Loading...
10-28-2008 oft City of los Cruces 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, October 28, 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 II. . APPROVAL OF MINUTES— September 23, 2008 III. 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 Z2770: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 1.66 +/- acres located at 1601 N. Main Street. The zone change will bring the property into zoning compliance, based on the overall size of the property exceeding the one (1) acre maximum size for commercial properties within the C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) zoning district. Submitted by Daryl Shepherd, property owner. 2. Case Z2771: A request for a zone change from UR (Urban Ranch 1981 Zoning Code) to EE (Single-Family Equestrian Estate & Agriculture) for 2.26 +/- acres located at 4841 Dunn Drive. The property's current zoning designation of UR (Urban Ranch 1981 Zoning Code) has been eliminated from the 2001 Zoning Code, as amended. The zone change request will bring the property into zoning compliance. Submitted by Joe Holguin for Andres and Francisca Armenta, property owners. P.O. B �X 20000. LAS CRUCES . NEW MEXICO . 88004-9002 505.541.2000 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ON 3. Case Z2772: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity)to C- 3C (Commercial High Intensity-Conditional) for 1.29 +/- acres located west of EI Paseo Road on the north side of Boutz Road. The zone change will bring the property into zoning compliance, based on the overall size of the property exceeding the one (1) acre maximum size for commercial properties within the C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) zoning district. Submitted by Harcharan Singh Banwait, property owner. 4. Case S-08-083: A request for final plat approval for right-of-way dedication known as Kennedy Road, Replat No. 2. The final plat proposes to dedicate 40 feet of right-of-way to the City of Las Cruces. The subject property consists of 2.39 t acres of which 0.23 t acres is the right of way dedication. The subject property is located west of Elks Drive and north of Hatfield Road at 1092 Kennedy Road. Submitted by Center Line Services, LLC for Centro Familiar Manantial De Vida. VI. OLD BUSINESS 1. Case PA-08-03: A recommendation to City Council regarding the adoption of the Alameda Depot Neighborhood Plan. 2. Case Z2766: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for three (3) distinct properties located at 304, 308, 320 Wyatt Drive and 1160 El Paseo Drive. The properties have a combined area of 9.660 +/-acres all being utilized as a shopping center. The zone change will bring the property into zoning compliance, based on the overall size of the property exceeding the one (1) acre maximum size for commercial properties within the C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) zoning district. Submitted by BRG Engineering for EI Paseo Las Cruces Pros Re, LLC. 3. ZCA-08-03: A request to amend Chapter 38, 43 (C) of the Municipal Code, correcting previous zoning map errors within and around the CBD (Central Business District). The zoning map amendment will provide correction for Areas "A", "B" and "C" respectively. The zoning map amendments are as follows: Area "A"-The properties located at 887, 867, 717, 709 and 705 N. Main Street existing parcel boundaries will coincide with the Central Business District (CBD) zoning boundaries. Area "B"-The properties located at 339, 337, 331 N. Alameda and 331 W. Las Cruces, 334 W. Griggs will be removed from within the Central Business District (CBD) zoning district. Area "C"- The properties located at 224 S. Alameda, 390 S. Alameda existing parcel boundaries will coincide with the Central Business District (CBD) zoning district. The properties located due south of 405 W. Griggs (no physical address-property owner Darby) and the property located due west of 230 S. Alameda will be placed within the Central Business District (CBD). Submitted by the City of Las Cruces. VII. NEW BUSINESS 1. Case A1676: A request for a variance of two (2) feet from the minimum required side yard setback of five (5) feet for property located at 210 Broadview Court. The subject property encompasses 0.19 t acres and is zoned R-1 aM (Single-Family Medium Density Mobile). The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the continued use of an attached side yard porch built without a building permit. The 224 square foot porch is attached to an existing mobile home approximately three (3) feet from the eastern side yard property boundary. The porch encroaches two (2) feet into the minimum required five (5)foot side yard setback. Submitted by Lupe Marquez, property owner. 2. Case A1677: A request for a variance of ten (10) t feet from the minimum required rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet for property currently zoned R-1 b (Single-Family High Density) and located at 4990 Bosworth Road. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the continued use of a 200 square foot enclosed addition built without a building permit. The addition is located five (5) t feet from the rear property boundary. The rear yard enclosed addition encroaches ten (10) t feet into the minimum required fifteen (15) rear yard setback. Submitted by Winston Boyd, property owner. 3. Case No. PA-08-04: A request to amend the University Avenue Corridor Plan for two purposes. First, to extend the eastern boundary of Area 4 of the University Avenue Corridor, to include an adjacent parcel at 1105/1115 East University Avenue, that is currently in Area 2. Second, to add to the allowed uses in Area 4 the following: Bed and Breakfast, Bar, Pub, Tavern (no dancing), Boutique Hotel, Commercial Parking Structure and Hotel/Motel. Submitted by Logos Development, Inc., the "Tenant" leasing the property from the property owners Joan Cunningham Grinnell and Anne Walden Cunningham. 4. Case No. ZCA-08-04: A request to amend Chapter 38, Section 38-44 of the Municipal Code for three purposes. First, to extend the eastern boundary of Area 4 of the University Avenue Corridor Plan Overlay District to include an adjacent parcel at 1105, 1115 East University Avenue, that is currently in Area 2. Second, to add to the allowed uses in Area 4 the following: Bed and Breakfast, Bar, Pub, Tavern (no dancing), Boutique Hotel, Commercial Parking Structure and Hotel/Motel. And third, to amend the front setback requirements in Area 4 from a Minimum of twenty (20)feet to a Minimum of zero feet with conditions. Submitted by Logos Development, Inc., the "Tenant' leasing the property from the property owners Joan Cunningham Grinnell and Anne Walden Cunningham. 