Loading...
11-25-2008 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA The following agenda will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Las Cruces, New Mexico, at a public hearing held on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 beginning at 6:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 200 North Church Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. The City of Las Cruces does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, color, ancestry, serious medical condition, national origin, age, or disability in the provision of services. The City of Las Cruces will make reasonable accommodation for a qualified individual who wishes to attend this meeting. Please notify the City Community Development Department at least 48 hours before the meeting by calling 528-3043 (voice) or 528-3016 (TTY) if accommodation is necessary. This document can be made available in alternative formats by calling the same numbers listed above. I. CALL TO ORDER 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — October 28, 2008 Ill. POSTPONEMENTS IV. WITHDRAWALS V. CONSENT AGENDA "Those items on the consent agenda will be voted by one motion with the acceptance of the agenda. Any Planning and Zoning Commissioner, Staff, or member of the public may remove an item from the consent agenda for discussion by the commission. 1. Case Z2775: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 1.39 +/- acres located at 655 Utah Avenue. Submitted by David Sparks, for Isabella Williamson, LLC, property owner. VI. OLD BUSINESS None VII. NEW BUSINESS 1. Case A1682: A request for a variance from the minimum required fifteen (15) foot rear yard setback for a property located at 4988 Bosworth Rd. The subject property is currently zoned R-1 b (Single-Family High Density) and encompasses 0.10 acres. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow the continued use of a 200 square foot back porch built without a permit that sits four (4) feet away from the rear property line. The attached back porch encroaches eleven (11) feet into the minimum rear yard setback. Submitted by property owners Charles R. Kimble/Juanita B. Kelly. 2. Case A1683: A request for a variance from the minimum required fifteen (15) foot rear yard setback for a property located at 4978 Bosworth Rd. The subject property is currently zoned R-1b (Single-Family High Density) and encompasses 0.10 acres. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow the continued use of a 96 square foot back porch built without a permit that sits seven (7) feet away from the rear property line. The attached back porch encroaches eight (8) feet into the minimum required fifteen (15) foot rear yard setback. Submitted by property owners Marcos Olayo & Nikki Chatterton. 3. Case A1684: A request for a variance from the number of freestanding signs allowed on a single property. The applicant is seeking to place a second freestanding sign on a property zoned R-4C (Multi-Dwelling High Density- Conditional). The R-4 zoning district does not allow any type of freestanding signage. The applicant was allowed one freestanding sign with the building plans during the permitting process, but now a second freestanding sign is desired by the property owner for identification purposes. The property encompasses 3.79 acres and is located at 2941 Morning Star Drive. Submitted by Elisa Krause of Denton Ventures, Inc. on behalf of property owner Morning Star United Methodist Church. 4. Case A1678: A request for a variance from the minimum one (1) acre requirement for the placement of a private school located at 1501 N. Solano Drive. The subject property encompasses 0.16 +/- acres with the potential to replat four additional lots for a combined area of 0.7641 +/- acres. The applicant is also pursuing a variance from the fifteen (15) foot secondary front yard setback required for a 3,735 square foot building situated zero (0) feet from Juniper Avenue. Submitted by Southwest Engineering, Inc for Resources for Children and Youth, Inc. 5. Case Z2760: A request for a zone change from R-2 (Multi-Dwelling Low Density) and R-4 (Multi-Dwelling High Density) to C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) for five distinct lots with a combined area of 0.7641 +/- acres located at 1501 N. Solano Drive. Submitted by Southwest Engineering, Inc for Resources for Children and Youth, Inc. 6. Case Z2776: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) and R-3 (Multi-Dwelling Medium Density) overlapping for 2.24 +/- acres located at 225 Three Crosses. Submitted by Pete Mazza, property owner. 7. Case PUD-07-11: A request for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept plan known as La Paloma. The subject properties encompass 11.683 +/- acres located at the southwestern intersection of Rinconada Boulevard and Settlers Pass. The applicant is requesting a zone change from R-4 (Multi-Dwelling High Density) and C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to facilitate an 82 lot residential townhome development and a single commercial lot encompassing 1.698 +/- acres. Internal roadways will be privately maintained. Submitted by Zia Engineering for Rinconada Development of Las Cruces. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION X. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS XI. ADJOURNMENT I MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 FOR THE 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 City Council Chambers 5 November 25, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. 6 7 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 8 Shawn Evans, Vice Chair 9 Ray Shipley, Member 10 Godfrey Crane, Member 11 Clayton Iserman, Member 12 Charles Beard, Member 13 14 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 15 Donald Bustos, Secretary 16 Charles Scholz, Chairman 17 18 STAFF PRESENT: 19 Cheryl Rodriguez, Development Services Administrator 20 Gary Hembree, Senior Planner 21 Jennifer Roberston, Planner 22 Jared Abrams, CLC Legal 23 Lt. Robert Gonzales, Fire Department 24 Becky Eich, Recording Secretary 25 26 I. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 27 28 Evans: Good evening, and welcome to the November 25th meeting of the 29 Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is Shawn Evans and I'll be 30 chairing the Commission. I'm substituting for Chairman Scholz who is 31 away this evening. I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce the other 32 members of the Commission. On the far right hand side is Commissioner 33 Shipley; he is the mayor's appointee. Next to him is Commissioner Crane, 34 representing District 4. Next to him is Commissioner Iserman, 35 representing District 1. And finally we have Commissioner Beard 36 representing District 2. And I'm representing district 5. 37 38 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 26, 2008 39 40 Evans: Our first order of business is the approval of the minutes. Are there any 41 additions or corrections to the minutes? 42 43 Shipley: I have some corrections. Page 39, line 44, it says "I don't and then spot 44 zoning". It should say "I don't like spot zoning". 45 46 Evans: Okay. 1 1 2 Shipley: The next correction is on page 45, line 11, the sentence starts out "Okay 3 and how many parking structures," it should be "how many parking 4 spaces", instead of structure. Page 43, lines 36, 44, 46. I'll go through 5 those individually. Excuse me, line 44, "On the other side, and make 6 that", should be "university foot traffic". Instead of "that" it should be 7 "university". And then there should be a comma on the next line where it 8 says "I would be for, because". Page 52, can you hear me all right, am 1 9 close enough? There should also be a comma after "I would say also, 10 guess you understand I really care". Then on the next page, 53, line 8, 11 "Modify the corridor plan and go back to the public" "and allow" should be 12 inserted. "Allow them to have their say". And then line 10, "There is Area 13 2 than, what we got". "That" should be changed to "what". And on line 14 29, "We're going to" and there should be inserted "Do" after "to". "To do 15 because". And then line 36, it says "I'm not for and I'm not". It should be 16 just "I'm not for and I won't support it". Page 54, line 37, Mr. Scholz made 17 the comment "And the Chair votes", it says "And the Board votes". So 18 "Board" should be changed to "Chair". Page 61, line 26, the second word 19 it says "there to" it should be "their homes to the commercial area". 20 "Homes" should be inserted. Page 83, line 9, "Is a change in use", it has 21 "used". So the "d" should be eliminated. Page 84, line 12, there ought to 22 be a comma after "to be old too". And that was it. 23 24 Evans: Okay, any other changes? 25 26 Crane: I have one. Page 10, line 14, my vote is missing. I voted aye. 27 28 Evans: Okay, anything else? 29 30 Shipley: Move to approve the corrected minutes. 31 32 Evans: It's been moved. Is there a second? 33 34 Iserman: Second. 35 36 Evans: Second. I'll call role. All those in favor of approved minutes. 37 38 Shipley: Does this just require a voice vote I think, doesn't it? 39 40 Evans: Excuse me? 41 42 Shipley: Does this just require a voice vote? So just we can all vote. 43 44 Evans: All those who approve of the minutes as corrected say aye. 45 46 ALL COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS -AYE. 2 1 2 Evans: All those opposed say nay. Okay. So the minutes are approved. 3 4 III. POSTPONEMENTS 5 6 Evans: Our next order of business is postponements. Staff are there any 7 postponements? No postponements. 8 9 IV. WITHDRAWALS 10 11 Evans: And withdrawals. Are there any withdrawals? Okay. 12 13 V. CONSENT AGENDA 14 15 1. Case Z2775: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 16 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 1.39 +/- acres located at 655 17 Utah Avenue. Submitted by David Sparks, for Isabella Williamson, LLC, 18 property owner. 19 20 Evans: Okay, our next order of business is the consent agenda and here's how it 21 works; if anybody wants to comment on any item on the consent agenda 22 from the audience, from Staff, or from the Commission, please let me 23 know and we will move that item from the consent agenda to the first item 24 under new business. Today we only have one item on the consent 25 agenda and that's Case Z2775. That Case is a request for a zone change 26 from C-2 to C-3 at 655 Utah Avenue. Is there anybody from the audience 27 or from Staff or from the Commission who wants to hear this case? Okay, 28 so this item will stay on the consent agenda. As I mentioned earlier, that's 29 the only one on the consent agenda. I'll accept a motion to accept the 30 consent agenda. 31 32 Crane: So moved. 33 34 Evans: Is there a second? 35 36 Iserman: I'll second. 37 38 Evans: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. 39 40 ALL COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS -AYE. 41 42 Evans: All those opposed say nay. Okay and the consent agenda is approved. 43 44 VI. OLD BUSINESS 45 46 Evans: Our next order of business is old business, of which there is none. 3 Adphk 1 2 VII. NEW BUSINESS 3 4 1. Case A1682: A request for a variance from the minimum required 15-foot 5 rear yard setback for a property located at 4988 Bosworth Road. The subject 6 property is currently zoned R-1 b (Single-Family High Density) and 7 encompasses 0.10 acres. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow 8 the continued use of a 200 square foot back porch built without a permit that 9 sits four feet away from the rear property line. The attached back porch 10 encroaches 11-feet into the minimum rear yard setback. Submitted by 11 property owners Charles R. Kimble/Juanita B. Kelly. 12 13 Evans: We'll move right into new business. The first case we have is Case 14 A1682, a request for a variance from a minimum requirement of 15-foot 15 rear yard setback for a property located at 4988 Bosworth Road. We were 16 going to suspend the rules and hear these cases together? Okay. Go 17 ahead Staff, presentation. 18 19 Ochoa: Hello. Good evening. For the record, Adam Ochoa for Community 20 Development. Case A1682, a request for a variance from the minimum 21 rear yard setback for a property located at 4988 Bosworth Road. Subject 22 property encompasses 0.10 acres and is zoned R-1 b, which is single- 23 family high density. Code requirements for this under Article 4, Section 24 38-31d under the Development Standards for residential zoning districts, 25 for R-1 b what we're looking at tonight is a rear yard setback which the 26 minimum building setback for the rear yard is 15-feet. 27 Some specifics on the case, like I said subject property is zoned R- 28 1 b. The applicants are requesting the variance to allow the continued use 29 of a 242 square foot attached rear porch that was built approximately four- 30 feet from the rear yard property boundary without a permit. The addition 31 encroaches 11-feet into the required minimum 15-foot rear yard setback. 32 The applicants have stated that the addition was built without the 33 applicants knowing that a building permit was required. The applicants 34 have also stated that they are both currently on many different prescribed 35 medications that make them both extremely sun sensitive. The structure 36 was built to allow the applicants to enjoy the outdoors and avoid direct sun 37 exposure. The home was built by the homebuilder at the limit of the 38 property setbacks, so basically that doesn't allow any type of expansion of 39 the home. Here's a vicinity map of the property there. It's off of Mesa 40 Grande up in the East Mesa. The entire area is zoned R-1 b around it. 41 Here are a couple of site photos of the porch itself. These photos were 42 actually taken from the property behind it to the south. Here's a site map 43 of it. A quick little rough sketch of the encroachment onto the rear yard. 44 There is a correction there of the five-feet, it's actually four-foot, four-feet is 45 what is the distance from the rear yard property boundary. 4 I Findings, Staff has reviewed this variance request and concluded 2 that no physical hardship exists for the subject property and identified 3 under the 2001 Zoning Code under Article 2, Section 38-10. Staff has 4 reviewed this variance and recommends denial based on the proceeding 5 findings. Options tonight are to approve the variance request, approve the 6 variance request with conditions, or deny the variance request. I'll stand 7 for questions. 8 9 Evans: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions? Yes, Commissioner Crane. 10 11 Crane: The house immediately to the east, 4990 seemed to me to have not only 12 from the photographs but on site visit, to have a built, I guess you'd call it a 13 screened in porch except it has walls and windows. And it seems to 14 extend almost as far back as the one that's under discussion here. Does 15 that have any relevance? 16 17 Ochoa: Commissioner Crane, that porch, well that addition was actually brought in 18 front of you all last month. It was denied by you all. It should be going to 19 City Council I believe in January. 20 21 Crane: Thank you. I didn't recognize it. 22 23 Evans: Okay, if there aren't any other questions; if the applicant wants to come 24 forward. 25 26 Kimble: Good evening. 27 28 Evans: Excuse me, for the record could you state your name please. 29 30 Kimble: Charles R. Kimble. 31 32 Kelly: Juantia B. Kelly. 33 34 Kimble: When we had the home built that's where we planned to live the rest of 35 our lives. And I went to the VA and asked for a variance on the tax 36 exemption you know that you have for veterans, and at that time they told 37 me I had to deal with Dona Ana County. So we went to Dona Ana County 38 and there they told us we were on a vacant lot, but we'd been living in the 39 house. And so this went on and on and so I assumed that we had to deal 40 with the County and not the City at that time. And so we just had the 41 cover built over our patio because the patio is no good to us unless we 42 can have a cover over it because we are very sensitive to the direct 43 sunlight, and where we can sit out there and enjoy the weather is the only 44 reason I put the patio cover on. And like I say, it's constructed according 45 to code because I've been in construction most of my life. Like I say, the 46 porch was painted the same color as the house. The shingles I put on it 5 1 were the same color as the shingles on the house. Like I say, it's not a 2 piece of junk. I did not want to put a canvas cover because they make 3 noise and I've seen so many of them get tore up in the winds that we 4 have, and so at that time I just wanted to be able to ... for us to be able to 5 sit out on the back patio. Like I say, it's a patio cover. It's self supporting. 