow them down much because if they can nail down all the technical issues with all 37 the reviewing staff, and they have master plan approval, they can then move into the final plat 38 construction drawing process. The key is to get the concept issue resolved rather quickly. 39 Robert needs to have most of this by the end of the week. Also, there is the possibility of 40 neighborhood opposition once they're made aware of this. 41 42 Regarding the size of the utilities, they need to be re-routed Pugh the road ? [inaudible, 425] 43 network. Garcia said he would give a copy o ome t m e sure they get the wording 44 right. 45 46 In conclusion, Denmark told the developers to advertise the master plan and get that resolved. 47 Then they can turn in all the information on the master plan, including all revisions to the tract, 48 to Robert as soon as possible. UTwill If there are any outstanding questions,the 49 developers will need to respond right aw��Z udible] ac et.Jhey were told to focus on the 50 master plan. The DRC will advertise it. nen to Robert as soon as possible for 51 eviewi. 52 53 54 III. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 55 56 57 IV. OTHER CASES/ISSUES MAY BE DISCUSSED THAT HAVE NOT BEEN LISTED 58 ON THIS AGENDA(AS NEEDED) � � 0 5z V cam-/ i 1 V. ADJOURNMENT 2 3 Meeting adj ourned at 10:00 AM. 4 5 6 7 8 9 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 6 r- C�o� DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR June 9, 1999 The City of Las Cruces Development Review Committee will consider the following agenda at a meeting to be held Wednesday, June 9, 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. Lenox Place Subdivision (Master Plan - Preliminary Plat) (Ed Dorbandt - Western Lands/Dan Lilley)) III. 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 528-322 (Voice) or 528-3157 (TTY). This document can be made available n alternative formats by calling the same numbers listed above. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P.O. I u 20000 LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO 88004-9002 Phone(505)541-2000