5. Case PUD-08-03: A request for Final Site Plan approval for 187.30 +/- acres of land known as the Metro Verde Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Metro Verde development is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) requiring land uses, roadway construction, etc to follow the approved concept plan. The subject properties are located south of the future extension of Dragon Fly Boulevard east and west of the future extension of Luna Vista Road. The Metro Verde PUD Final Site Plan proposes commercial, multi-family, mixed use and residential land use components consisting of a combined 308 +/- lots. Submitted by Denton Ventures, Inc for SN2 land Holding, LLC. , 6. Case Z2766: A request for a zone change from R-1 a (Single-Family Medium Intensity) to R-2C (Multi-Dwelling Low Density-Conditional) for 9.680 +/- acres located at the northeastern intersection of Mesa Drive and Central Avenue. The zone change request will facilitate the construction of an apartment complex with a maximum permissible density of 15 dwelling units per acre. Submitted by Dann Casey for More Gelt Holding, LLC. 7. Case Z2773: A request for a zone change from R-2 (Multi-Dwelling Low Density) to 0- 2 (Office Professional-Limited Retail Service) and R-2 (Multi-Dwelling Low Density) overlapping for 0.611 +/- acres located at 266 W. Court Avenue. Submitted by Sandra Stubblefield for David Stowe, property owner. 8. Case Z2774: A request for various zone changes located at the southwestern and northwestern intersections of Telshor Boulevard and Missouri Avenue. The zone changes will bring the properties into zoning compliance, based on the properties exceeding the 0.75 acre maximum size or existing structures exceeding the maximum gross floor area allowance of 2,500 square feet for commercial properties zoned C-1 (Commercial Low Intensity). The zone change requests are as follows: ■ A zone change request from C-1 (Commercial Low Intensity) to C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity)for 0.56 +/-acres located at 1720 S. Telshor Boulevard; ■ A zone change request from C-1 (Commercial Low Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity)for 1.04 +/- acres located at 1770 S. Telshor Boulevard; ■ A zone change request from C-1 (Commercial Low Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity)for 1.36 +/- acres located at 1800 S. Telshor Boulevard; • A zone change request from C-1 (Commercial Low Intensity) to C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity)for 0.37 +/- acres located at 1900 Telshor Boulevard; ■ A zone change request from C-1 (Commercial Low Intensity) to OSR (Open-Space Recreation)for 4.3 +/- acres located at 2802 Missouri Avenue; ■ A zone change request from C-1 (Commercial Low Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity)for 1.62 +/-acres located at 2801 Missouri Avenue; ■ A zone change request from C-1 (Commercial Low Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity)for 2.18 +/- acres located at 2801 Missouri Avenue. 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 October 28, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. 6 7 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 8 Charles Scholz, Chairman 9 Shawn Evans, Vice Chair 10 Charles Beard, Member 11 Ray Shipley, Member 12 Godfrey Crane, Member 13 Clayton Iserman, Member 14 15 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 16 Donald Bustos, Secretary 17 18 STAFF PRESENT: 19 Cheryl Rodriguez, Development Services Administrator 20 Gary Hembree, Senior Planner 21 Tom Schuster, Senior Planner 22 James White, Planner 23 Susan Lowell, Planner 24 Carol McCall, Planner 25 Jennifer Robertson, Planner 26 Adam Ochoa, Associate Planner 27 Jared Abrams, CLC Legal 28 Lt. Robert Gonzales, Fire Department 29 Lora Dunlap, Recording Secretary 30 31 I. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 p.m. 32 33 Scholz: This is the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Tuesday, 34 October 28th. I'm Charlie Scholz. I'm the Chair of the Commission. I want 35 to introduce the members of the Commission to you before we begin our 36 agenda. On my far right is Commissioner Shipley. He is the Mayor's 37 representative on the Commission. Next to him is Commissioner Crane. 38 He represents Council District 4; next to him is Commissioner Iserman. He 39 represents Council District 1. Then Commissioner Evans, Council District 40 5, right next to me is Commissioner Beard, Council District 3, excuse me 41 Council District 2 and I represent Council District 6. 42 43 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 23, 2008 44 45 Scholz: Okay, the first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of 46 September 23, 2008. Are there any additions or corrections to the 1 1 minutes? I didn't find any. Hearing none, I'm asking for a motion to 2 approve the minutes. 3 4 Shipley: I move to approve the minutes. 5 6 Scholz: Is there a second? 7 8 (Inaudible) 9 10 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded, all those in favor, say aye. 11 12 ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS -AYE. 13 14 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. And abstentions, okay the minutes are 15 approved. Thank you gentlemen. 16 17 III. POSTPONEMENTS 18 19 Scholz: Next we have on our agenda postponements. Are there any 20 postponements, Staff? I didn't see any on our sheet. 21 22 Schuster: Mr. Chair, Staff is requesting postponement of Case PA-08-03. 23 24 Scholz: Okay, can you identify that for me, a little... 25 26 Schuster: It's number one under old business. 27 28 Scholz: This is the adoption of the Alameda Depot Neighborhood Plan? 29 30 Schuster: Yes. 31 32 Scholz: Why are we postponing this? 33 34 Schuster: Carol, would you like to speak? 35 36 Scholz: This is the third time, is it? Third time. 37 38 McCall: Thank you. Good evening. Carol McCall, Community Development 39 Department. Yes, this is regarding Case PA-08-03, a recommendation to 40 adopt the Alameda Depot Plan. The Plan was first presented in August as 41 you know. At that time the neighborhood associations asked for 42 postponement in order to make further changes to the Plan. Since that 43 time the two groups have worked together to identify the problem areas in 44 the Plan and they recently sent Staff changes that they would like to make 45 in the Plan and these are included in the packet that we sent to you. At 46 this point the revisions only exist as a list. The Plan has not incorporated 2 I them into a revised draft and I would like to have the opportunity for Staff 2 to meet with the organizations to discuss the revisions further and make 3 the changes that they're proposing and make sure they're okay from a 4 planning perspective and, as a writer, I just want to get clear that the text 5 is exactly the way everyone would like it to be. I'm real encouraged by the 6 work that the groups have done. They have done a great job so far and 7 they've showed unity and full support for the Plan. I think it will be real 8 important when the Plan goes forward to Council but I just think we need a 9 little bit more time to polish it up. 10 In addition, today I received a message from Paul Howard, a 11 Planner with the County, and they're are interested in talking to Planning 12 Staff with the City about the Alameda Depot Plan because of how their 13 plans with the judicial complex may impact the Plan and how the Plan may 14 impact their plans. They're discussing possible expansion of the judicial 15 complex and we haven't had a chance to date to discuss that. It's 16 something that just recently came up. So, in addition for that reason, 1 17 would like to request a postponement. 18 19 Scholz: Comments, gentlemen? Questions for Ms. McCall? 20 21 Shipley: Just one, an indefinite postponement? That's what it says. 22 23 McCall: Yes, and I apologize for that. But as you know the next P&Z meeting is 24 the week of Thanksgiving, the holidays. I actually think with regard to the 25 neighborhood associations that we can clean the Plan up very quickly. 