6 There are posts right next to the house that hold the weight. The only 7 reason it was attached to the house is for the flashing that I put in there so 8 the water wouldn't be running down and run on us or across the patio. 9 That is the only place that's attached to the house. Like I say, it is self 10 supporting because there are posts next to the house and posts out, and 11 we put a one-foot overlap of the patio deck so that the runoff would be on 12 the back. 13 14 Kelly: I know it probably would sound funny to some of you people, but it isn't 15 funny, when he gets in the direct sun what happens is he ... 16 17 Evans: Excuse me ma'am. Could you step a little closer to the mike? 18 19 Kelly: Well, like I said, it might sound funny to some people, but medication that 20 he takes, if he's in the direct sun he does swell up and he turns blue. The 21 kids kindly jokingly say its Papa Smurf. But it's a fact and it does happen. 22 And I can't be out there because I get blinded by the sun and that was one 23 of the reasons. But like I said when we moved out there the County said 24 when we first moved in, well you're on a vacant lot. Excuse us; we've 25 been in the house since December. This was in April. They still said we 26 were on a vacant lot. Then they got an inspector out there, we finally 27 talked to an inspector and he said, oh well the last time there was an 28 inspection was in October. They didn't come out and do a final inspection 29 until May. The gentleman never said anything about the overhang. He 30 never said nothing. So we were still under the assumption at that time 31 that we were still under the County code. We did not know until actually 32 we got a letter saying you're in violation or the man knocked on the door. 33 And we had no idea that we had actually been in any kind of a violation. 34 We did ours for health reasons. I don't know what our neighbor did his for 35 ... whatever he did. It doesn't concern us, you know. But our concern 36 was our medical health things and we submitted all of our papers with all 37 of our prescriptions and the problems that we do have that require us ... 38 why have a house if you can't go outside? You know, and so this is all I've 39 got to say. 40 41 Kimble: Thank you. 42 43 Evans: Thank you. Okay, I'll open up for public participation. Is there anybody 44 from the public who wants to comment on this? Okay, hearing none, we 45 will close it to public participation, and we'll open it up to the 46 Commissioners. Commissioner Shipley. 6 1 2 Shipley: I guess I'll just start off by saying I went out and looked at the site. It's well 3 built, but again it does not meet City Code. And the house next door we 4 looked at last month and we have another house tonight to look at in the 5 same area. The problem in this particular subdivision is that the builders 6 are building right up to the limits of the lot to give you the largest house 7 possible. When they're doing that they're not taking into consideration that 8 you have needs to go outside and sit on your patio and do those kinds of 9 things. The only thing that Staff has presented us with that you can do is 10 one of the portable retractable shades that goes in and out, and I 11 recognize the same thing you said is very valid, that in the wind you have 12 to have it back. But you're not going to really be out there in the wind 13 anyhow. So that's basically the option that you have. You know we're 14 basically at a dilemma with the City Council and what should be done on 15 these kinds of situations. So, although I looked at it and I understand 16 exactly what you're trying to do, you've got neighbors behind you that 17 haven't built homes yet that could be affected by that, that may not like it. 18 It is in violation of the code and I think the way I feel about it is we have to 19 enforce the code, that's part of our job as well. 20 21 Evans: Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else from the Commission who would 22 like to say anything? Okay, I just would like to reiterate what 23 Commissioner Shipley said. It's a shame that the builders aren't giving 24 any provisions for a patio when they build right up to the rear yard setback 25 and unfortunately you're not the first to come before us and there will be 26 another one tonight I believe too. Unfortunate, but I feel your pain. Okay, 27 Commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to accept Case A1682. 28 29 Shipley: So moved. 30 31 Evans: Do I hear a second? 32 33 Crane: Second. 34 35 Evans: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I'll call role. Commissioner Shipley. 36 37 Shipley: Vote nay, findings, discussion, and site visit. 38 39 Evans: Commissioner Crane. 40 41 Crane: Nay, findings, discussion, and site visit. 42 43 Evans: Commissioner Iserman. 44 45 Iserman: Nay, findings and discussion. 46 7 1 Evans: And Commissioner Beard. 2 3 Beard: Nay, findings, site visit, and discussions. 4 5 Evans: And the Chair votes nay, findings and site visit. And so Case A1682 fails. 6 7 2. Case A1683: A variance from the minimum required 15-foot rear yard 8 setback for a property located at 4978 Bosworth Road. The subject property 9 is currently zoned R-1b (Single-Family High Density) and encompasses 0.10 10 acres. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow the continued use of 11 a 200 square foot back porch built without a permit that sits four feet away 12 from the rear property line. The attached back porch encroaches 11-feet into 13 the minimum rear yard setback. Submitted by property owners Marcos Olayo 14 and Nikki Chatterton. 15 16 Evans: Okay, our next case is Case A1683, a request for a variance from a 17 minimum required 15-foot rear yard setback for a property located at 4978 18 Bosworth Road. Staff, you have a presentation? 19 20 Ochoa: Good evening, yes, sir. Again a request for a variance from the minimum 21 rear yard setback for a property located at 4978 Bosworth Road. Subject 22 property also encompasses 0.10 acres and is zoned R-1 b, single-family 23 high density. Under Article 4, Section 38-31d under the Development 24 Standards, the minimum building setbacks for R-1 b are; front yard 15-feet, 25 side yards five-feet, and what we're looking at on this case is the rear yard 26 which is 15-feet as well. Case specifics again, subject property is zoned 27 R-1 b. Applicants are requesting the variance to allow the continued use of 28 a 96 square foot attached rear porch that was built approximately seven- 29 feet from the rear yard property boundary without a permit. The addition 30 encroaches eight-feet into the required minimum 15-foot rear yard 31 setback. The applicants have stated that the addition was built without the 32 applicants knowing that a building permit was required. The applicants 33 have also stated that the structure was built to help negate the heat and 34 other extreme weather for their two pet dogs that spend the majority of the 35 day in the rear yard while they are not at home. The applicants add that 36 the porch was also built to help negate some of the extreme heat that 37 enters the home through the rear. The home was built by the homebuilder 38 at the limits of the property setbacks, so that does not allow any expansion 39 of the home. Here's a vicinity map of where the property is. The case we 40 just heard prior is this property right here and the case we heard last 41 month is where the little blue oval is, so it's basically a recurrent event. 42 Here are some site photos. Like I said, it's a 96 square foot back porch 43 built over the sliding door on the rear, that is helping the heat from 44 entering there and there are the two pets that it was built for as well. Site 45 plan with a rough sketch of what the porch is like with the seven-foot 46 setback. 8 1 Staff has reviewed the variance request and has concluded that no 2 valid physical hardship exists for the subject property as identified in the 3 2001 Zoning Code under Article 2, section 38-10. Staff has reviewed the 4 variance request and recommends denial based on the preceding 5 findings. Options tonight are; approve the variance request, approve the 6 variance request with conditions, or deny the variance request. I'll stand 7 for questions. 8 9 Evans: Are there any questions? Yes, Commissioner Crane. 10 11 Crane: Is there some smaller shelter that could be made lower against the house 12 that the dogs could shelter under legally? 13 14 Ochoa: Legally, no sir, because if it was attached to the house it'd still be 15 encroaching onto the rear yard setback. They could possibly try to seek 16 what's called a flex development standard which is basically a variance 17 given in house by Staff, but this is the route they choose instead. 18 19 Crane: They could make a shelter that was separate from the house that the dogs 20 could shelter under. 21 22 Ochoa: Commissioner Crane, yes, they could make like a dog house kind of thing. 23 If you're looking at like an accessory structure, there are also minimum 24 setbacks for that as well. It has to be three-feet away from the rear 25 property line and at least 10-feet from the main dwelling itself, so that'd be 26 a pretty small ... 27 28 Crane: Thank you. 29 30 Evans: Okay, if we don't have any other questions from Staff, does the applicant 31 have a presentation or would like to comment on any ... ? 32 33 Olayo: Good evening gentlemen, ladies. For the record my name is Marcos 34 Olayo. 35 36 Chatterton: My name is Nikki Chatterton. 37 38 Olayo: We're here today to plead our case for basically not knowing the 39 difference between building a porch and actually providing a better quality 40 of life for our home that we ... first home time buyer. Basically what we 41 did is went out there, the City came in and gave us the option to go for the 42 permit and with that being that there was no property behind our house 43 currently or any of the houses that actually have these porches available, 1 44 would state that, in front of you guys, that some leniency for not knowing 45 the situations like this. You guys are familiar with the City zoning. You 46 guys know exactly what's going on with these types of buildings and the 9 I builders, but yet we are uneducated in that aspect, so when it comes to 2 things, presenting our case today. We are just basically asking for some 3 leniency to be able to provide that better quality of living at our home, and 4 for ourselves and for our pets. And even though there is a way that we 5 can build a little dog house, they are family members as well too, so we 6 provide them the best quality of living that we can. We already invested 7 quite a bit of money towards this. And not only that I actually was able to 8 build this porch with my own two hands, so I had assistance from my 9 father who does construction and he didn't educate me as far as that we 10 needed a permit as well too. With that we are basically in front of you 11 today to allow you to understand our situation and if not then we can 12 definitely work around other means as well. 13 14 Evans: Thank you. I appreciate it. 15 16 Olayo: Do you have any questions for me? 17 18 Evans: No, that'll be it. Thank you. Okay, is there anybody else from the public 19 who has some questions, who would like to make a statement? Okay, I'll 20 close it to public participation and open it up to the Commissioners. 21 Gentleman. Mr. Crane. 22 23 Crane: Once again we are presented with this unfortunate situation which nobody 24 seems to be responsible for telling homeowners, particularly first time 25 homeowners, that the zoning restrictions exist, there is a code, until after 26 they've taken the unfortunate step of building something illegal and then 27 get to hear about it. I know Chairman Scholz has put it on record that we 28 really need something requiring realtors and builders to give some 29 document to the purchasers of property, making clear that they should 30 simply ... not giving them chapter and verse about what they can and 31 cannot do, but telling them when they are contemplating doing something, 32 to go to see codes first and make sure they don't waste their time and 33 money. 34 35 Evans: Thank you Commissioner Crane. Anybody else? 36 37 Iserman: I just find it a shame that neither your realtor, if you had one, or your 38 builder didn't inform you in some way that there are restrictions. 39 40 Evans: Thank you. Commissioner Beard. 41 42 Beard: I'm really in favor of putting awnings or whatever it is in the back of the 43 houses, but the code is that you can't do it and if you do it then everybody 44 else can do it. And there will be some other people that will say, we 45 bought with this understanding that you couldn't do it, and they're not 46 going to do it, and then they feel encroached because other people are 10 I violating the code. When they build the houses on the back there will 2 probably be the assumption that if they can do it, then we can do that. 1 3 really feel bad that people come up here not having known the code, 4 putting their sweat into building something, and these all look pretty nice 5 actually. It's hard for me to say you've got to follow the code. You've just 6 got to do it. You can put the temporary thing that folds in and out. Of 7 course you didn't know that when you built it. But it's hard for us up here 8 to say no and to follow the code. I just wanted you to know that we don't 9 do this real easy. 10 11 Evans: Okay, if there are no other comments, I'll entertain a motion to accept 12 Case A1683. 13 14 Shipley: So moved. 15 16 Evans: Is there a second? 17 18 Beard: Second. 19 20 Evans: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I'll call the role. Commissioner 21 Shipley. 22 23 Shipley: Nay, findings, discussion, and site visit. 24 25 Evans: Commissioner Crane. 26 27 Crane: Nay, findings, discussion, and site visit. 28 29 Evans: Commissioner Iserman. 30 31 Iserman: Nay, findings and discussion. 32 33 Evans: Commissioner Beard. 34 35 Beard: Nay, findings, discussions, and site visit. 36 37 Evans: And the Chair votes nay, findings and discussion. The case fails. Sorry. 38 39 3. Case A1684: A request for a variance from the number of freestanding signs 40 allowed on a single property. The applicant is seeking to place a second 41 freestanding sign on a property zoned R-4C (Multi-Dwelling High Density- 42 Conditional). The R-4 zoning district does not allow any type of freestanding 43 signage. The applicant was allowed one freestanding sign with the building 44 plans during the permitting process, but now a second freestanding sign is 45 desired by the property owner for identification purposes. The property 46 encompasses 3.79 acres and is located at 2941 Morning Star Drive. 11 JON Aft 1 Submitted by Elisa Krause of Denton Ventures, Inc. On behalf of property 2 owner Morning Star United Methodist Church. 3 4 Evans: Okay, our next case is Case A1684, a request for a variance from the 5 number of freestanding signs allowed on a single property. The applicant 6 is seeking to place a second freestanding sign on a property zoned R-4C. 7 Staff, do you have a presentation? 8 9 Ochoa: Again, Case A1684, a request for a variance from the number of 10 freestanding signs allowed on a single lot and also to allow an illuminated 11 sign in a residential zoning district for a property located at 2941 Morning 12 Star Drive. Property encompasses 3.79 acres and is zoned R-4C multi- 13 dwelling high density conditional. Sign code under Article 2-5, Section 36- 14 45 states that the number of freestanding signs is limited to one per lot, 15 except where the frontage of the lot exceeds 600 linear feet. For those 16 lots, two freestanding signs are permitted provided that there is a 17 minimum distance of 200-feet between the signs. And also under Article 18 1-13, Section 36-12, signs in residential zones shall not be illuminated with 19 the exception of a house or building sign or a name plate. 20 Some case specifics, the street frontage of the subject property is 21 actually only somewhere around 345 linear feet on the side of the road 22 where they actually want to place the sign. The subject property is zoned 23 R-4C. