Loading...
03-10-1999 1 DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 2 Meeting 3 3/10/99 4 5 I. CALL TO ORDER 6 7 11. CASE INTRODUCTION 8 9 1. Pre-application meeting for parcel south of Tortugas 10 11 Trego: The proposal: an ownership of lots for manufactured housing. 12 - leaning toward idea of trying to set up affordable housing within an area where we 13 would create restrictive covenants to ground set and permanently affix modern manufactured 14 housing. 15 - Basically, we won't allow older homes to be established here. 16 - People will be putting themselves into ground set situations, and forced to have 17 landscaping ... 18 - There seems to be a lack of this type of developments within the city. 19 20 - This is bordered on the side by Pancho Salopek's trees. 21 - Parts are above the flood plain and parts are below it. 22 - Want to do a 2-phase situation. 23 24 Drainage issue 25 26 Trego: Dave Church thought it could be very well controlled within the site of the rock, 27 down at the bottom of this thing. (79) He says it could be created so it's a very low 28 maintenance problem. FjlO t b,@ 29 - Dave doesn't want to get into a DVID. 30 �5�� 31 Campos: So in case 02 disagrees [inaudible] lateral is the other option. (95) 32 33 Trego: On-site or creation of a specific ponding area to which they ... 34 - He likes the idea of having an actual controlled area where it drains down into 35 specifically, it's always going to be there. 36 37 Ericson: Problem with those is we're ending up with little ponds all over the creation 38 we're having to maintain. 39 40 ... 41 42 Trego: Dave suggested it would be in use as an overflow, that once the ponding ? 43 through the area that was designated for ponding would fill up to a point, then it would drop 44 into it, so that any excess would ... It would always be a controlled on the site to a point, 45 until it finally maxed out, and then it would fill into the drain. 46 ... 47 48 Utilities 49 50 Trego: I have a letter from the original engineers that says this would beneflt the sewer 51 line dropoff. 52 53 Aguirre: 10-12 units is all we can take. ... There might be an assessment to build up, 54 operate the pumps. 55 56 ... 57 1 1 Aguirre: The design of the sewer: it's an 8 inch and it's at 1% and it can take almost 2 a ? (world) in its back. But the pumps are the ones that are our limitation. 3 - The second station has nothing to do with this. They're not connected in any 4 way. 5 - The way it is now, there are 2 connection points to this one. ... The two 6 points still go back to the Tortugas lift station. 7 - It'll probably take us at least 1 week for us to get this information. 8 9 Ponding layout 10 11 Jim: You need to look first at how deep it's going to be and the volume it's going to 12 hold. The second question is then, Is it big enough to be usable, where it might be a play area 13 for kids in the neighborhood. 14 15 Garza: Might as well put in gentle slopes if it's 2 feet deep. If, say, 6-7 feet deep, ... 16 17 Possible usage of it after the shape and volume are determined, and how it relates to 18 the lateral. 19 20 - 21 22 23 24 Access 25 26 Denmark suggested solving sewage and drainage issues resolved before making a 27 decision about access. 28 29 ... 30 31 Ericson: So what you're saying, Dan, is this no longer becomes a potential amenity for 32 this development. 33 34 Lilley: As long as we allow access to it, e.g. walking or bike access. 35 36 Ericson: I think it's going to become a nuisance to the adjacent neighbors. When you 37 can see it from your front yard, it becomes amenity, but that's just one person's opinion. 38 39 Trego: So doing something where you're actually creating a cul-de-sac this end of 40 things, you don't want this ponding area to be with lots back to it. You want the ponding area 41 to somehow [inaubile] so there could be access to that park, either by police, fire or whoever 42 would need to get in there. 43 - So you want it as a low maintenance drainage situation, rather than something 44 that the City has to take care of. 45 46 Ericson: We're willing to discuss what our options are. 1 don't know what is easier to 47 maintain. 48 - Talk to Mike on that. He's going to have to maintain it. 49 50 NO SMALL PARKS. 51 52 ... 53 54 Ericson: Yeah, I think you ought to go back and look at some additional concepts. 55 56 Trego: More so getting the containment off of this and not trying to work them out on 57 this side. 58 2 1 Ericson- =Asst one you need to look at is a waste water issue.,And then you can 2 go back and look at the other issues. 3 4 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 3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MArC'�--/a AGENDA FOR 1999 The City of Las Cruces Development Review Committee will consider the following genda at a meeting to be held Wednesday, March- 999 at 9:00 a.m. in the City I'Alanning Department Conference Room (Rm. 111) of the City Office Center, .575 S. i'dameda Blvd., Las Cruces, NM. CALL TO ORDER CASE INTRODUTION �io ing for parcel south of Tortugas. (Moy) Acres Phase 1,2,83 final plat. 3, il. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION V. OTHER CASES/ISSUES MAY BE DISCUSSED THAT HAVE NOT BEEN LISTED ON THIS AGENDA (AS NEEDED) J. ADJOURNMENT 'rhe 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 make reasonable 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 in alternative formats by calling ;he same numbers listed above. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P.O. B x 20000 LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO 88004-9002 Phone(505)541-2000 Mr. Charley Trego 955 E. Boutz Las Cruces, NM 88001 IRE: Development Proposal_ So th of Tortugas ea-v, University Mesa Subdivision Dear Mr. Trego; This is a follow-up to the Development Review Committee meeting of March 10, 1999 concerning the above referenced development. The following points were discussed: • The right of way width for Wall Avenue may be reduced from sixty (60) feet to fifty (50) feet. This is consistent for a minor local roadway. • South Street (Piro Avenue) is not within the City Limits. As such, staff suggests that you do not front any lots on Piro as significant improvements will be required. Staff will support a variance to the road improvements if no lots front on the road. • There is a sewage capacity problem with the Tortugas lift-station. It appears that there is only enough capacity to allow approximately ten (10) lots to be developed. You are encouraged to meet with Joint Utilities staff to explore potential means of mitigating this issue. • Drainage. There are several options available to address this issue. First, is to explore the possibility of releasing drainage into the Tortugas Lateral. You should contact the Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID) regarding this issue. Second, provide a retention/detention facility onsite. Coordination with City Hydraulics Engineering staff will be necessary to provide for a facility that the City will be willing to take over maintenance and ownership responsiblities. The last option would be to create on-lot ponding and a private retention facility to address street run-off. • Consider setback requirements when providing for lot layout. Ensure that your proposed housing product will fit on the lots without requiring a variance. Initial review of your site plan revealed numerous lots which would not support a double- wide ground-set manufactured home. • Once these issues are addressed in some manner, bring the proposal back to the DRC prior to submittal for review. Determination of the appropriate subdivision process will be addressed at this time. The above items represent the issues or concerns that the Development Review Committee feels need to be resolved prior to this case being given a recommendation for action before the Planning and Zoning Commission or approved administratively (as applicable). The issues discussed at the Development Review Committee meeting of March 10, 1999 may not represent all comments applicable to this proposal. Other Issues or concerns may be brought up during the post submittal review process. In addition, no proposal will be considered approved until full compliance with the City Subdivision Code, Design Standards, Zoning Code and any other applicable regulation or ordinance has been achieved and the proposal has been approved by the proper approval authority. Please contact the undersigned at 528-3222, should you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, Robert Kyle, AICP Planner cc: Brian Denmark Ernie Campos, Moy Surveying Dan Lilley, DL Engineering