1 26 just don't know. I hesitate to make a date specific just because of any 27 wrench that might get thrown into the works. I would prefer that it not be 28 just because something unexpected may come up. 29 30 Scholz: Other questions, gentlemen, comments? I'm wondering about the 31 postponements and the reason I'm wondering is because I don't, I've 32 never had a plan or worked on a plan that everyone agreed on, ever. 33 There's always been some compromise people say, "Oh, what the heck, 34 I'm willing to do this and that or I'm willing to go along with this or 35 whatever." I'm not opening this to public comment, sir, sorry. So you 36 think there's a possibility that everyone will agree on everything? I find 37 that hard to believe. 38 39 McCall: Well, I... 40 41 Scholz: And I hate these delays. 42 43 McCall: I haven't had a lot of experience with writing plans myself but the limited 44 experience that I've had with the Alameda Depot Plan, as you know, I'm 45 fairly new to this process. I've been on this project about a year but I am 46 very encouraged. I think that we are very close. The two groups are 3 Aft W 1 working together and they have discussed the changes that they are 2 proposing with the membership of their respective organizations. And the 3 changes that they have sent us so far, we've had a chance to look at. We 4 just haven't had a chance to meet with them yet and go over everything 5 and make sure that we understand exactly what they are asking for and 6 make sure that we're able to do what they want to do from a planning 7 perspective and from a City perspective, Public 8 Works, Facilities, that sort of thing. So there are some things that need to 9 be ironed out but I think we are very close. 10 11 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 12 13 Beard: I think if it's still active involvement and you're proceeding forward I think it 14 would be quite alright. 15 16 McCall: It definitely is not languishing. It has not been set aside. I guarantee you. 17 18 Scholz: Okay, I'll entertain a motion to postpone indefinitely. 19 20 Shipley: So moved. 21 22 Scholz: Is there a second? 23 24 Evans: I second. 25 26 Scholz: All those in favor say aye. 27 28 ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS - AYE. 29 30 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. And abstentions. Okay, it's 4 in favor, 1 31 opposed, 1 abstention. 32 33 McCall: Thank you. 34 35 IV. WITHDRAWALS 36 37 Scholz: Okay, any withdrawals? I didn't see any, no withdrawals, wonderful. 38 39 V. CONSENT AGENDA 40 41 Scholz: Okay, our next item is the consent agenda. Here's how the consent 42 agenda works. These items will be voted on by one motion of the 43 Commission for the acceptance of the agenda and Planning and Zoning 44 Commissioner, Staff or member of the public may remove any item from 45 the consent agenda for discussion by the Commission and if that happens 46 it will go to the first place on new business. 4 1 2 1. Case Z2770: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 3 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 1.66 +/- acres located at 4 1601 N. Main Street. The zone change will bring the property into zoning 5 compliance, based on the overall size of the property exceeding the one (1) 6 acre maximum size for commercial properties within the C-2 (Commercial 7 Medium Intensity) zoning district. Submitted by Daryl Shepherd, property 8 owner. 9 10 Scholz: Okay, first of all it's Case Z2770 request for zone change from C-2 to C-3 11 at 1601 North Main. Poll? You would like to discuss this, Secretary 12 Shipley? 13 14 Shipley: Yes. 15 16 Scholz: Okay, that will be number one on our new business. 17 18 2. Case Z2771: A request for a zone change from UR (Urban Ranch 1981 19 Zoning Code) to EE (Single-Family Equestrian Estate & Agriculture) for 2.26 20 +/- acres located at 4841 Dunn Drive. The property's current zoning 21 designation of UR (Urban Ranch 1981 Zoning Code) has been eliminated 22 from the 2001 Zoning Code, as amended. The zone change request will 23 bring the property into zoning compliance. Submitted by Joe Holguin for 24 Andres and Francisca Armenta, property owners. 25 26 Scholz: Okay, the second one is Case Z2771, request zone change from UR 27 (Urban Ranch to EE (Single-Family Equestrian) at 4841 Dunn Drive. 28 Anyone want to speak to this one on the Commission? No? You would 29 like to speak to this, ma'am? Okay, fine. I'll put it on the second item on 30 new business. Thank you. 31 32 (Inaudible) 33 34 Scholz: No, as long as it's put on new business I'll open it to public discussion. 35 36 3. Case Z2772: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 37 Intensity) to C-3C (Commercial High Intensity-Conditional) for 1.29 +/- acres 38 located west of El Paseo Road on the north side of Boutz Road. The zone 39 change will bring the property into zoning compliance, based on the overall 40 size of the property exceeding the one (1) acre maximum size for 41 commercial properties within the C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) zoning 42 district. Submitted by Harcharan Singh Banwait, property owner. 43 44 Scholz: Okay, number three, Case Z2772, request for a zone change from C-2 45 Commercial to C-3 on the west side of EI Paseo Road and north side of 46 Boutz Road. Any Commissioners want to speak to that? Anyone from the 47 public speak to that? Okay, that will remain on the consent agenda. 5 1 2 4. Case S-08-083: A request for final plat approval for right-of-way dedication 3 known as Kennedy Road, Replat No. 2. The final plat proposes to dedicate 4 40 feet of right-of-way to the City of Las Cruces. The subject property 5 consists of 2.39 ± acres of which 0.23 ± acres is the right of way dedication. 6 The subject property is located west of Elks Drive and north of Hatfield Road 7 at 1092 Kennedy Road. Submitted by Center Line Services, LLC for Centro 8 Familiar Manantial De Vida. 9 10 Scholz: And number four is Case S-08-083, request for final plat approval for right- 11 of-way dedication known as Kennedy Road, replat No. 2. Anyone need to 12 speak to that on the Commission? No? The public? Alright, I'll entertain 13 a motion then to accept... 14 15 (Inaudible) 16 17 Scholz: You want to speak to that? Okay, I'll put that as the third item on new 18 business. Thank you very much. That leaves Case Z2772. I'd entertain a 19 motion to accept that as part of the consent agenda. 20 21 Shipley: Move to approve the consent item number three, Case Z2772. 22 23 Scholz: Is there a second? 24 25 Crane: Second. 26 27 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. 28 29 ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS -AYE. 30 31 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. And abstentions. Okay, that passes. 