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow the installation of 24 a second illuminated freestanding sign for identification purposes. The 25 applicant was allowed one unilluminated freestanding sign during the 26 permitting process of the building plans. The applicant has stated that the 27 existing sign can only be seen while traveling north bound on Roadrunner 28 Parkway. The second sign will be placed on the property where people 29 traveling south on Roadrunner Parkway can locate the property. The 30 applicant adds that the significant grade change makes the existing sign 31 difficult for people traveling south on Roadrunner Parkway to see. 32 Here's a vicinity map of the property highlighted in the neon green 33 right there. Like I said it's on the corner of Roadrunner and Morning Star. 34 Here's an aerial photo of the property. The existing sign itself is located 35 here, right at the corner of Morning Star and Roadrunner Parkway. Here 36 on the site map you can see where they're planning to place the new sign 37 on the other side of the property fronting Roadrunner Parkway. Here's an 38 example of what the sign would look like. 39 Staff has reviewed the variance request and has concluded that no 40 valid physical hardship exists for the subject property and identified under 41 the 2001 Zoning Code under Article 2, Section 38-10. Staff recommends 42 denial based on the proceeding findings. Options tonight are to approve 43 the variance request, approve the variance request with conditions, or 44 deny the variance request. I'll stand for questions. 45 12 I Evans: Okay, are there any questions for Staff? Hearing none, does the applicant 2 have a presentation or would like to make some comments? 3 4 Krause: Good evening Commissioners, I'm Elisa with DVI on behalf of Morning 5 Star United Methodist Church. As he showed you, this is the location of 6 the property, on the corner of Roadrunner Parkway and Morning Star 7 Drive. As you saw, we are asking to place the second sign down towards 8 the bottom of the property on Roadrunner Parkway, where it is at a lower 9 grade than the other sign, because there is about I would say a six to eight 10 foot grade change from where the sign is to the bottom of that property 11 right there. This is traveling south bound on Roadrunner Parkway. As 12 you can see, the church is right there and you cannot see the sign as 13 you're traveling down the road. Here is a little bit closer as I was driving 14 down the road traveling south bound. This is traveling north bound on 15 Roadrunner Parkway. You can see the sign. If we were to move that 16 sign, as you back further away you can see that it would be more difficult 17 to see the sign if we moved it from that direction also. Also, the other 18 problem with moving the sign is people that see it coming from that 19 direction would have already passed the intersection so that they could 20 turn into the church, because they only have that one access into the 21 church. 22 The sign was also built as a memorial with memorial money with 23 the church and so moving and possibly causing damage to the sign would 24 be an issue. I'm going to introduce Ms. Marilyn Humphry. She is going to 25 talk on behalf of the church. 26 27 Humphry: My name is Marilyn Humphry and I'm a member of Morning Star Methodist 28 Church. I had a hemophiliac son who did die of AIDS from tainted blood 29 products back in the 1980's. Center for Disease Control knew as early as 30 July of 1982 something was wrong with our nation's blood supply and they 31 did nothing for five years. And the reason they knew this was because 32 little eight-year-old boys were coming down with AIDS. They weren't out 33 doing sex and they were not doing drugs. So they knew something was 34 wrong with our blood supply. And 10,000 children nationwide died of 35 AIDS from tainted blood products because of the greedy blood 36 companies, or the drug companies. And I do want to say that I did get a 37 settlement from the drug companies. They never admitted fault, but why 38 did they settle for $640 million dollars and the attorneys got $40 million of 39 it. But anyway, I did get a settlement from them and I am doing good 40 things with this money by giving scholarships and I've given half of the 41 money away that I did get and I'm doing good things. I humbly ask you to 42 consent to this second sign as a memorial to my son Terry. And by 43 strange coincidence this would have been his birthday today. But any 44 way, I humbly ask you to consent to having the second sign. Thank you. 45 13 Atftk 1 Evans: Thank you Ms. Humphry. Are there any other comments regarding this 2 issue? Okay, nobody from the public. Okay I'll close it to public 3 participation and open it up to the Commissioners. Commissioners, any 4 comments? 5 6 Crane: I guess the object of having a zoning code is to enhance the quality, or 7 maintain the quality of life for all people affected in a particular area. For 8 the life of me having driven past there both directions today, I can't see 9 who would be harmed by the erection of the second sign. Indeed you 10 can't tell ... you can see it's a church if you take your eyes off the road. 11 It's got three crosses in various places. Whether it's Morning Star 12 Methodist Church you can't tell. I can't see who would be harmed by the 13 placement of the second sign, no who would be harmed by a reasonable 14 level of illumination to shade it as it says in the code. I feel like approving 15 the variance request. 16 17 Evans: Okay, any other comments? Commissioner Shipley. 18 19 Shipley: I have a question for Staff. 20 21 Ochoa: Forgive me. I'm sorry sir. 22 23 Shipley: Is there any requirement or any limitation on signage on the building? In 24 other words, when you look at the pictures, your pictures, you can see the 25 entire side of the building. Is it possible to put Morning Star United 26 Methodist Church on the side of the building? 27 28 Ochoa: I'm trying to remember correctly here Commissioner Shipley. It is possible 29 to put what's considered an identification sign on the wall in R-4 zone 30 districts. Basically what the problem we're running into here is the zoning 31 of the property itself. The R-4 is residential, so it's very restrictive on any 32 type of signage. Off the top of my head I don't know exactly how big the 33 sign could be on the wall, but yes, they can put a sign on the wall of the 34 exterior of the building I believe, sir. 35 36 Shipley: I mean to me that's ... I live in Sonoma Ranch, so I go down Morning Star 37 probably three times, four times a day and I've been in the church several 38 times, so I'm very familiar with the location. Churches are basically 39 destinations. There aren't too many people that drive by and drop in. So 40 they know ... if you're going to find a methodist church, you're going to 41 know where it is after the first visit and you don't really need a sign to find 42 your church. But I do understand if you're trying to use it to draw in new 43 members that that's a reason for that sign. But I also know that many 44 churches have up on the wall up high which is completely unobstructed 45 and it doesn't have to be illuminated because you basically want people to 46 see that sign during the daytime. You would be able to see United 14 I Methodist Church, or Morning Star United Methodist Church, whatever the 2 case might be. I just thought maybe that might be an alternative that 3 would be within the code where you wouldn't need a variance. 4 5 Evans: Okay, thank you Commissioner Shipley. I have a question for the 6 applicant. What type of sign would you be putting up there? 7 8 Krause: It would pretty much be an exact replica of the sign that's up there now, 9 except for it would be illuminated, but we have got cut off light fixtures that 10 would just point directly at the wording on the sign. 11 12 Evans: Could we get Staff to go back so we can take a second look at that? 13 14 Krause: Let me see if I can get to that one picture where it shows the sign actually 15 in there. I think that's about as close as I took of the actual sign. But if 16 you'll see, there are two columns and it's just two, and then words are on 17 those two boards going across. It would be very similar except for that it 18 would be illuminated. We have located lighting that would be ... the cutoff 19 lighting that's required. It would not shine anywhere except focused on 20 those words and that would be it. 21 22 Evans: Right. And it is a rather large lot on a corner and so I can definitely see ... 23 24 Krause: And the grade change is quite significant right there. 25 26 Crane: Question Mr. Chairman. 27 28 Evans: Yes, go ahead Commissioner Crane. 29 30 Crane: Is a zone change possible to make it easier for the church to have the 31 signs it wants? 32 33 Krause: We had looked into doing a zone change and we were told at that time by 34 Staff it was probably just okay to go ahead with trying for a sign variance 35 because the conditions of the R-4 property allow for what uses the church 36 has on the property currently and so it was not necessary for us to go 37 through the zone change at that time. 38 39 Crane: Also, Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Shipley that once you've been there 40 once, you can find it again, but I think we also have to consider that 41 people go to church once a year or once in a decade or those who shop 42 for churches. Suppose you're turning up for a wedding or funeral, you're 43 going to need some help finding it. 44 45 Evans: Thank you Commissioner Crane. 46 15 I Iserman: Chairman. 2 3 Evans: Yes, Commissioner Iserman. 4 5 Iserman: I have a problem with ... that's a very residential area and I think lighted 6 signs are a real problem in any residential area. It could really discourage 7 people from going to those areas, and that would be my main objection is 8 the lighting of the sign. 9 10 Evans: Commissioner Beard, go ahead. 11 12 Beard: I'm all for supporting the churches, but we just said no to two families 13 about their encroachment of the codes and I don't know why we should 14 bend for other institutions. And it also opens up the door to other 15 institutions that want to put up another sign. Well the church down the 16 street just put up two signs, why can't we put up two signs. Becomes 17 harder and harder to say no to people that'll be coming in next year. You 18 know I'm for your sign, but I'm also against it because it's a code. We're 19 here to enforce the code. 20 21 Krause: Right and we went through the proper channels. We did not construct it 22 before we came before you. We're coming before you to ask for that. I 23 just checked, if lighting becomes the biggest issue, we are willing to look 24 at removing the lighting if that becomes the biggest issue. 25 26 Evans: Let's take a step back real quickly. You know, actually I agree with all the 27 comments that we had here, but from my perspective it's a rather large lot. 28 1 think the location provides unusual circumstances for signage, and I don't 29 necessarily view that that structure right there is being intrusive onto that 30 roadway as opposed to a yard, porch or something of that nature 31 encroaching on somebody else's private property, so based off of that, 32 however I do kind of understand Commissioner Iserman's difficulty with 33 lighting. I'm suggesting, or you suggested that if we got rid of the lighting 34 then that would be acceptable for you? 35 36 Krause: If that becomes the main issue, we would be willing to look at that. 37 38 Evans: Okay. 39 40 Shipley: Mr. Chairman. 41 42 Evans: Yes, Commissioner Shipley, go ahead. 43 44 Shipley: I would just say there are other means instead of shining lights on it you 45 could also internally illuminate it so that it's not bright and it could also 46 come on at certain times and go off at certain times. 16 1 2 Krause: And I think we looked into that, but that actually portrays more light. It 3 actually is brighter than what we were going to do. We were going to just 4 do ... it's a simple light across the top that would be pointing down. That 5 would only be on during times when the church was operating. And also 6 they've had several people you know throughout time say they have had 7 problems locating the church. They have a lot of community events at the 8 church and sometimes they're at night and so that's why they were asking 9 for the illumination. They're not asking to illuminate the existing sign, just 10 the new sign at this time. And there is commercial property right next to 11 where we'll be putting this sign and that's why we did not ask for the 12 illumination on the existing sign because it does face residential lots. 13 14 Shipley: The residential lots on the other side of Roadrunner are high wall. I mean 15 there are six, seven foot walls. So they basically from their backyard can't 16 see across the road. I didn't think that was as much a problem and that's 17 why I thought maybe it would be better as opposed to that to see if you 18 could do something on the building. Because your entrance is off of 19 Morning Star, it's not off of Roadrunner. 20 21 Krause: Correct. 22 23 Shipley: And so you've got to know to go up Roadrunner and make a left turn on 24 Morning Star to get into the parking lot. If you're not aware of that, you'll 25 drive around two or three times before you get in there. That's kind of why 26 1 thought identifying the building would be a better option, although it's just 27 an option. But I don't know if code allows it; that was my problem. 28 29 Evans: Okay, do we have any other comments from Staff or from ... of course we 30 closed it to public participation already, but ... Commissioner Crane. 31 32 Crane: I have a comment on Commissioner Beard's comment. We were 33 (inaudible) although we were often reluctant to do it, we have to respect 34 the code, but this instance is different from the porches that we've been 35 discussing and that putting up the sign. It seems to me the second sign 36 would be a public good. If we approve this it would not be just to be nice 37 to this church. It is actually going to do some good to, not a very large 38 number, but some people of the City. So I feel it's a somewhat different 39 situation. 40 41 Evans: Okay, if there aren't any other comments, I'll entertain a motion to accept 42 Case A1684. 43 44 Shipley: Can we get some (inaudible) from Staff before we do that? I mean we've 45 asked the question about the signage on the building and we haven't 17 1 resolved that. I mean if it's not doable then maybe we're okay. But if it's 2 something else. 3 4 Evans: I'm sorry. 5 6 Ochoa: Yes, Commissioner Shipley, we just looked it up and the type of attached 7 signage allowed is a nameplate on the wall. Which nameplates, as you 8 know, aren't really that big. 9 10 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, a nameplate would be a relatively 11 smaller item, just basically like The Shipley Residence, that would be a 12 nameplate. What you're referring to for nameplate would be more of 13 attached signage which is not permitted in the R-4 district. 14 15 Evans: Okay, Commissioners, we need to discuss this anymore? If not, I'll 16 entertain a motion to accept Case A1684. 17 18 Crane: So moved. 19 20 Shipley: Second. 21 22 Evans: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. I'll call role. Commissioner 23 Shipley. 24 25 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 26 27 Evans: Commissioner Crane. 28 29 Crane: Let me make sure what my vote, that I state, my vote correctly. I wish to 30 vote for the variance, aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 31 32 Evans: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Iserman. 33 34 Iserman: Nay, findings, site visit, and discussions. 35 36 Evans: And Commissioner Beard. 37 38 Beard: Nay, site visit, discussions, and findings. 39 40 Evans: And the Chair votes yes. And it's three to two, so your variance passes. 41 Thank you. 42 43 4. Case A1678: A request for a variance from the minimum one acre 44 requirement for the placement of a private school located at 1501 N. Solano 45 Drive. The subject property encompasses 0.16 +/- acres with the potential to 46 replat four additional lots for a combined area of 0.7641 +/- acres. The 18 AWN I applicant is also pursuing a variance from the 15-foot secondary front yard 2 setback required for a 3.735 square foot building situated zero feet from 3 Juniper Avenue. Submitted by Southwest Engineering, Inc. for Resources for 4 Children and Youth, Inc. 5 6 5. Case Z2760: A request for a zone change from R-2 (Multi-Dwelling Low 7 Density) and R-4 (Multi-Dwelling High Density) to C-2 (Commercial Medium 8 Intensity) for five distinct lots with a combined area of 0.7641 +/- acres 9 located at 1501 N. Solano Drive. Submitted by Southwest Engineering, Inc. 10 for Resources for Children and Youth, Inc. 11 12 Evans: Okay, our next case is A1678, a request for a variance from a minimum 13 one acre requirement for the placement of a private school located at 14 1501 North Solano Drive. 