32 33 VI. OLD BUSINESS 34 35 1. Case Z2766: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 36 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for three (3) distinct properties 37 located at 304, 308, 320 Wyatt Drive and 1160 EI Paseo Drive. The 38 properties have a combined area of 9.660 +/- acres all being utilized as a 39 shopping center. The zone change will bring the property into zoning 40 compliance, based on the overall size of the property exceeding the one (1) 41 acre maximum size for commercial properties within the C-2 (Commercial 42 Medium Intensity) zoning district. Submitted by BRG Engineering for EI 43 Paseo Las Cruces Pros Re, LLC. 44 45 Scholz: Okay, under old business we've dropped the first one Case PA-08-03 so 46 we are up to the second one. This is Case Z2766. Here's how the 6 1 procedure works in case you're not familiar with it. The City makes its 2 presentation then the applicant makes his or her presentation then we 3 open it to public discussion then we close it to public discussion and the 4 Commissioners discuss and vote on it. Okay, who's up, Mr. White. 5 6 White: For the record, James White, Community Development Department. The 7 first case this evening is Case Z2766. It is a request for a zone change 8 from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High 9 Intensity) for three distinct properties located at 304, 308, 320 Wyatt Drive 10 and 1160 EI Paseo Drive. What we are looking for property is probably a 11 shopping center there at the corner of EI Paseo and Wyatt Drive and 12 based upon the three lots have a combined acreage of 9.6 acres 13 combined we look at the Zoning Code there; the maximum threshold for 14 properties zoned C-2 is 43,560 square feet. C-3 does not have the 15 maximum threshold so based upon that the three distinct properties are 16 seeking a zone change to C-3 respectively. Here's a zoning map showing 17 the general vicinity and general area. Currently there's a shopping center 18 that goes across these entire three tracts of land. What's interesting to 19 note about this tract three here which is located here on EI Paseo, it's 20 actually land locked. If we looked at the vicinity map here, there's a tract 21 of land to the rear of the property and a tract of land in front. So in theory, 22 this property is currently land locked. There's currently a driveway system 23 that accesses the property in this general location here or you get ingress 24 and egress off of Wyatt Drive, as well. The applicant is currently working 25 on pursuing a shared access agreement to have legal access to this tract 26 of land located here. And recently, what we have been doing this general 27 area you've seen a lot of zoning conversions up this portion of EI Paseo 28 Drive regarding the acreage requirements from the C-2, C-3 zoning 29 districts. As stipulated earlier current use is a shopping center. The zone 30 change is from C-2 to C-3. The zone change request will bring the 31 properties into compliance with the 2001 Zoning Code as amended. The 32 property at 1160 EI Paseo Road is currently land locked. Here are some 33 site photos of the property in question showing the parking areas here, 34 showing in the background here a portion of a shopping center. The 35 reason it was postponed from last month is that there was trepidation and 36 questions regarding the actual buildings and how they actually located on 37 the property. So the applicant's agents submitted to Staff an improvement 38 survey of the property. The biggest issue was since you have three 39 distinct lot lines that ran across this property, about right in here and right 40 in here, Staff want be make certain there wasn't any setback related 41 issues regarding the actual structures. Based upon the improvements 42 survey, which you actually have a zero foot side yard setback between the 43 buildings, so regarding the setback related issue all three of the buildings 44 are in compliance with the required setback for the C-2 or C-3 zoning 45 district. Again, you show the area of parking located in here, it has a 46 relatively large parking area. It also shows the ingress and egress point 7 Awk 0 1 from EI Paseo via this area here. This is the MPO Thoroughfare Plan 2 pretty much noting the actual roadway configurations in the general area. 3 Of course what you going to be seeing later this night and also with this 4 case is that blue actually identifies a Principle Arterial roadway. Of 5 course, this section of EI Paseo is fully built out. On the western boarder 6 you have Wyatt, which also becomes Campo located here, which is 7 actually classified as a Minor Arterial. What you notice these little circles 8 in here, which actually identifies is the closest location to bus stops or bus 9 shelters. Where you see this green slash black, it means there's actually 10 a physical shelter there located and, of course, you can look at the 11 surrounding zoning pattern of the area. Staff recommendation is for 12 conditional approval for this case. The condition Staff recommends is 13 regarding the Shared Access Agreement for the property located 1160 EI 14 Paseo Road which will be filed with the County Clerk prior to final 15 consideration of the zone change by City Council. In a nutshell what 16 actually occurs we don't want the zone change to go forward without have 17 the adequate shared access agreement because in theory, you don't want 18 to re-zone property that has access related issues. That will end Staff 19 presentation. I will be glad to stand for any questions this Board may have 20 this evening. 21 22 Scholz: Okay, questions for Mr. White? Yes, Commissioner Shipley. 23 24 Shipley: Yes, just two. On that map right there, that's good if you will pull that back 25 up. Where does Campo change? Is it at Arizona where it stops and 26 becomes Wyatt or does it stop at the intersection? 27 28 White: This is actually a better map to show. It actually, it picks up at Arizona. 29 This area right here, these addresses, this tract of land is actually 30 addressed off of Wyatt Drive. I think it's 320. So, if you notice here 31 Campo Street picks up here at the intersection of Arizona. 32 33 Shipley: It stops at Arizona? 34 35 White: Correct. 36 37 Shipley: Okay. The other thing, isn't there also a bus shelter or a bus stop right on 38 the corner on Wyatt that's not depicted on the chart? 39 40 White: The reason for it is that used to be the, I guess you would call it, the transit 41 location located here on Wyatt Drive but it's not in operation anymore. 42 The bus shelter that was located here has actually been relocated to the 43 Amador site right now. It used to be a transfer point for the Transit 44 Department. 45 46 Shipley: Thank you. 8 loRk 1 2 Scholz: Any other questions for Mr. White? Okay, is the applicant here? 3 Something you would like to add to the presentation? Well, why don't you 4 say that to the, you know, introduce yourself and say that to the mike 5 anyway. 6 7 McMillan: For the record, my name is Chris McMillan. I'm with BRG Engineering. 8 We are representing our client on this. I don't have anything to add to Mr. 9 White's presentation other than that we are working with him and with the 10 clients to secure the access agreement for the rear of the building. The 11 three lots are owned by the same person so if we need to, we have 12 access through the adjacent lot which does have access to EI Paseo but 13 we are working with the owner of this lot just the east of us to provide 14 access to the rear of the building to the loading docks and trash areas, 15 things like that. 16 17 Scholz: Right. Yeah and I think the idea is to have access to it so in case the 18 property is sold it's a separate property. 19 20 McMillan: Yes. 21 22 Scholz: Then it's not liable. Okay, anyone from the public who would like to speak 23 to this? Yes, sir, please identify yourself. 