15 16 Hembree: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Gary Hembree Community Development 17 Department. I would like to request please that you would consider 18 suspending the rules so that we can hear Case Z2760 and Case A1678 19 together as they are relating to the same subject property. 20 21 Evans: Okay, and that's Case E16 ... 22 23 Hembree: Its Case A1678 and Z2760. I believe it's four and five on the agenda, as 1 24 recall. 25 26 Evans: Okay, gentlemen. 27 28 Shipley: So I move to suspend the rules so we can hear these two cases together. 29 30 Evans: Okay, is there a second? 31 32 Iserman: I second it. 33 34 Evans: All those in favor say aye. 35 36 ALL COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS - AYE. 37 38 Hembree: Great. Thank you Chair and Commissioners. As the chairman has 39 stated, this is related to a zone change request from R-2 multi-dwelling 40 low density, and R-4 multi-dwelling high density, to C-2 commercial 41 medium intensity for five distinct lots with a combined area of just over 42 three-quarters of an acre located at 1501 Solano Drive. So that's your 43 zoning portion of this case. The variance portion of the case is A1678, 44 and it's a request for a variance from the minimum one acre requirement 45 for the placement of a private school located at 1501 North Solano, 46 encompassing 0.16 +/- acres with the potential to replat four additional lots 19 AWN 1 for a combined area again over three-quarters of an acre. The applicant is 2 also pursuing a variance from the 15-foot secondary front yard setback 3 required for an existing 3,735 square foot building situated basically right 4 on the right-of-way of Juniper Avenue. 5 This is the vicinity map here. You can see parcels here and here. 6 We have four parcels here left of the alleyway and then this parcel here 7 which has again two front yards, one on Solano and one on Juniper. 8 Case specifics, we're going to run through predominantly the 9 zoning first and then we'll pick up on the variance request. The property 10 owner is leasing a 3,735 square foot building to a community agency 11 which is the River's Academy on 0.16 acres which is zoned R-4 multi- 12 dwelling high density. The remaining property of 0.4 acres is vacant and 13 zoned R-2 which is multi-dwelling low density. The subject properties 14 were rezoned from R-2 and R-4 to C-1 c commercial low-density 15 conditional, we'll go into that a little bit later. Due to the fact that the 16 landscaping is not present, which was a condition of that zoning, nor was 17 the subdivision plat filed to combine those properties to a maximum of two 18 parcels, a reversion of zoning has occurred from the C-1 c, back to the R-2 19 and R-4 respectively. The conditions for the C-1 c, as we stated, was to 20 require a semi-opaque screen adjacent to the R-2 zoned property to the 21 west, the properties be replated into a minimum of two lots, and that 22 access to the alleyway be maintained, which it has been since 2001. This 23 was pursuant to development of undeveloped parcels which are currently 24 undeveloped. 25 The parking area for the private school is less than 25-feet from the 26 R-4 zoning located to the north, so opaque buffering will be required 27 regardless on that northern property boundary. The properties are not 28 currently in compliance with City regulations regarding landscaping. In the 29 event there are improvements made in excess of $25,000, per code, to 30 these facilities, the property owners will be required to comply with 31 landscape requirements. 32 This relates more to the actual variance portion of the case. The 33 zone change would still require the school to proceed with a variance 34 regarding minimum acreage requirements and secondary front yard 35 setback of zero-feet from Juniper, regardless of which way it goes. The 36 building has been previously utilized for office related uses. The current 37 zoning of the building of R-4 allows for office and/or multi-dwelling 38 development, minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre to occur via variance 39 approval to be required. There is no current plan to change the existing 40 use on the property; therefore justification to rezone currently does not 41 exist in Staffs view. 42 Additional specifics in terms of adjacent land uses, to the north as 43 we've stated R-4 single-family residential, to the south is vacant R-4, east 44 we have auto related uses and a C-2 zone, west single-family residence. 45 Site plan here showing the River's Academy, the alleyway that we've 46 noted, and the four remaining parcels to the left. This is a better aerial 20 I view of the subject property. This is where the academy resides, the 2 alleyway, and the four parcels to the west. 3 Staff has reviewed this zone change and recommends denial for 4 zone change Case Z2760. Approval without conditions for variance Case 5 A1678, as the existing building was built there in 1945 and basically has 6 been used in a similar fashion since that time. Just to note that the P&Z 7 recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final 8 consideration. That ends my Staff presentation, I'll be happy to answer 9 any questions you might have. 10 11 Evans: Commissioner Shipley. 12 13 Shipley: The academy has been in there how long? 14 15 Hembree: That I do not know. I believe that the applicant is here and they can 16 probably answer that question for you. 17 18 Shipley: Then I'll hold my questions until after the applicant. 19 20 Evans: Okay. So that concludes Staff presentation. Does the applicant have a 21 presentation or make some comments? 22 23 Pompeo: Good evening Commissioners. Paul Pompeo with Southwest 24 Engineering. I'm the consultant on this project for Families and Youth, Inc. 25 Once again, here's the project location on Solano, the intersection of 26 Juniper Avenue. Here's a site aerial showing the properties as currently 27 platted, well the outside boundaries. Here's the River's Academy here 28 with parking lot. The other parcels located next door are primarily vacant. 29 Here's the alleyway that runs between the main parcel on Solano and the 30 four in the back. Once again, here's a site plan, one part of the variance 31 request has to do with the size of the lot. This lot is currently 0.16 acres; 32 one acre minimum is required pursuant to the Zoning Code. The second 33 is this shaded area here which is where the 15-foot setback would be 34 required by the current Zoning Ordinance; however the building is located 35 directly on the property line. Existing zoning is R-4 in this area and R-2 36 behind. We're asking for those two parcels to be zoned C-2. As noted in 37 your Staff packet, in 2001 these parcels were rezoned to C-1c conditional, 38 so they have had commercial zoning in the past, however, as Staff has 39 noted they reverted back due to lack of the landscaping not being present, 40 and the replatting of these lots were not completed in a timely manner. 41 Once again, just a summary, it was C-1 c in 2001. We are 42 requesting C-2 zoning. There is existing C-2 directly across the street on 43 Solano from these properties. If approved, the property will be replatted 44 and there will be an attempt made, although complex dealing with City 45 Staff and the residents in the area, to try to do something with that 21 1 alleyway. That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any 2 questions you might have. 3 4 Evans: Okay, thank you. Questions? 5 6 Crane: As I understand it the term to vacate the alleyway means to block it. 7 8 Pompeo: I'm sorry, again? 9 10 Crane: What is to vacate the alleyway? Is it to block it? 11 12 Pompeo: Well basically it's a public way right now. By vacating it, it would mean 13 that we'd get official designation by replat from the City and concurrence 14 of the adjacent property owners to basically abandon the alleyway, 15 therefore in some shape or fashion revert that property back to adjacent 16 property owners for use as they see fit. 17 18 Crane: So the alley would dead end immediately north of the property. 19 20 Pompeo: This is a dedicated City street here with a cul-de-sac head on it, and of 21 course the alleyway starts in this area here and ends here. There are a 22 couple of properties, in particular this one right here where the arrow is 23 pointed, its only access is off the alleyway. So what would have to 24 happen to vacate the alleyway is a portion of the alleyway would have to 25 be turned into a driveway as such for that property. But once again it's a 26 complex issue because other properties could be purchased and 27 combined with adjacent properties. The properties to the east here, this 28 property here has a gate that comes out to the alleyway, but they also do 29 front on Solano. So it's a complex issue, it's going to take a lot of time to 30 figure out if at all, if we can do that. We would like to vacate that alleyway 31 to more utilize the property, however, that's a whole separate process and 32 if we can't do it, then the alleyway will stay as it is and these lot lines and 33 this area will be vacated. 34 35 Crane: Well the point has been made in the information we've been given that if 36 the alley were blocked immediately north of the property then although 37 emergency vehicles would not be serving very many lots, if they did have 38 to run down there they'd have to back out, and I can imagine 39 circumstances in which that would be impossible. 40 41 Pompeo: That is correct. Right now the alleyway is basically considered a public 42 way and from that standpoint the fire department taking apparatus down 43 there on a public way does not want to back out. However, if it turns from 44 a public way into a private drive, then it would just be as any other private 45 drive is in the City. 46 22 1 Crane: I don't understand why it is so very much to the advantage to the property 2 owner to vacate the alleyway, surely the west most property, the four lots, 3 if they were consolidated could be developed and the alleyway could stay 4 there. 5 6 Pompeo: And that is correct, and that's why we mentioned that we would be looking 7 at vacating the alleyway, but as I've also noted, it's a very complex 8 process involving several different City Departments along with the 9 opinion of all of the surrounding property owners. So, it's not ... we may 10 initiate it, but there are certainly numerous people that would have to 11 approve that. So it's by no means a done deal. We are only looking at it 12 for more utilization of the property, however, if the alleyway were to stay 13 and the alleyway were to stay open, you are correct, this property could ... 14 these internal lines could be vacated and the property then utilized. 15 16 Crane: Thank you. 17 18 Shipley: How long has the academy been there? 19 20 Pompeo: Eight years. 21 22 Shipley: Eight years. And was it ... it came before the City prior? I mean did it 23 come before the Planning and Zoning Commission? 24 25 Pompeo: It came before the Planning and Zoning Commission; this property came 26 before this Planning and Zoning Commission in 2001. At that time the 27 property was zoned R-2 and R-4 and that by action of City Council and the 28 Planning and Zoning Commission it was changed to C-1c conditional. 29 30 Shipley: And the academy was approved to be in there? 31 32 Pompeo: Yes. And the academy was in operation in 2001. Yes. 33 34 Shipley: So did it have a variance at that time? 35 36 Pompeo: Not that I can find. 37 38 Shipley: Well that'd be a question for Staff. Thank you. 39 40 Evans: Okay, any other questions for the applicant? No. Okay, public 41 participation. Is there anybody from the public who would like to comment 42 on this case? Hearing none, I'll close it to public participation and open it 43 up to the Commissioners. Do the Commissioners have any comments or 44 suggestions? 45 23 I Shipley: I guess I have a question for Staff. Cheryl you may be the only one that 2 can answer the question but, I don't know if Gary you can as well, but 3 when this came up before ... when did this come before the Commission 4 prior for the academy to go in there? Because it had to have a variance in 5 order to be less than one acre for any school site. 6 7 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, if you can give me one moment so 1 8 can review a case file real quick so I get those facts, okay? 9 10 Shipley: Thank you. So why don't we take about a five-minute break. 11 12 Evans: That's a good idea Commissioner Shipley. Okay, we'll take five-minutes 13 and let Staff have an opportunity to review some cases. 14 15 APPROXIMATELY FIVE MINUTE BREAK. 16 17 Evans: Okay, I think Staff has come back and reviewed some files and can 18 elaborate a little bit more on this case. 19 20 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, in doing a cursory review of the 21 ordinance of the zone change that occurred in 2001, it appears that it did 22 go to the Commission in March of 2001 and then subsequently to City 23 Council for the zone change to establish the C-1 zoning district. Upon a 24 cursory review of the ordinance and not the case file in its entirety, it 25 appears that the setback issue was not dealt with at that time. 26 27 Shipley: But there was a variance given for the school? 28 29 Rodriguez: No, there was just a zone change and that was just looking at cursory 30 records of the zone change for the property previously. Without going 31 back into project files, I can't answer your question in its entirety, other 32 than the zone change in 2001 did not deal with the variance. 33 34 Crane: Mr. Chairman, do we need more information before we can make a 35 decision? Would Staff like some time to research this? 36 37 Evans: You know I agree with you Commissioner Crane. I'm a little bit fuzzy 38 about this particular case and implications and kind of the overall ... you 39 know the way it was kind of laid out to us. 40 41 Rodriguez: Okay, if the Commission desires we can table this item to your December 42 16th Commission meeting, of which we can answer your questions in 43 entirety. And the question that the Commissioner is raising right now is 44 was the variance for the secondary front addressed in previous meetings? 45 24 I Shipley: Was there a variance authorized for the school to be there? Because it's 2 less than a one acre ... so why are we doing another variance if it was 3 done before? 4 5 Rodriguez: Okay, we'll go ahead and answer that in its entirety for you at your 6 December 16th. 7 8 Evans: So we'll just defer this to the next meeting. 9 10 Rodriguez: Well let's get conference with the applicant first. 11 12 Evans: Does the applicant concur with that? 13 14 Pompeo: In a favorable response, yes. 15 16 Hembree: Chairman, Commissioners, it would be tabling, would be the correct action 17 here. 18 19 Evans: Okay. So we'll table this until the December ... 20 21 Shipley: We need a motion, don't we? 22 23 Rodriguez: Yes, Mr. Chairman, if we can please go and unsuspend the rules, and 24 then table both items to the December 16th hearing. 25 26 Evans: Okay, I'll entertain a motion to unsuspend the rules. 27 28 Shipley: So moved. 29 30 Evans: Do I hear a second? 31 32 Iserman: Second. 33 34 Evans: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor of unsuspending the 35 rules say aye. 36 37 ALL COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS -AYE. 38 39 Evans: All opposed nay. Okay, so the rules are unsuspended. 40 41 Shipley: So I move that we table this Case Z2760 and Case A1678 until the 42 December the 16th meeting. 43 44 Evans: Do I have a second? 45 46 Crane: Second. 25 1 2 Evans: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Commissioner Shipley. 3 4 Shipley: Aye. 5 6 Evans: Commissioner Crane. 7 8 Crane: Aye. 9 10 Evans: Commissioner Iserman. 11 12 Iserman: Aye. 13 14 Evans: Commissioner Beard. 15 16 Beard: Aye. 17 18 Evans: And the Chair votes aye. So we will table this until the December 19 meeting. You know just for my clarification, did we have to go through 20 individual votes on that, couldn't we have all voted? 21 22 Crane: Do we have a parliamentarian? 23 24 Hembree: Chairman, Commissioners, it could have been basically a voice vote. 25 26 Evans: A voice vote, okay. 27 28 6. Case Z2776: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 29 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) and R-3 (Multi-Dwelling Medium 30 Density) overlapping for 2.24 +/- acres located at 225 Three Crosses. 31 Submitted by Pete Mazza, property owner. 32 33 Evans: Okay, our next case is Case Z2776. 34 35 Hembree: Chairman, Commissioners. This case is a request for a zone change from 36 C-2 commercial medium intensity to C-3 commercial high intensity, and 37 additionally with an R-3 multi-dwelling medium density overlapping for a 38 total of 2.24 acres located at 225 Three Crosses. Subject property is here 39 with frontage on Three Crosses east of Alameda. It's an oddly shaped 40 parcel here with a frontage on Three Crosses here. 41 Case specifics, there are a few of them here, the property contains 42 a two-story apartment building having eight rental units and a private auto 43 restorage garage. The applicant maintains that the garage is not 44 commercial, but is recreational in use. The property has direct access to 45 Three Crosses Avenue, classified by the MPO as a minor arterial 46 roadway. The size of the property at 2.24 acres exceeds the maximum 26 I permissible size of one acre for the property's current C-2 zoning 2 designation of commercial medium intensity. Therefore, a zone change to 3 C-3 commercial high intensity and R-3 has been requested. C-2 or C-3 4 zoning designations require a minimum density of 10 dwelling units per 5 acre which is problematic for this site. Staff supports down zoning the 6 property to R-3 multi-dwelling medium intensity for the entire site. This will 7 allow the applicant to construct the single-family residence which is his 8 intention in conjunction with allowing the existing apartment complex. 9 Since the property is not being used for commercial purposes, the R-3 10 multi-dwelling medium intensity designation zoning district will bring the 11 property into compliance with the stated uses as they exist currently on 12 site. 13 Additional case specifics in terms of adjacent land uses, to the 14 north are three single-family residences, to the south are three vacant lots, 15 east is a manufactured mobile home park, west C-2 religious institution. 16 Here is the parcel again in plat survey form with the frontage on Three 17 Crosses, the apartment building, I believe that the recreational auto use is 18 back in here, and the proposed site for the home is here at the southwest 19 portion of the site. Again, subject property, apartment complex, you see 20 automobiles related to the recreational rehabilitation of cars, and then the 21 subject area where he would like to actually construct a new residential 22 unit. 23 Staff is recommending denial on this particular case, reviewed this 24 zone change and recommends denial. The Planning and Zoning 25 Commission recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final 26 consideration. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have 27 on this case. Thank you. 28 29 Evans: Thank you. Commissioners. 30 31 Shipley: Gary, could you go back one slide please. Okay, there's a street drawn 1 32 guess in pen down there, is that ... 33 34 Hembree: Actually, I don't believe that is a street. That's an alley. 35 36 Shipley: Okay, I was just trying to make sure what was back there because what 37 I'm trying to determine is where is going to be access for that home, is it 38 going to be through ... you have to drive through that lot. 39 40 Hembree: Through the subject site, correct. 41 42 Shipley: So you have to drive by the apartments and then have a driveway back to 43 the house. 44 45 Hembree: That is correct Commissioner. 46 27 1 Shipley: No other means of access to that parcel? 2 3 Crane: I believe that line to the south of the property is actually an irrigation canal 4 or drainage canal 5 6 Hembree: Canal. That is correct. Yes, that is correct. There is a drainage canal 7 along my cursor right here at the southwestern portion of the property. 8 9 Shipley: Okay, that was the only question I had initially. 10 11 Iserman: I have a question. 12 13 Evans: Yes, Commissioner Iserman. 14 15 Iserman: I saw in the note that the gentleman that owns the property, like the 16 parking lots are not really in compliance as far as being paved. 17 18 Hembree: I believe in the Staff report it was indicated that there is unimproved 19 parking area here. 20 21 Iserman: Yes. 22 23 Hembree: Correct. And I think there was some discussion about a potential 24 subdivision as to how to deal with that as far a circulation was concerned 25 and improvements. Again, to deal with the acces issues that 26 Commissioner Shipley did bring up as well. 27 28 Iserman: Well I saw where the owner of the property had a note in there that says 29 that he would pave that area if this is approved within five years. And I 30 thought, in five years we're not even going to remember. 31 32 Hembree: Chairman, Commissioner Iserman, I'd like to defer that to the applicant. I 33 believe he is present. Maybe he would like to speak to that and maybe 34 give you a broader presentation of his intent. 35 36 Iserman: Thank you. 37 38 Mazza: Good evening Commissioners. I'm Peter Mazza. There are a couple of 39 things here, first of all this is an old property. This property's been almost 40 100 years developed. It's been apartments and commercial property for 41 decades. It's been commercial since I've owned it. Right now currently 42 there is no business license, there is no commercial right now. I don't 43 want to give up my commercial zoning, but I believe this property should 44 have been, a long time ago, zoned dual or overlapping because of the 45 apartments that are there and because of commercial businesses, I've 46 known of them since back in the '50's that have been there. There's been 28 I a welding shop. There's been (inaudible) store, upholstery shop, auto 2 repair, and apartments that have also been there, and there is no 3 provisions that I understand in the current zoning that allows for older 4 properties of over an acre like this, 2.2 acres, to comply. So I request that 5 we get overlapping that it complies with the residence and as a 6 commercial. 7 1 do know it needs to be paved and I agree to pave it. The reason I 8 asked for five years is because the cost of the house, building a house 9 which I want to do first was extensive and I wanted to try to overcome that 10 expense first. So I may pave it sooner, but I requested 60 months to give 11 me some leeway there. I don't know what else to say on that. Right now 1 12 guess what I'm classified as legal nonconforming, which means it's been 13 there but because of the new zoning changes of 2001 it doesn't conform 14 any more. It does restrict me for the amount of improvements I can do; it 15 limits me to $25,000. If I am granted the R-3, C-3 then I'm conforming and 16 1 will pave. I don't know; are there any questions I can answer on that. 17 18 Iserman: I have a question. 19 20 Mazza: Okay. 21 22 Iserman: Staff suggested a different change of zoning than what you've requested, 23 and was wondering what is your objection to that, because that seems to 24 me that would, it would get you your house. 25 26 Mazza: Well my long-term plans are to put some mini storage rental units in there 27 which would require commercial and there is still a shop in the back that 1 28 may want to lease out or maybe get a business license myself for that, if 1 29 want to. I don't want to limit myself to just residential. There was an 30 upholstery shop there years ago that I may want to rent out again as an 31 upholstery shop. It was there 31 years. I hate to lose that zoning that's 32 there. Just because I'm not using it right now today, doesn't mean I want 33 to forfeit that. 34 35 Evans: Well that doesn't necessarily mean that you ... I mean that you forfeit for 36 the time being, but you know there is an opportunity for you to come back 37 when you decide what you want to do with that property and come back to 38 this Commission and resubmit. But I guess the problem I have is, I mean 39 we don't really ... you don't really know what you want to do with it. 40 41 Mazza: Well I do. 42 43 Evans: But the Staffs recommendation you know will get you your house I guess. 44 45 Mazza: Okay. 46 29 1 Evans: And that satisfies what you're looking to do today. 2 3 Mazza: Well no, I mean, what I do with the commercial shop that's in the back if 4 it's zoned residential? 5 6 Evans: You just mentioned, said it was vacant. 7 8 Mazza: No, I'm using it myself currently. My sons and I use it. But I've had people 9 that have wanted to rent it out and have opportunity to rent it. 10 11 Evans: You know, I know the exact location. In fact I've had some upholstery 12 done there myself. It was a long time ago and they're gone now I guess. 13 So, I mean you're right; it is a very old structure. It is kind of a mixture 14 right now and I'm not sure if you were to get a zone to where you could 15 build your house, I think you know depending upon what you want to do to 16 come back and get it changed if you wanted to put in some commercial 17 stuff. I mean you're more than welcome. 18 19 Mazza: Why not do that now? Also, it was $600 to do this you know out of my 20 pocket and why not just zone it correctly for what it is. 21 22 Evans: $600. 23 24 Mazza: Yeah, this was $600. And really I wasn't aware of it in 2001 that I could 25 have come down here and got it changed from C-2 to C-3 because it's 26 over an acre and I guess that was offered to the public to automatically do 27 that. I don't know, I missed it somehow. I didn't know it was available. 28 But I'm saying, well being it was commercial already and it's been 29 residential already, that requesting both because that's what it is, or there 30 should be another zoning to cover property that's like this that's 31 commercial and residential. There is no other bracket for that. 32 33 Evans: Right. I guess from my perspective, you know I'd like to have Staff kind of 34 elaborate on that a little bit more. So do you have anything further to add? 35 36 Mazza: No, I guess not. 37 38 Evans: Go ahead Commissioner. 39 40 Shipley: I'd just like to say, one of the things about doing pancake zoning, and 41 that's what you're asking us to do. 42 43 Mazza: Yes. 44 45 Shipley: You're asking us to give you the flexibility to go whichever direction you 46 want. There is not an owner or piece of property in this land that wouldn't 30 I like to have five or six different categories that they could do whatever 2 they wanted to do. But when you change your mind and want to come 3 back and do something, if you want to go completely commercial with the 4 whole piece of property, then make it all commercial, don't try to make it 5 commercial and residential because there are boundaries and there are 6 things that have got to be set aside. I would say that you know if you don't 7 have the money to pave your parking lot for your residents that live in your 8 apartments, that's not a good sign for us to approve something because 9 number one their safety is what's most important. And if an ambulance 10 can't get in there or there's a problem, for example if a fire truck can't get 11 back to your house after you build it because it gets stuck or there's not 12 adequate space, then there's a problem. 13 14 Mazza: I understand. 15 16 Shipley: So what we're trying to do now is we're trying to say to you as an owner is, 17 let's do something that will satisfy what you want to do, but you have to 18 realize that if it's not being used as commercial, then it doesn't fit the 19 definition of commercial. It may have 20 years ago, but we're doing today. 20 What is it doing today? And if it's not commercial today, then let's make it 21 what it needs to be. If you want to change it later, come back. If you're 22 going to sell it or lease it out or whatever, let's change it at that point in 23 time. Staff is trying to do what they think is correct so that you can get the 24 use that you want to do today. If you want to put a shop back there, and 1 25 mean it is commercial. It's C-2. 26 27 Mazza: Yeah. 28 29 Shipley: But it isn't what it should be. Okay. 30 31 Mazza: Well what's wrong with being both right now? 32 33 Shipley: Because you don't have a commercial use right there now. So 34 theoretically you don't have a business license. There's nothing there to 35 substantiate that it's commercial. 36 37 Mazza: Okay. 38 39 Shipley: So that's not the use that's there. 40 41 Evans: No, you're absolutely right. And further, there are different requirements 42 for the different uses of that property, whether it's residential or 43 commercial. And so, you know you've got to pick one and then present it 44 to Staff, let them review it and make recommendations and then come 45 before us again. 46 31 1 Mazza: Okay, but then again I say this has been this way for decades and 2 decades. You know why wasn't this addressed many owners back when 3 the zoning went into effect? 4 5 Shipley: I would just say in 2001 it should have been addressed when the zone 6 changes were put into effect. 7 8 Mazza: Yeah. 9 10 Shipley: An owner should look at the code and say, how does this impact me? 11 Should 1 have changed my zoning from C-2 to C-3 then, and it was 12 commercial then and ... 13 14 Mazza: I agree. I was sleeping. I missed that somehow, I should've been down 15 here. 16 17 Shipley: I mean that's where we are today, I guess. 18 19 Mazza: Okay. 20 21 Crane: As I understand it under the current zoning you would have to have 10 22 units on this property. 23 24 Mazza: 22. 25 26 Crane: 22. Okay. 27 28 Mazza: 10 per acre. 29 30 Crane: Thank you. 31 32 Mazza: James White suggested, he said why don't you subdivide the property and 33 put R-3 where you want to build a house. And there are some problems 34 with that. It's expensive, it's time consuming, and then you still have 35 access, you'd have to share the driveway somehow. And if I still would be 36 nonconforming with the rest of the property because it's commercial and 37 residential. So that's ... I'm still limited to improvements, so that's why 38 pancaking solves the problem that allows continuance of the property the 39 way it is. 40 41 Crane: Mr. Mazza you said there's a garage. 42 43 Mazza: Yeah, a garage. 44 45 Crane: Where is it on there, please, in relation to those cars at the back of the lot? 46 32 I Mazza: It's right in here. 2 3 Crane: Okay, and there's also an upholstery shop or what had been one. 4 5 Mazza: The upholstery shop was in the building and it's not there right now. The 6 equipment is still there, but the tenant is gone. 7 8 Crane: So there are no other structures south of that ... what you just showed us? 9 10 Mazza: No, there's not. The garage has hoist in it. It's been a garage. Right now 11 I'm using it for my own use. 12 13 Shipley: What is it just to the left where it says subject parcel, is that outlined, does 14 that go around something here? 15 16 Mazza: Yeah, that's some storage that I had there. There are some vehicles, 17 there are some trailers, not house trailers, but car trailers, and some 18 storage. 19 20 Crane: I like Commissioner Shipley's suggestion of dual zoning rather than 21 overlay. You mentioned it's expensive to ... 22 23 Mazza: It's about $7,000 or$8,000 is what I was told by Mr. Blanchard. 24 25 Crane: Simply to change the zoning. 26 27 Mazza: To subdivide. 28 29 Crane: To subdivide. 30 31 Mazza: Yeah. 32 33 Evans: Now that's a process that you know we go through or that come before us 34 all the time. I guess I don't see, and I sympathize that it's an older 35 structure, it's got multiuse zoning already, but my suggestion would be you 36 know to go through the replat process or subdivide it appropriately and get 37 the City to support the things that you envision, that you want to do in the 38 future, and work together on that to put together a plan that meets both of 39 your desires and requirements, and then come back to us for approval. 40 41 Shipley: May I ask one other question? The parcel in front along Three Crosses, 42 who owns that parcel? Just to the north of your storage area there? 43 44 Mazza: Up here? 45 46 Shipley: No, no, on the same side. 33 1 2 Mazza: This is Mountain View Valley Church or Mountain View Church. 3 4 Shipley: Okay. 5 6 Mazza: The problem is how do you split the building up. I mean the building has 7 commercial and apartments in it. 8 9 Evans: And that's something you'll have to work out with Staff. 10 11 Mazza: Well, okay. But I mean you say subdivide and change the zoning, do you 12 subdivide a building? I mean it's not possible. 13 14 Evans: You can work with Staff to answer those particular questions and give you 15 guidance. 16 17 Crane: What I was thinking of was that if he split off the part where you want to 18 build your house. 19 20 Mazza: Yes. 21 22 Crane: And make that residential. 23 24 Mazza: Yes. 25 26 Crane: Then your combined commercial and apartment building area becomes a 27 separate issue and possibly could be grandfathered since it's been around 28 so long. 29 30 Mazza: Well, okay, why can't we just grandfather it now? I mean still if I subdivide 31 it you still have the same problem. It's still ... you still have residential and 32 commercial. 