24 25 Pearson: George Pearson. I have a question. I believe parking is part of the zoning 26 requirements, I was wondering if the bicycle parking that's part of the Las 27 Cruces Code is going to be implemented for this facility. 28 29 Scholz: That's something we would have to ask the Staff. Staff? And Mr. White 30 steps up. 31 32 White: Chair Scholz, to answer that question, Staff did a full evaluation of the 33 parking, the vehicular parking, also the bicycle parking and some of the 34 general discussion was to decrease some of the existing vehicular parking 35 and make into bicycle parking. So, that discussion has been rendered 36 and, I believe, in talking to the applicant that will be taken care of. 37 38 Scholz: Okay, thank you. Anyone else from the public want to speak to this? 39 Okay, I'm going to close it for public discussion. Gentlemen, what are 40 your comments? Questions? Okay, I'll entertain a motion approve this 41 with the condition and the condition is on page 5 where it says 42 recommendation one. 43 44 Shipley: So I move to approve Case Z2766 with a recommendation that the Shared 45 Access Agreement for the property located at 1160 EI Paseo Road will be 9 I Shipley: So I move to approve Case Z2766 with a recommendation that the Shared 2 Access Agreement for the property located at 1160 EI Paseo Road will be 3 filed with the County Clerk prior to final consideration of this zoning 4 change by the City Council 5 6 Scholz: Okay, is there a second to that motion? 7 8 Iserman: Second. 9 10 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. I'll call the role. Commissioner Shipley. 11 12 Shipley: Aye, findings, site visit. 13 14 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 15 16 Crane: Aye, findings, Staff recommendation and site visit. 17 18 Scholz: Commissioner Iserman. 19 20 Iserman: Aye, findings (inaudible). 21 22 Scholz: Okay, thank you. Be sure to speak into the mike otherwise it won't be 23 picked up. Commissioner Evans. 24 25 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 26 27 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 28 29 Beard: Aye, findings and discussions. 30 31 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion and site visit. Well, that's 32 passed 6-0. 33 34 2. ZCA-08-03: A request to amend Chapter 38, 43 (C) of the Municipal Code, 35 correcting previous zoning map errors within and around the CBD (Central 36 Business District). The zoning map amendment will provide correction for 37 Areas "A", "B" and "C" respectively. The zoning map amendments are as 38 follows: 39 40 Area "A"- The properties located at 887, 867, 717, 709 and 705 N. Main 41 Street existing parcel boundaries will coincide with the Central Business 42 District (CBD) zoning boundaries. 43 44 Area "13% The properties located at 339, 337, 331 N. Alameda and 331 W. 45 Las Cruces, 334 W. Griggs will be removed from within the Central Business 46 District (CBD) zoning district. 10 0 1 Area "C"- The properties located at 224 S. Alameda, 390 S. Alameda 2 existing parcel boundaries will coincide with the Central Business District 3 (CBD) zoning district. The properties located due south of 405 W. Griggs 4 (no physical address-property owner Darby) and the property located due 5 west of 230 S. Alameda will be placed within the Central Business District 6 (CBD). 7 8 Submitted by the City of Las Cruces. 9 10 Scholz: Okay, our next item of old business is a request to amend Chapter 38, 43 11 (C) of the Municipal Code correcting previous zoning map errors within 12 and around the CDB (Central Business District). Mr. White. 13 14 White: Yes, the second case we are hearing this evening is regarding a mapping 15 error that occurred through Ordinance 1604. Case ZCA-08-03 is a 16 request to amend Chapter 38, Article 5 of the Municipal Code regarding 17 properties in and around the Central Business District. Case specifics: on 18 August 6, 1990, Ordinance 1161 amended Section 6-2D and 6-2F of the 19 1981 Zoning Code creating a Central Business District. The actual zone 20 change that actually brought those properties into the CBD zoning district 21 is actually Ordinance 1162 which rezoned the subject properties from C4, 22 which at that time was known as Central Business District and DM, 23 Downtown Mall District to the CBD District. And very briefly going through 24 Ordinance 1161, really what you are looking, it actually gave credence 25 and created an urban design element regarding the Central Business 26 District. It also had permitted uses which previously wasn't actually 27 defined in the C4 Central Business District. The issue and mapping errors 28 occurred with the introduction of Ordinance 1604, which also created what 29 we know as the Main Street Overlay. The Main Street Overlay currently is 30 the Downtown Mall. It was actually adopted by City Council on March 24, 31 1997 but it also created various mapping errors; pretty much the western 32 periphery of the Central Business District. If you remember last month the 33 P & Z Commission approved a portion of this case. It was the Intermodal 34 Center that was on September 23, 2008. The final consideration by City 35 Council will be on November 24, 2008. And just very briefly, this is a tract 36 of land which is know as the Intermodal Center that will be forwarded to 37 the City Council for final consideration on November 24, 2008. Currently 38 the property is zoned C-2. The property last night went to City Council for 39 first read and is anticipated to be final consideration on November 24th. 40 Going back to what we are speaking about this evening, there's 41 three sub areas known Sub Area A, B and C. We start with the northern 42 portion of the Central Business District; identifying point here is Picacho 43 Avenue located here. Currently these properties here, let's start with the 44 Area A. Area A, if you notice is talking about what we are trying to do. 45 There's a small, small segment roughly about ten feet of these properties 46 here that are currently zoned C-1 C. So what the mapping (inaudible) 11 Aft I would actually do is push the Central Business District to the western 2 property boundary. So just trying to show you exactly what we are 3 speaking about is very minor issues just like this that we are talking about 4 this evening. 5 Again, here is Ordinance 1161 that actually created the delineation 6 of the Central Business District. This one is kind of difficult to read but this 7 was the actual specified Central Business District boundaries as outlined 8 in 1990 when the Main Street Overlay was created; the area shaded in 9 here is the actual Main Street Overlay Plaza or the Downtown Mall area. 10 But what we are looking at this evening is the actual external boundaries 11 in this area here. What you're looking at here, if you look at these little 12 circle areas here, these are the areas that we are discussing this evening 13 with the exception of the area up here which was Area A, which is just 14 pushing out the actual Central Business District to match the western 15 boundary. These are the tracts we are speaking about his evening. 