33 34 Crane: Right, but you get to build your house. 35 36 Mazza: Well okay. Thanks, but I would like to solve the problem of the multiuse of 37 the property. 38 39 Evans: Mr. Mazza, that's exactly what the subdivision process is going to allow 40 you to do, and it'll be an organized structure process that will you know be 41 very well defined and give you an opportunity to utilize that property you 42 know in the best way that meets not only the City requirements, but you 43 know what you would like to do. 44 45 Mazza: What would be the problem with pancaking or overlapping? 46 34 1 Evans: To my knowledge and I mean I've been on the board for quite some time 2 and I don't think we've every pancaked that different zoning on the same 3 piece of property. So there is a process in place to help us, or to define 4 what it is that you want to do and we need to follow that process. And not 5 make you know decisions here you know on the board without giving Staff 6 the appropriate time to look at it and evaluate and ensure that it conforms 7 to the City requirements. 8 9 Mazza: Okay. 10 11 Evans: So we're not going to make any rash decisions here about that, unless 12 Staff is fully aware and buys into that. 13 14 Mazza: So you recommend that I meet with Staff and try to hash it out somehow. 15 16 Evans: And work with Mr. White to come up with the best zoning and subdivide 17 that property which best meets your needs and also meets the City 18 requirements. You know, me personally, it's your piece of property, I want 19 to support you and give you the opportunities to do the things that you 20 want to do with that land, you know. But that being said, you still have to 21 conform to the City requirements for whether it's commercial or residential, 22 and that's what variances are for when we have situations where you 23 know you can't functionally do that with the property that you have and so 24 you'll come before us with a variance, you know for that subdivision or with 25 that subdivision and we'll take a look at it and make you know a decision. 26 27 Mazza: And do you consider grandfathering as part of the process? 28 29 Evans: The Staff, like I say, we go through this all the time. Staff is well versed in 30 what they can and can't do, and they can help you out with any of your 31 questions or concerns. 32 33 Mazza: Okay, I will meet with James White. 34 35 Evans: Okay. And maybe the Staff has something in addition to add to that. 36 37 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, if I can just confer with the applicant on moment. 38 39 Evans: Okay, sure. 40 41 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, based on the conversation that's occurring, Staffs going to 42 recommend that we postpone this case to the December 16th meeting. 43 That'll allow Staff to meet with the applicant again so we can basically 44 circle the wagons and reevaluate the situation and we'll come back to the 45 Commission in one month. 46 35 I Evans: Okay, thank you Ms. Rodriguez. Okay, with that I'll entertain a motion to 2 postpone Case Z2776 to the December meeting. 3 4 Shipley: So moved. 5 6 Evans: Do I have a second? 7 8 Iserman: Second. 9 10 Evans: All those in favor. 11 12 ALL COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS - AYE. 13 14 Evans: All those opposed. And the ayes have it. So Case Z2776 is postponed to 15 the December meeting. 16 17 7. Case PUD-07-11: A request for approval of a Planned Unit Development 18 (PUD) concept plan known as La Paloma. The subject properties 19 encompass 11.683 +/- acres located at the southwestern intersection of 20 Rinconada Boulevard and Settlers Pass. The applicant is requesting a zone 21 change from R-4 (Multi-Dwelling High Density) and C-3 (Commercial High 22 Intensity) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to facilitate an 82 lot 23 residential townhome development and a single commercial lot 24 encompassing 1.698 +/- acres. Internal roadways will be privately 25 maintained. Submitted by Zia Engineering for Rinconada Development of 26 Las Cruces. 27 28 Evans: Our last and final case of the evening is PUD-07-11, a request for 29 approval of a Planned Unit Development concept plan known as La 30 Paloma. 31 32 Rodriguez: Good evening Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Presented before you this 33 evening is a zone change request for a subject property located in the 34 southwest intersection of Rinconada Boulevard and Settlers Pass. The 35 applicant is seeking a zone change from R-4 and C-3 to PUD for Planned 36 Unit Development. As part of that zone change request, they are seeking 37 concept plan approval to facilitate a single-family residential townhouse 38 and commercial development. 39 The subject property as I stated is located at the southwestern 40 intersection of Rinconada Boulevard and Settlers Pass. Just to orient 41 yourself, we have Highway 70 here with the intersection at Highway 70 of 42 Rinconada Boulevard heading north into Rinconada Ranches master plan 43 area, and located here you have the extension of Settlers Pass, both of 44 which are collector status roadways. Settlers Pass will ultimately tie into 45 Del Rey Boulevard upon subsequent development of property westward. 36 I Settlers Pass in this segment and Rinconada Boulevard are currently built 2 out. 3 Case specifics, as I stated, they are proposing a concept plan for 4 the residential townhouse and commercial development, and the next few 5 slides are going to go over what's being identified as part of their concept 6 plan of what they want to build on the 11.683 acres. The applicants are 7 proposing a phased development, three phases in total in which Phase 1 8 and 2 include the residential component of the development, and Phase 3 9 ultimately the commercial development. The proposed subdivision will 10 have direct access to both Rinconada Boulevard and Settlers Pass. 11 There is also emergency access that will be granted off of, I believe it is, 12 Rinconada Boulevard. The emergency access will be gated. The 13 subdivision itself is not a private gated development. As I stated earlier, it 14 is contained within the Rinconada Ranches master plan, which is 15 important because there were conditions tied to the development of that 16 master plan that speak to a multiuse trail being build on Rinconada 17 Boulevard which is a component of this proposed subdivision. The 18 internal roadways within this proposed subdivision will be privately 19 maintained. The applicant is proposing to put together a homeowners 20 association which will maintain the roadways, medians, and drainage 21 facilities contained within the proposed subdivision. The internal 22 roadways do deviate from the City of Las Cruces design standards, 23 typically you will see a 50-foot right-of-way local roadway contained within 24 subdivisions. The applicant is proposing an internal right-of-way of 27- 25 feet, with a proposed cross section of two 11-foot 6-inch driving lanes with 26 street lighting and sidewalks proposed on only one side of those internal 27 roads. 28 In terms of the residential component, they are proposing a density 29 of 8.3 to 8.6 dwelling units per acre which would result in a total of 30 approximately 82 residential townhouse lots. Phase 1 will contain 52 units 31 and Phase 2 will continue 30 units. And then ultimately the commercial 32 development will be located on approximately 1.69 acres and will be 33 located within Phase 3. The applicant is proposing open space for 34 approximately 0.44 acres, open space being more linear in nature. The 35 applicant can get into more case specifics on how that open space will be 36 developed out and how that multiuse path will be developed on Rinconada 37 Boulevard. Contained within a concept plan as part of a zone change to a 38 Planned Unit Development, typically applicants will basically identify their 39 development standards on how that development will be carried out. In 40 this case for this proposed development, the applicant is identifying a 41 range of lot sizes typical for a townhouse development ranging between 42 2,400 square feet to 2,846 square feet. Typically the standard townhouse 43 lot that is called out in the Zoning Code and what they are deviating from, 44 typical townhouse lot is 2,880 square feet, so they are deviating from your 45 standard lot. They are proposing identifying their setbacks; their front yard 46 setback is going to be at 15-feet, typically you do have a garage setback 37 I called out in your Zoning Code at 25-feet, but they are proposing a front 2 yard setback with a garage both at 15-feet. Rear yard setback will be at 3 15-feet, and because they are proposing a townhouse development, you 4 will be seeing side yard setbacks of zero-feet. They are proposing to 5 attach units, buildings will be attached for a maximum of five units being 6 attached. And when they attach the units you'll see your zero-foot setback 7 and then when we get to the next building you will see your 10-foot 8 building separation being maintained there. 9 This is a concept plan of the proposed development. Here where 10 my cursor is you see the intersection of Rinconada Boulevard and Settlers 11 Pass. The commercial development is located here at the intersection. 12 Further north on Rinconada Boulevard you do have your main entrance 13 into the proposed subdivision. As you see the internal road network 14 contained within the subdivision and the proposed townhouse layout. 15 Multiuse path is part of the open space development, is located here, 16 adjacent to Rinconada Boulevard. It's a multiuse linear path that is being 17 carried out within the greater Rinconada Ranches master plan 18 development and is part of a multiuse path that will actually continue 19 southward, under Highway 70, down Rinconada Ranch and ultimately 20 terminate at Sonoma Ranch Boulevard upon future development as it 21 occurs down south. But they are proposing that build out as part of this 22 development. 23 Recommendation for the zone change request and concept plan, 24 the Development Review Committee did review the concept plan and 25 recommend approval with one condition; that they are required to 26 construct that 10-foot multiuse pathway adjacent to Rinconada, to be 27 completed with the final construction of the said subdivision. The Planning 28 and Zoning Commission's actions today are a recommendation to the City 29 Council because this is a zone change case. So your actions tonight are 30 to approve the concept plan as recommended by Staff and the 31 Development Review Committee, approve the request with additional 32 conditions that this body determines appropriate, or to recommend denial 33 of the request. That concludes my presentation for this case this evening. 34 The applicant is here. They do have a presentation for the Commission. 35 I'd be happy to answer any questions that the Commission may have. 36 37 Iserman: I have one question. You know going from a standard width road down to 38 27-feet, I always hate to see that. I've seen a lot of subdivisions in a lot of 39 cities, but all of a sudden the subdivision gets squeezed. I see where they 40 have very little land to work with there and I understand the problem. But 1 41 hate to see that become a widespread practice in this town. So far it has 42 not been the case. And this seems to me this may be among the first 43 cases where you've done that, where you've proposed that. 44 45 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Iserman, previously in Planned Unit 46 Developments we have seen deviations from the internal right-of-way 38 1 width of the local roadway networks. You do see various proposed cross 2 sections. Applicants are going to deviate from the City Design Standards 3 for local roadway, meaning that the right-of-way is going to be less than 4 50-feet and your cross section is going to be less than 37-feet back to 5 curb, back to curb, the City of Las Cruces will not accept maintenance of 6 those roadways. In this case, City of Las Cruces will not maintain the 7 internal roadways because they do deviate from City design standards, 8 hence the reason that a homeowners association will need to be set up 9 and maintained so the property owners contained within this development 10 are ultimately maintaining that road. 11 12 Iserman: Thank you. 13 14 Crane: Question. Will the City be responsible for garbage pickup? I should say, 15 on those roads, those 27-foot roads? 16 17 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, yes, the City of Las Cruces will be 18 responsible for garbage pickup and there will be specific wording when we 19 get to the actual final plat and construction of the development. Right now 20 this is just the concept plan, so when we get to final site plan approval, 21 when we actually see how the subdivision will be technically laid out and 22 dimensions of that, typically the fire department at that time will ask for 23 language on the final site plan, the preliminary plat, and ultimately carried 24 forward to a final plat, that there will be no on-street parking. That way 25 that will facilitate emergency vehicles and solid waste vehicles to get in 26 there and maneuver through the subdivision. 27 28 Crane: Thank you. 29 30 Evans: Okay, Commissioner Beard. 31 32 Beard: I've got a question. Is there going to be a wall between the multiuse trail 33 and the housing units? 34 35 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, I'd like to defer that question to the 36 applicant so they can talk about the aesthetics of the proposed 37 development. 38 39 Evans: Okay, if there aren't any other questions, we'll move on to the applicant 40 presentation or comments. 41 42 Laveles: Good evening Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Grisa Laveles. 43 I'm here with Zia Engineering on behalf of Rinconada Development of Las 44 Cruces. I'm going to go a little more specific on what Ms. Rodriguez 45 already talked about. This is the project location, it is just a wider vicinity 46 map. Bataan Memorial is located here. As she said, the actual 39 I development is located on the southwest corner of Settlers Pass and 2 Rinconada Boulevard. This is an aerial view of the site. You can see Las 3 Palmas Subdivision here, High Desert Phase 1 in here, and this is the site. 4 You can clearly see that it is a challenging site because of its shape, it's 5 very narrow in the central part. 6 Within the PUD zone that we are requesting today, we will have 7 several land uses. First we are proposing to have a medium density 8 single-family townhome development which is the yellow part and will take 9 place in parcel six and a part of parcel 381. We also are proposing to 10 have a high intensity commercial in the corner of Settlers Pass and 11 Rinconada Boulevard. The open space for recreation which will be a part 12 of the multiuse trail system is this line here running along Rinconada 13 Boulevard. Here is the associated acreage with each land use. We have 14 9.5 acres of proposed residential use, 1.69 acres of proposed commercial 15 use, and 0.44 proposed open space for recreational with a thorough 16 acreage of 11.683 acres. 17 As Ms. Rodriguez mentioned, we are proposing to develop this 18 subdivision in three phases. Phase 1 and Phase 2 will take care of the 19 residential portion of the development and its respective portion or 20 segment of the multiuse trail. And finally the third Phase will take care of 21 the commercial node here in the corner. This is the acreage associated 22 with each phase. We are going to have a total of 6.35 acres in Phase 1, 23 3.69 acres in Phase 2, and 1.63 acres on Phase 3. 24 We decided to follow the PUD procedure. This was originally a part 25 of Rinconada Ranches master plan and it was taken out at the time of 26 master plan amendment number three because it is really a challenging 27 site, mainly because its geometric features. So we decided to go with a 28 PUD procedure which enables us to have more flexibility and to apply an 29 innovative design and create our own set of standards. So from that, we 30 have to deviate from the current standards and propose our own. The 31 main change is going from a 50-foot right-of-way to a 27-foot private road. 32 The minimum acreage that you will find within the subdivision is not 2,880, 33 but 2,414. But I would like to add, we do comply with the 2,880 in most of 34 our lots. We only have eight lots that are less than that. The minimum 35 front setback, obviously for constraints, especially in the middle part, 36 instead of having a 20-feet setback, we're going to go with a 15-foot 37 setback and the garage setback as well, we are requesting to use a 15- 38 foot setback instead of 25-foot setback. In exchange for these deviations, 39 what we are looking at is to provide the community with a benefit. Among 40 the benefits we are proposing is affordable townhouses with a very 41 appealing architectural style. The subdivision will be provided with 42 uniform attractive landscaping in all open space and common areas. The 43 residents will enjoy having internal amenities. They will also have 44 proposed immediate adjacent multiuse pathway, additional parking space 45 on side, also the convenience of having retail commercial area really close 46 by. 40 I Again this is conceptual, you can see the townhomes, they are 2 together in clusters of no more than five units. We have our private road. 3 Within the residential area we have an open space or common areas, you 4 can see one here, we have another two here, another one. You can also 5 see the on-site extra parking. We have the main entrance onto Rinconada 6 Boulevard here. This is the emergency entrance that Ms. Rodriguez was 7 referring to; this is going to be gated and according to City standards is 8 going to be an automatic gate to allow for easy entrance for the fire 9 department. We also have an entrance for the commercial development 10 onto Rinconada and we have another access that is going to be 11 (inaudible) by the commercial and residential at this point onto Settlers 12 Pass. This other entrance that you see here is just going to serve as a 13 construction entrance is going to ultimately be gated or just closed. 14 Now we're going to go to the specific of the residential 15 development. You seen the renderings of the product that we are 16 proposing. I believe this is a very appealing product, it's very pretty and 17 the architectural style complies with the context in the surroundings. 18 These are the general numbers of the residential development, we're 19 going to have a maximum of 82 lots with a proposed (inaudible) density 20 8.6 dwelling units per acre. The average lot frontage will be 28-feet, 21 however there are six lots in the subdivision that are going to have 24-feet 22 frontage, which complies with City standards. We have a maximum 23 number of five townhomes per cluster which help us comply with fire 24 requirements so that they have accessibility around the clusters and can 25 reach any point of the units. We will have an average building square 26 footage of 1,400 square feet in each townhome. 27 This is the road section and I believe I can further answer 28 Commissioner Iserman's question. Even though I understand your 29 concern and even though it sounds like a great decrease going from 50- 30 feet to 27-feet, I want to highlight the fact that the actual road width is 31 basically maintained. The main difference that we're finding is that 32 typically a right-of-way will include sidewalks and utility easements, so the 33 width is (inaudible) by all of these elements. In this case what we chose to 34 do was to include only curb, gutter, and the actual driving lanes within our 35 road, privately owned, and our sidewalk which is going to be located on 36 one side is going to be located on a sidewalk easement which is going to 37 be within private lots. Same goes for utility easements, on both sides of 38 the road. Here's the commercial development which is in the corner. This 39 is a conceptual (inaudible). We are at the conceptual stage of the project, 40 but in order to see how we could use the land, we came up with these 41 numbers so we will have an approximate building area of 8,200 square 42 feet with a maximum building height of 60-feet, and we will have off-street 43 parking stalls even to exceed the requirement of the City of Las Cruces 44 standards, and we have approximately 80 parking stalls. 45 Now going back to a very particular feature of this proposed 46 subdivision that I want to also highlight, is the proposed multiuse trail. 41 I The thing is, this is not a isolated feature, it works in combination with a 2 system that is going to be traveling all the way from Rinconada Ranches 3 master plan to even Lohman Avenue and it is going to ultimately and 4 hopefully create a (inaudible) where pedestrians can really travel. This is 5 the proposed section and just to give you further reference, this is showing 6 half of the right-of-way of Rinconada Boulevard. You can see the median 7 here. It is an 85-foot right-of-way, and what we're proposing is to have 8 seven-foot parkway. The line of the right-of-way ends here and then the 9 10-foot proposed multiuse path starts here. The proposed multiuse 10 pathway will be dedicated to the City of Las Cruces, but it will be fully built. 11 Also, this is going to be a really nice thing because if you see the section 12 you can notice that we have a bike lane here, so the multiuse trail will be 13 used by pedestrians and the bikers will have their own space to go in the 14 street. Also, Rinconada Development of Las Cruces has always 15 landscaped their ... most of the time they're landscaped and try to make 16 their developments very appealing, so this median and this parkway will 17 be fully landscaped, not only on Rinconada, but on the adjacent Settlers 18 Pass section. 19 This is a trail system I talked to you about. Some of these lines you 20 see are different, some of them are (inaudible) and some are continuous. 21 It represents, some of them are already approved like Rinconada Ranches 22 master plan was approved I think a year ago and it includes a trail system 23 that goes all the way to here. Now we have our development here which 24 will continue that. We are also going down to Bataan Memorial and 25 crossing that we have Rinconada Boulevard north which crosses 26 (inaudible) here and ties into Sonoma Ranch North and travels all the way 27 down. Here we will have to coordinate with outside entities like adjacent 28 property owners to try to coordinate with them and really achieve this 29 circuit that will be a great feature for the City. I think that ends my 30 presentation. Are there any question? I'll be happy to answer. 31 32 Shipley: Yes, please. I think there was one question about along the trail, will there 33 be a wall between your property and the trail? 34 35 Laveles: Yes, the back wall of the homes adjacent to the multiuse trail will be there 36 because of privacy issues and grading issues too. 37 38 Shipley: So an eight, 10-foot wall? 39 40 Laveles: If you give me one second, let me get back to you. Yes, we are currently 41 developing, as Cheryl mentioned, this is a conceptual stage so we still 42 have to further define our grading plan, but it will be a maximum of eight 43 feet definitely, but we're looking more at having something of four to five- 44 feet. Also, Commissioner Crane, in regards to the trash collection, we 45 already had a note from this early stage in our concept plan because 1 46 need to say we've been working in really close coordination with the City 42 I which I'm very thankful for, they've supported us. All reviewing agencies 2 have been very involved in this project. So, in coordinating with the fire 3 department, it was decided that we shouldn't have any on-street parking, 4 that's why we have already off-street parking defined at some points for 5 visitors, even though each townhome will have its own garage. So, also in 6 the corners in the hard angles that we have because of the shape of the 7 site, we have created (inaudible) or cul-de-sacs so it facilitates emergency 8 vehicles access and maneuver as well as the garbage collection system. 9 10 Crane: How did you calculate the number of visitor parking spaces to have? Did 11 you just use the available space or is there some formula you used? 12 13 Laveles: At this conceptual stage, Commissioner Crane, we have approximately 35 14 parking stalls. We are working on the final plan and we will look more into 15 detail to maybe come up with a calculated number, this was more of a 16 preliminary design. 17 18 Crane: Thank you. 19 20 Beard: Are these townhomes going to be rented or are they going to be family 21 owned? 22 23 Laveles: They're going to be family owned. They're going to be for sale. 24 25 Beard: And you're going to have this minimum setback where you can't add a 26 porch. 27 28 Laveles: Yes. Well let me add to that Commissioner Beard, I think we are at a 29 good stage to analyze that seeing the cases that were presented 30 previously. I believe the product is already defined so I cannot speak for 31 the developer in this case, but I think it's something we can bring to the 32 table definitely now that we are at the conceptual stage and try to address 33 it. If it's possible I would like to go back to the fagade. In this rendering 34 and the lower one I appreciated what I believe to be a balcony which could 35 provide an outdoor space for the family which is going to be protected 36 from sun exposure. I don't know if that will you know be replacement for a 37 porch, but I think we have that. 38 39 Crane: Is it two story with a garage underneath? One car garage. 40 41 Laveles: Commissioner Crane I would like to answer that question, give me one 42 second. I believe it is a two car garage. Let me get back to you. I have 43 my backup team right there. It's a two car garage which I need to say for 44 the affordable townhome for such a constraint of space I think we're really 45 achieving an optimal use of the land, providing families with a two-car 46 garage, and also additional parking and very appealing. 43 1 2 Beard: I don't understand where the guest parking is. 3 4 Laveles: Let me go back to the conceptual. The guest parking will be distributed 5 throughout the subdivision. We have a certain number of parking stalls 6 here, some more in this corner here, we have some other in here, some 7 more in here, and lastly we have some here. And by the way this is the 8 (inaudible) we generated that I was talking to you about to kind of soften 9 that hard angle. 10 11 Shipley: Mr. Chairman. 12 13 Evans: Yes, Commissioner. 14 15 Shipley: I'd just like to say when I looked at the plan I really liked ... you know 1 16 think it's a good use for what space you have. Is there any possibility that 17 you could buy land from the owner of the land adjacent to there? Have 18 they sought out to try to do that to open this up a little bit? That's one 19 question. Let me get my questions and then you can try to respond. In 20 your presentation that we were given it says recreations facilities, internal 21 pool and playground areas, but there are none, is that correct? 22 23 Laveles: Let me tell, we haven't defined, being a conceptual stage, we know for a 24 fact that amenities will be provided for the residents because that's part of 25 the concept of the subdivision, however I am not showing them right now 26 because we don't have the specific plan for them. I cannot assure you if 27 we're going to have one pool, two pools, if we're just going to have 28 playgrounds and picnic areas, I don't know for sure at this stage. But 29 amenities will be provided for sure. 30 31 Shipley: I would say to you that it is important as you heard tonight, we've had so 32 many variances for people that want to have the ability to barbeque 33 outside. They're going to want to do that in these places as well. And it 34 doesn't make any difference how beautiful they are, they're going to put 35 those up. So if you can design that in at the outset, number one you'll 36 save yourselves a lot of problems and you'll save the City a lot of 37 problems. Number two, is that you've done this in three phases. You've 38 put the third phase as the commercial. Every time we get objections from 39 residents it's about the fact that their property backs up to a commercial 40 site. If you build the commercial site first and make that Phase 1, and built 41 the other two second and third, you won't have that problem. Because the 42 homeowner will know that I'm buying my lot adjacent to that, that's already 43 there and it won't be a problem. But what you will have if you don't do it 44 that way is you'll have residents that come back in and say that their real 45 estate agent or someone unbeknownst to us told them that that was going 46 to be a park, or that was going to be you know, nothing over one store, 44 I and you've got 60-foot there. So it's going to block people's view and so 2 forth. So my suggestion is try to do Phase 3 as Phase 1 on that busy 3 corner and then build your residential behind it and you'll have a lot of 4 happy customers because they know what they're getting, and the people 5 that want to live there, want to walk over to the whatever it is. On the 6 other side of Rinconada you're going to have a Wal-Mart close by there 7 too, as I understand. 8 9 Laveles: Well Commissioner Shipley, I'll start by thanking for your very valuable 10 advice, based on your experience. And I really think it's a good idea. 11 want to mention too that we're following all City standards as far as 12 buffered yard is concerned and there is going to be a wall and also 13 landscaping to separate the commercial from the residential. 14 15 Shipley: And lighting as well. Because you'll have lights on that that will probably 16 be ... I mean depending on what use is there. If it's a Pic-Quik or 17 something along those lines, they're open 24 hours they're going to have 18 lights all night, so again we're looking a concept, so just trying to do that. 19 20 Laveles: Thank you. I think that's a great approach. I want to show you where the 21 Wal-Mart's going to be located on Rinconada South. 22 23 Shipley: Sonoma Ranch. 24 25 Laveles: Our site is located here and Rinconada Ranch is north. The site for that is 26 going to be located I believe in Rinconada Boulevard South, which is 27 close, but is not adjacent. 28 29 Shipley: Right. I understood that, but I just was saying you will have people that 30 are going to go by bicycle or whatever down to Wal-Mart or back or walk 31 down depending on their means, it's not that far any more. The other 32 question that I had was 82 lots to take care of the repavement, you know if 33 you have a sewer line that breaks or whatever, that gets expensive for 34 people even though they're in there when it's brand new, but after, there 35 have got to be time and set up and they've got to know up front that there 36 needs to be money saved so that you can repave and do those kinds of 37 things. Because a lot of people think they're moving in and they're not 38 responsible for that, so that'll be there as well. I wasn't sure about how 39 this exit was going to be down on Settlers Pass and you said it's for the 40 commercial and it's also for the people that live in there, but is that just an 41 exit only or is that an entrance and exit. 42 43 Laveles: That's an entrance and an exit. 44 45 Shipley: Okay. 46 45 1 Laveles: Commissioner Shipley I would like to add as far as maintenance 2 responsibilities, we are aware that the homeowners association was going 3 to have to take full responsibility and they're going to have to be aware 4 from the moment they make their purchase. That it's going to be a 5 requirement for them to maintain these areas. Based on DRC meeting, 6 we had a recommendation from Utilities that we are going to look at in the 7 (inaudible) step, which is the final set plan. They said that utility 8 companies are going to get calls if something you know goes wrong so 9 they suggested that we create a utility easement within the private road so 10 that they can take care of utilities. To me it makes sense, we haven't 11 made up our decision, we are looking at it right now, working mainly on 12 finalizing the conceptual stage, but that is advise from utilities that we are 13 taking very seriously. 14 15 Shipley: Okay. 16 17 Evans: Any other questions, Commissioners? 18 19 Iserman: I just have a statement. I just wanted to thank you for your presentation. 1 20 think you got your act together. 21 22 Laveles: Commissioner Iserman, I want to thank you for the positive feedback. 1 23 was very nervous, so it's quite an accomplishment for me, thank you. 24 25 Evans: Okay. Is there anybody else from the public who has any questions? No. 26 Okay, we'll close it to public participation. Commissioners, any final 27 comments? 