16 Here's showing the specific Zoning Amendments that we are discussing 17 this evening as outlined earlier: Area A is the pinkish area located here; 18 Area B is the centralized portion of the Central Business District. What we 19 are doing with these parcels in here is actually we would take them out of 20 the Central Business District. The rational reason for that is that they are 21 currently zoned, if you notice here, there's underlying zoning on these 22 tracts of land currently so they have permitted uses by right. Area C is 23 really a hodge-podge of Area A and Area B. What's occurring here is that 24 we are eliminating this tract here and this tract here from the Central 25 Business District and we're including this tract located right here and the 26 tract located due west of 230 South Alameda into the Central Business 27 District based upon the original ordinance and the intent of 1161. Based 28 upon all the changes we are making, this is going to be the new specified 29 CBD district boundary map. Again, Area A is located here. We've done 30 some elimination in the central area. Also the western area and this right 31 here is the integration of the intermodal center into the Central Business 32 District. The Staff recommendation is for approval without conditions and 33 based upon this being a Zoning Code Amendment it requires final action 34 by City Council at a later date. That will end Staff presentation. I will be 35 glad to stand for any questions this Board may have. 36 37 Scholz: Gentlemen, questions for Mr. White. No? Okay, is there anyone from 38 Public who wants to speak to this? Okay, I'll close it to public discussion. 39 Gentlemen, I'll entertain a motion to accept Zoning Code Amendment, 40 excuse me, ZCA-08-03. 41 42 Crane: So moved. 43 44 Scholz: Is there a second? 45 46 Evans: I second. 12 1 2 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded, I'll call the role. Commissioner Shipley. 3 4 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 5 6 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 7 8 Crane: Aye, findings and discussion. 9 10 Scholz: Commissioner Iserman. 11 12 Iserman: Aye, findings and discussion. 13 14 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 15 16 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 17 18 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 19 20 Beard: Aye, findings and discussions. 21 22 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings and discussion. That's passed 6-0. 23 24 VII. NEW BUSINESS 25 26 1. Case Z2770: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 27 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 1.66 +/- acres located at 28 1601 N. Main Street. The zone change will bring the property into zoning 29 compliance, based on the overall size of the property exceeding the one (1) 30 acre maximum size for commercial properties within the C-2 (Commercial 31 Medium Intensity) zoning district. Submitted by Daryl Shepherd, property 32 owner. 33 34 Scholz: Okay, that brings us to items of new business now and the first one we're 35 going to take up is one of those that was on the consent agenda. It's 36 Case Z2770 a request for zone change from C-2 (Commercial) to C-3 37 (Commercial High Intensity). Mr. White? You're a busy man tonight. 38 39 White: I sure am. This is the third time I've been to the podium. Case Z2770 is a 40 request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C- 41 3C (Commercial High Intensity Conditional) for roughly 1.66 acres located 42 at 1601 North Main Street. Again, what you are looking at is a zoning 43 conversion. 44 This property came in for a business registration to the City of Las 45 Cruces and at that time we identified that based upon the acreage of the 46 property it was not in compliance with the C-2 zoning district. So the 13 I applicant brought forth a zone change to try to make it in compliance with 2 the 2001 Zoning Code. I won't have to go through this slide again; we 3 saw it earlier this evening regarding the conversion process from C-2 to C- 4 3. Here's a zoning map just trying to show you the general area, of course 5 North Main Street is known as a principle arterial fully built out. Subject 6 property is located here. If you look to the west you have residential area 7 zoned R-1 a, which is Single Family Residential, 5,000 square feet. But in 8 this area of North Main, if you look here you have a lot of commercially 9 zoned property that is zoned C-2 to the north, I mean to the south and 10 north respectively. Current use of the property is an auto dealership, also 11 a repair shop. The auto dealership is located on the northern portion of 12 the property; the repair shop is located on the southern portion. The 13 property is zoned C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity), the request again is 14 a C-3. 15 Going back to the property let's just discuss a couple of things that 16 Staff saw when they were evaluating the property. The biggest issue you 17 have with the property that makes it kind of challenging is that it's actually 18 located in an antiquated subdivision known as Armijo Subdivision. So it 19 technically it actually consists of three or four commercial lots and the 20 actual buildings actually straddle various lot lines. The other issue that we 21 also located was regarding the parking. This tract of land really has really 22 limited parking because the actual auto dealership is located on a northern 23 boundary and a majority of the paved area is actually identified for parking 24 of inventory. There is a small area adjacent to the building on both the 25 north and south sides that is dedicated for I would call it either for 26 customer parking. There's also, if you've been out to this actual tract of 27 land, you do see a lot of off site parking on the street here known as Ethel 28 Drive. So, that's one issue the Staff is evaluating and based upon the 29 evaluation that if the application perceives any renovation or remodeling 30 exceeding $25,000.00 on the property the applicant would have to meet 31 two different criteria: number one is regarding landscaping. The actual 32 property actually has no landscaping and another issue regarding parking. 33 Staff did a count of parking on the general property and there is roughly 34 about six parking stalls available on the southern side and there is a few 35 on the northern side and the applicant went ahead and there was an issue 36 with there was no actually any ADA compliant parking stalls. So the 37 applicant actually, the property went in and installed three additional 38 parking stalls specifically for ADA compliance on the northern property 39 boundary. I did go out there and verify that the signage was up. 40 We are looking at the MPO Thoroughfare Plan very briefly; just 41 want to note that where you see these black dots this evening, this 42 identifies that these are bus stops but they are not improved. The closest 43 improved bus stop is located down here in this general area here to the 44 south. Aerial photograph pretty much depicting what I was speaking 45 about regarding the inventory of the vehicles for sale located here, in this 46 area here. You do have some parking located on the actual northern 14 I portion of this building here and in this area here. Predominantly most of 2 the parking on the southern portion is really related more to the auto repair 3 business. And again, you do have some off street parking here on Ethel 4 Drive. This is looking at the southern portion of the property, the actual 5 service bays. 6 The Staff recommendation is for conditional approval. The 7 condition is the applicant will be required to replat lots 20, 21, 23 and 22 of 8 the Armijo Subdivision therefore correcting any setback related issues 9 caused by the existing buildings on the property. The subdivision replat 10 will need to be completed prior to the business registration renewal for 11 2009. That will end Staff presentation. I will be glad to stand for any 12 questions this Board may have this evening. 