28 29 Shipley: I guess the only thing that I really was concerned about was the smallness 30 of the units and also the rear yard being so small and what they would like 31 to do with that. I'd like to really think we ought to put a condition on there 32 that says that that is a concern and we want you to design it so that there 33 is a place for an occupant to have a place in their backyard that they can 34 barbeque or cook out or something that's somewhat protected and 35 covered. You know, it doesn't necessarily have to be a porch, but it could 36 be, you know if you've got a balcony that sticks out that you could do that 37 under, that makes sense. But I think what you've got to do is you've got to 38 look at it on a case by case basis, lot by lot. Because some of these lots 39 are facing east, so it's not a real problem in the afternoon as it is in the 40 morning. But you've got to remember, we're talking about the weekends 41 and the holidays and those kinds of things. Where as if it's a south facing 42 or southwest facing lot, then you have to have a larger overhang because 43 of the angle of the sun. So it's a design issue more than anything else. 44 And I would concur that as Mr. Iserman says it's a great presentation. It's 45 a great packet. It's nice to look at something that's a planning issue, 46 because we get so little of this kind of thing. What we try to offer you is 46 1 based upon experience you know from the things that we've seen before, 2 and the problems that we encounter on a monthly basis. So thank you for 3 your presentation. 4 5 Laveles: Thank you Commissioners and Mr. Chairman. 6 7 Beard: Do you think that we ought to put a condition in there that says, you 8 cannot build a porch back here. I mean that they have to disclose that to 9 everybody that buys? 10 11 Evans: Actually, I think Commissioner Shipley was making a condition to have a 12 minimum of maybe, just throwing that out there, six-foot minimum back 13 porch ... 14 15 Shipley: Well, I don't think you can ...we can specify that from the dais. I think 16 what needs to be done is that the architect needs to look at that and 17 design it. What we need to say is there is a requirement to provide in 18 each townhome or whatever, an area that can be used for outdoor 19 recreation, barbeque, whatever, and it needs to be based upon the siting, 20 the individual siting. Now maybe Staff will tell me that I'm full of baloney 21 and I shouldn't do that, and that's okay too, but I think the thing we're 22 trying to say is that we want to preclude happening is that people buying a 23 place and immediately running out and putting up a temporary structure, a 24 shade structure, so that they can enjoy their rear yard and they can 25 barbeque and have a little party or whatever the case might be. So we 26 know it's going to happen, so let's build that in with property. 27 28 Evans: We're also giving a variance to reduce the size of the backyard by I think it 29 was 20 to 15. 30 31 Shipley: Correct. 32 33 Evans: So, I don't know. I'm not necessarily opposed to ... actually I am in 34 support of that. I don't know how we word that. We would have to get 35 some. Yes, Commissioner Iserman. 36 37 Iserman: I'd like to mention that I've been through this before. And when you have 38 a community where units are attached you really can't be barbequing 39 there because your neighbor is so close by, he's just going to go nuts if he 40 doesn't happen to like barbequing. Most developments of this nature will 41 provide a barbeque area in one of the community areas, rather than each 42 home. It's usually restricted to where they can't do that. That's the only 43 way you can keep harmony in a place like that. Because it gets pretty 44 sticky. 45 46 Evans: Right. 47 ArN 1 2 Shipley: Well maybe before we go any further I ought to ask a question. How are 3 they going to separate the back yards, are there going to be fences? 4 5 Evans: Go ahead, the applicant is going to answer the question. 6 7 Martinez: Eddie Martinez with Zia Engineering and Environmental Consultants also 8 here on behalf of Rinconada Development. At this stage there is no plan 9 for having individual walls between the units, no. They are intended to 10 maximize the feel of open space, even though the size of the individual 11 lots are relatively small. There are individual areas, however, within each 12 backyard that are available for their utilization as they see fit within set 13 covenants that will be restrictive relative to what they can and can't do. 14 We want uniformity of product, uniformity of standard, and uniformity of 15 upkeep relative to how these units are going to be both acquired and 16 maintained. There are going to be common areas throughout the project 17 for picnicking, barbeques, etc. We have many areas of open space 18 throughout the project that are intended for those type of uses where there 19 will be picnic tables, potentially playground equipment type stuff, you know 20 common usage type of recreations so to speak. The intent is we want 21 people to mix and intermingle through the project as opposed to 22 everybody being in their individual yards so to speak. So from that aspect 23 the intent is to have, as I said, a feel of open space, at the same time 24 maximize the common areas for the common recreation. That's not to 25 preclude if somebody wants to you know buy a grill and put it in their 26 backyard, they do have the space to do that, but they would be precluded 27 from building, for example individual grill patio with a gazebo so to speak, 28 that would not be allowed by the covenants. 29 30 Shipley: What about pets? 1 mean if they have dogs, do they have to ... will they 31 have fences? You know that's the kind of stuff that ... 32 33 Martinez: There are you know issues with projects like this where you know as 1 34 said, it's intended to be common areas so to speak, so from that aspect 35 you know indoor pets would work, outdoor pets obviously would not work. 36 At the same time, there is intended within the general area the utilization 37 of the multiuse pathway. There are other open space areas throughout 38 the Rinconada master plan, if I remember correctly I think a total of more 39 than seven acres of open space and park areas that were to be developed 40 by Alameda as part of the Rinconada master plan for utilization by the 41 neighborhoods etc. for pets, playgrounds, etc. 42 43 Beard: Is there a sidewalk in front of the garage? 44 45 Martinez: In the majority of the lots, yes. The sidewalk if you remember the way we 46 are laying it out is only on one side and that's because of, once again, the 48 I geography and configuration of the lot itself. The majority of the lots are 2 only ... a large portion of the roadway area only has houses on one side. 3 At the same time, we are only talking 82 units and from that aspect the 4 feeling was that the sidewalk on one side would be more than adequate 5 and was supported by Staff. 6 7 Beard: My problem is the 15-foot setback, garage setback. A standard car would 8 take up the entire 15-feet. If you have an extended pickup truck, it's going 9 to extend even into the sidewalk or into the road. And most people park 10 right in front of their garage. They use their garage for storage, or at least 11 half of it, and so you've got this minimum 15-foot which kind of bothers me 12 actually. 13 14 Martinez: Well, the majority of the lots have been designed such that you know, our 15 hope and intent is the majority of them were going to have more than the 16 15-foot setback, however, there are areas that are very tight, especially in 17 that section. 18 19 Evans: Right, and I noticed most of those units were set at a diagonal, so that you 20 would have a minimum of 15-feet. 21 22 Martinez: Exactly. 23 24 Evans: But on the other side you'd probably have 20. 25 26 Martinez: Exactly. 27 28 Evans: You know, so you kind of alleviate that problem. 29 30 Martinez: There's been a tremendous amount of thought put into this layout 31 including detailed plans by architects already relative to the actual building 32 footprints to make sure that we had a viable product. Originally this was 33 actually planned for commercial and the only thing we could figure to do 34 with it quite frankly was warehousing, and we didn't think that it was a 35 compatible usage of the land and so as an engineer this pains me, but 1 36 credit the architects for coming up with a really viable product for a piece 37 of land that does have its challenges. I can say there was another 38 question regarding coordination with the adjacent property owners and we 39 have done a tremendous amount of coordination with the adjacent 40 property owners. Eddie Binns owns the majority of the land to the 41 immediate west and he has been extremely cooperative relative to 42 ensuring both from a grading perspective as well as a product prospective 43 compatibility relative to making sure that it works. He is very interested in 44 having the availability and the tie in for the recreational and multiuse 45 facilities that we're looking at, as well as the adjacent commercial. 46 49 I Shipley: One last question, you mentioned in your benefits affordable housing. Are 2 you going to have a 10% ... are 10% of the units going to be affordable? 3 4 Martinez: The definition of affordable I think would be at this stage probably a 5 moving target, but the intent is to try to keep these units, quite frankly, 6 especially because of the product, quite a bit more competitive than 7 anything in the surrounding area. You know with the square footage that 8 we're looking at, 1,400 square foot, two story type product, etc, we're 9 looking at trying to keep them very much in the lower range of anything 10 that's in this part of town right now. 11 12 Evans: Okay, I appreciate your presentation because I have a tendency to look at 13 these more as a private unit as opposed to having a community and 14 recreational areas set aside for the whole community, so I appreciate your 15 clarification on that. It kind of changes things, at least in my mind, a little 16 bit. 17 18 Martinez: Yes, this very much is intended and a piece of a much bigger picture, that 19 being the overall Rinconada master plan. 20 21 Evans: Right. Okay. Any other questions? Yes, Commissioner Crane. 22 23 Crane: On the two styles, the elevations shown on page 7, style one and the style 24 two. Are these front and back of the units or are these two alternative 25 designs? 26 27 Laveles: These are two alternative designs, Commissioner Crane. 28 29 Crane: So the upper one has two car garage and two doors facing out into your 30 27-foot right-of-way, correct? 31 32 Laveles: The upper one, I believe so, yes. 33 34 Crane: And the lower one, likewise faces out to the street? 35 36 Laveles: I believe so, yes. This arch (inaudible) to be the garage, and I'm sorry that 37 I'm not 100% sure about my answer, I don't have the specific floor plans 38 due to the early stage of the project, but judging by the elevations that's 39 my appreciation sir. 40 41 Crane: Do you have any idea what the back is going to look like that faces 42 Rinconada Boulevard? Is it going to be a two-story blank wall with some 43 windows in it? Is it going to be foo foo, balcony? That's the side where 44 they're going to do their barbeque, if they do one. 45 50 I Laveles: Commissioner Crane I am an architect and I really appreciate the 2 renderings. I didn't do them myself, but I believe that the architect that put 3 this together has a lot of experience and has very good taste in his 4 designs. I will doubt that he will put a blank wall in the back. I don't think 5 this is (inaudible) facade. I think it's going to be a complete product. I'm 6 just making assumptions, obviously because I haven't seen an elevation of 7 the back wall, but based on the work I've seen from the architect who put 8 together this product, I believe very much that this is going to look good in 9 the back too. 10 11 Crane: Thank you. 12 13 Laveles: You're welcome. Thank you. 14 15 Shipley: Well I will just say that the style two doesn't have garages, so that's ... 16 17 Evans: Okay, if there aren't any other comments, I'll entertain a motion to accept 18 the PUD-07-11. 19 20 Iserman: I move that we accept it. 21 22 Evans: I have a second? 23 24 Crane: I'll second. 25 26 Evans: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I'll call role. 27 28 Shipley: Can I ask, can we add a condition about the ... 29 30 Evans: Yes, I'm sorry, there was a condition. 31 32 Shipley: Well the condition that I basically said about the rear. 33 34 Evans: Okay. 35 36 Shipley: Can we add that condition in? 37 38 Evans: We have a condition that Staff provided us and you're interested in 39 pursuing a condition ... ? 40 41 Shipley: Regarding the rear yard, as far as the design. So that that element is 42 considered in the final design of the ... 43 44 Evans: Well I think that it is a private community and their intent was to provide for 45 a private area, covered area, that they could get together and have 46 barbeques and I think they were kind of getting away from the whole ... 51 Aft 1 2 Shipley: Then I'd guess we'd have to say the recommendation is something that 3 would preclude them from ... you know that states up front that they can't 4 build an accessory structure on the rear of the building for barbeques or ... 5 if they build ... if somebody puts a patio at the rear site, since we don't 6 know what we're dealing with, and they want to cover that patio, you know 7 that's precluded or ... 8 9 Evans: In my mind, and correct me if I'm wrong, but we're just approving the plan 10 right now and then you will, based on our approval you will go back and 11 put together your actual plat plan of what you want to do and we'll have an 12 opportunity at that time to evaluate whether or not we feel that they have 13 an adequate structures there and a community area to provide. 14 15 Shipley: I don't know if we'll see it if we approve this. 16 17 Evans: We will. 18 19 Laveles: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Shipley, that is correct. We are here at 20 the ... the PUD process calls out for a concept plan and that needs to go 21 before you, that's why we're here. The next step will be the final site plan 22 which will be the equivalent to a preliminary plat and again we will be here 23 before you. Another thing that I would like to add and I think it might put 24 some of your concerns to rest is that, the nice thing about this 25 development is that we're going to have restricted covenants in place so 26 that way we can assure that, either we provide something, an area, but we 27 also let people know what they can and can't do so you don't have to face 28 individual cases you know violating the code regulations or the defined 29 guidelines. 30 31 Evans: Right. I think we'll see it again so we'll have an opportunity to put some 32 recommendations in. But we do have one actually, the applicant will be 33 required to construct a 10-foot multiuse path. 34 35 Shipley: So this is to make a recommendation to the City Council to ... 36 37 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, this is a recommendation to the City Council. If you move 38 to approve, Staff is recommending to move approval with the attached 39 condition; that the applicant will be required to construct a 10-foot multi- 40 purpose pathway adjacent to Rinconada Boulevard, adjacent to the La 41 Paloma subdivision to be completed with the final construction of the said 42 subdivision. And that recommendation would go forward to City Council 43 and be part of the attached ordinance. 44 45 Shipley: So we have a motion and a second. 46 52 I Evans: Okay. So I'll call role. Commissioner Shipley. 2 3 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 4 5 Evans: Commissioner Crane. 6 7 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 8 9 Evans: Commissioner Iserman. 10 11 Iserman: Aye, findings and discussion. 12 13 Evans: And Commissioner Beard. 14 15 Beard: Aye, findings and discussion. 16 17 Evans: And the Chair votes aye, findings and discussion. Case PUD-07-11 18 passes. 19 20 Laveles: Thank you. 21 22 Evans: Thank you. 23 24 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS 25 26 Evans: Our next item of business is other business. Staff do we have any? 27 28 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, just a reminder that your Planning and Zoning Commission 29 meeting for the month of December is not going to be the regular fourth 30 Tuesday of the month, it's moved up a week, so we will be convening it 31 December 16th at 6:00 p.m. in this room. 32 33 Evans: Okay, thank you for that. 34 35 IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 36 37 Evans: Is there any other public comments? No. 38 39 X. STAFF COMMENT 40 41 Evans: Staff comments? 42 43 XI. ADJOURNMENT 8:35 44 45 Evans: Okay, meeting is adjourned at 8:35. 46 53 1 2 3 4 6 7 Chairperson 8 54