13 14 Scholz: Okay, Commissioner Shipley, you had a question. 15 16 Shipley: Yes, Mr. White, just one. On the second page of your brief it says the 17 businesses also use the on street parking on Ethel Avenue. Staff 18 observed approximately and then there's nothing in there for vehicles. 19 Was there six, eight, ten? 20 21 White: The reason for that is that there is also an auto repair business located 22 due south. 23 24 Shipley: No, I was just wondering, how many vehicles did you observe? 25 26 White: Roughly, about six. 27 28 Shipley: Six? Okay. 29 30 Scholz: Okay, any other questions for Mr. White? Okay, anyone from the 31 audience want to comment on this issue? Yes, sir. At the microphone, 32 identify yourself, please. 33 34 Payne: My name is Lamar Payne. I'm a neighbor of the area there. At least I own 35 a house there. I own a house on the corner of Ethel and Park which is 36 right across the street from the dealership. I'm coming forward to say that 37 there is too much noise in the neighborhood as it is at this point. I've 38 moved from the area. I now live up in Dona Ana, I still own the home and 1 39 may be moving back but I do not want to being moving back into an area 40 that is substantially noisier than it is at this point. 41 42 Scholz: Okay. 43 44 Payne: So I respectfully request your attention on that area. Thank you. 45 15 I Scholz: Thank you. Anyone want to speak to this? Okay, I'm going to close it for 2 public discussion. Commissioners, what is your wish? 3 4 Shipley: I have one more question, Mr. Chairman. 5 6 Scholz: Yes, go ahead. 7 8 Shipley: In the recommendation it says the applicant will be required to do the 9 replats and will need to be done prior to the business registrations renewal 10 in 2009, when in 2009 will it be, he's just doing the licensing now for 2008. 11 Is that correct? 12 13 James: Correct. I believe that Staff reviewed the business registration roughly, 14 probably two months ago so we are probably talking about August 2009. 15 16 Shipley: And how will that be monitored? In other words what triggers that to know 17 that you've got something that's gotta be done or else he doesn't get his 18 business license? 19 20 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Shipley, what we'll do is that this has to go 21 forward to City Council and be part of an Ordinance and then we'll have to 22 track it based upon the 2009 renewals. So we'll have to make a note in the 23 renewal file that when this comes up on 2009 that we verify that a replat 24 has been filed on the property. 25 26 Scholz: Okay, Mr. White, I have a question then concerning Mr. Payne's comment 27 about noise. This rezoning has nothing to do with that, right? 28 29 White: No, sir. Chair Scholz, it's going to be the exact use that's been there for 30 roughly I believe 20+ years. 31 32 Payne: (inaudible) 33 34 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I'll let you make another comment. 35 36 Payne: I understand that this... 37 38 Scholz: Identify yourself again, please. 39 40 Payne: Lamar Payne, neighbor. 41 42 Scholz: Thank you. 43 44 Payne: I understand that it is zoned R-2 at this point or C-2. I believe that when a 45 business is grandfathered in, is this when perhaps may have been, that if 46 they go ahead and resell or whatever the case that the grandfather clause 16 Aft Oak I did not apply. Okay. I do know that the gentleman that used to own the 2 business has died and so I think there might be something else going on 3 besides just changing it to bring it up to codes. I believe the codes are 4 being dealt with in a different way, thank you. 5 6 Scholz: Thank you. Ok, Commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to approve Z2770. 7 8 Shipley: With condition. 9 10 Scholz: With conditions, right and the conditions are on page 5 again. 11 12 Shipley: Okay, I so move. 13 14 Scholz: Is there a second? 15 16 Evans: I second. 17 18 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. I'll call the role. Commissioner Shipley. 19 20 Shipley: Aye, discussion, findings and site visit. 21 22 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 23 24 Crane: Aye, discussion, findings and site visit. 25 26 Scholz: Commissioner Iserman. 27 28 Iserman: Aye, findings and discussion. 29 30 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 31 32 Evans: Aye, discussion and findings. 33 34 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 35 36 Beard: Aye, findings and discussions. 37 38 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye, so it's passed 6-0. 39 40 2. Case Z2771: A request for a zone change from UR (Urban Ranch 1981 41 Zoning Code) to EE (Single-Family Equestrian Estate & Agriculture) for 2.26 42 +/- acres located at 4841 Dunn Drive. The property's current zoning 43 designation of UR (Urban Ranch 1981 Zoning Code) has been eliminated 44 from the 2001 Zoning Code, as amended. The zone change request will 45 bring the property into zoning compliance. Submitted by Joe Holguin for 46 Andres and Francisca Armenta, 17 1 2 Scholz: Okay, our next one is Case Z2771 and there was someone from the 3 audience that wanted to speak to this so, Mr. White, why don't you do your 4 presentation and then we'll check with the audience. 5 6 White: The next case this evening is Case Z2771. It is a request for a zone 7 change from UR, which is Urban Ranch 1981 Zoning Code to EE, which is 8 Single Family Equestrian Estate & Agriculture for 2.2 ± acres located at 9 4841 Dunn Drive. Just for clarification is that recently about two or three 10 weeks ago there was an addressing issue with the property and if you look 11 at the zoning maps which you have included it has 4846 located here and 12 4846 located above on the eastern or western side respectively. So Staff 13 went ahead and readdressed the property to 4841 so that's the new 14 corrected address for the property. 15 In respect to the general area very briefly is that Dunn Drive is 16 classified as a Minor Arterial requiring 100 feet of right-of-way. What's 17 interesting about Dunn Drive if you notice here, if you've been out to the 18 property, is the City has done full improvements on the western portion of 19 the property, on the western boundary of Dunn Drive. You have curbing, 20 you have sidewalk and you have street lighting. On the eastern portion it 21 is nonexistent. What I want to show here first is a zoning map of the area 22 and the reason I color coded the zoning map is just trying to show you that 23 what you're seeing is that what the applicant is requesting is for 24 Equestrian Estates. This is a 2001 zoning designation that requires the 25 one acre minimum lot size. If you notice, we still have pockets of 26 properties that are actually what I call they're nonconforming in nature 27 because they are zoned Urban Ranch. 28 Usually what transpires is that through the building permitting 29 process of planning examination process we find these kinds of issues 30 and we try to go ahead and rezone them. So what we are trying to do is 31 trying to zone it based upon the 2001 Zoning Code for the tract of land 32 here. I did discuss with the applicant's agent that the rational reason we 33 try to rezone this property is the potential of placing of one manufactured 34 home on the property. So any further development criteria will be based 35 upon the EE zoning designation of 2001 which requires a one acre 36 minimum lot size. As stipulated earlier to go down to point number three 37 Dunn Drive is classified as a Minor Arterial roadway. There has been full 38 roadway improvements done on the western peripheral of the roadway, 39 existing right-of-way dedicated to the City is roughly 60 feet and based 40 upon the City Subdivision Code pro-rata road improvements or dedication 41 may be warranted. Here's a 2001 Zoning Code based upon the intents 42 we try to convert the property from UR Urban Ranch to EE. Minimum lot 43 size is actually one acre. Maximum dwellings permitted is one for the 44 entire tract of land. The only way you could have additional dwelling units 45 would be to actually sub-divide the property and do the pro-rata road 46 improvements and dedication. 18 1 Here are the specified development requirements; minimum lot in 2 depth is 100 feet. Specified setbacks, maximum building height are 35 3 feet. Here's an MPO Thoroughfare Plan map showing the subject tract of 4 land is located here. It is roughly located, I would say, almost a mile back 5 to Bataan Memorial East and west respectively which the area located up 6 in here. Dunn Road is fully improved roughly to the south to Aldrich Road, 7 which is here, which is a planned Collector road where connecting back 8 out. There is City utilities such as sanitary and sewer available only to this 9 actual north of the property and, I believe, looking at the utility core 10 comments earlier this afternoon, City utility lines regarding sanitary sewer 11 is right here at Cortez Drive. So this tract of land if it's going to be 12 developed or place a manufactured home will be required to have a liquid 13 waste permit issued by the State of New Mexico for a septic tank. The 14 applicant has obtained a septic tank permit for the property in question this 15 evening. Aerial view showing the type of development pattern you have in 16 the area. You have a mixture of development, you have manufactured 17 homes, and you have a few site built homes in the area. 18 The Staff recommendation is approval with the following conditions: 19 the applicant will be required to maintain a minimum front yard setback of 20 45 feet for all structures adjacent to Dunn Drive. Pretty much when you 21 look at this from a planning perspective what the City is trying to say is 22 that, yes, in case something occurs on the property that the City would 23 have to widen the road which is more unlikely because it's fully built on the 24 western portion; that the City is not buying actual structures, just right-of- 25 way. And of course, this is more of a statement than an actual condition. 26 It's pretty much stipulating that upon the request for a building permit, or in 27 this case, a mobile home installation permit, pursuant to Section 32-36 of 28 the City of Las Cruces Design Standards, the applicant may be required to 29 dedicate additional right-of-way for Dunn Drive via a dedication plat. And 30 of course since this is also a Zoning Ordinance it has to go forward to City 31 Council on a future date. Just wanted to say I will be glad to stand for any 32 questions or comments that this Board or the public has regarding this 33 case. 34 35 Scholz: Okay, questions for Mr. White. Commissioner Shipley. 36 37 Shipley: I guess, Mr. White, I'm the question man tonight. On the plat that we 38 received it shows that there currently, if the proposed dwelling is 75 feet 39 from Dunn Road, is that correct? 40 41 White: That is correct. 42 43 Shipley: So that means that the road is already improved so there shouldn't be any 44 problem with that setback. Could they lose 20 more feet? 45 19 I White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Shipley that is correct. Really the intention of 2 that condition was that if there was a rock wall built or any other structure 3 that is just moved back a little bit but the 75 feet as shown on the site plan 4 is adequate. 5 6 Shipley: But is there a chance that there could be, required to be dedicate 20 feet 7 more? Or have they done that already? 8 9 White: Chair Shipley, Commissioner Scholz, no. Currently there is 60 foot of 10 right-of-way and how development is driven is that you have to get a pro- 11 rata share. Dunn Drive requires a 100 foot of total right-of-way so in 12 theory if these areas was to be subdivided the property on the western 13 portion is required to give 20 feet and the property on the eastern portion 14 will be required to give the exact same 20 feet. But based upon the Staff 15 evaluation of review it is highly unlikely that the City would come in, do 16 another grade of dedication on it for 20 feet on the western portion, tear up 17 the sidewalks, tear up street lights and then rebuild it. 18 19 Shipley: Okay. 20 21 Scholz: Okay, all right. We'll open this for public discussion. There was someone 22 from the public who wanted to speak to this? Yes, ma'am, please come 23 up to the microphone, identify your self. 24 25 Beach: I'm Betty Jean Beach and I live at 4775, excuse me, I've got allergies. 1 26 live west of this property and I just wanted to find out, are you going to 27 allow them to have animals there, horses, cows, whatever? Because all 28 the rest of the property west of Dunn Drive, I don't know of any cows or 29 horses there. But now on the east side there are a lot of horses. 30 31 Scholz: Okay. 32 33 Beach: Because I don't want them right there in my... My house is built close to 34 the border, the property line and I don't want a lot of dust and flies and 35 smells. 36 37 Scholz: Here's what it says: In keeping with the intent of the former Urban Ranch 38 zoning designation the EE, Single Family Equestrian Estates & Agriculture 39 zoning will also allow the keeping of large animals on semi urban 40 residential lots. The Municipal Code, and then it gives the article and the 41 section, zoning district provides that, provided that the large animals are 42 kept a minimum of 35 feet from adjacent residences on lots greater than a 43 half acre size. 44 45 Beach: Well, mine is, I don't know whether you can see it up there but it's just 46 west of the property that is... 20 1 2 Scholz: Are you on, what is that road, Carter Road? 3 4 Beach: No, I'm back behind. Theirs is listed as Dunn Drive and so is mine. 5 6 Scholz: Okay. 7 8 Beach: Mine is just to the left there and you can see where my house is. 9 10 Scholz: Yes, I see that. Well, they would have to... it's the large white object 11 there? 12 13 Beach: Yes. I will be close their property line. 14 15 Scholz: Well, they would have to keep any animals 35 feet from adjacent 16 residences on lots greater than a half acre. That's the Code. 17 18 Beach: Okay. What about holding ponds now? Are they required to have holding 19 ponds? Because it's a run off down from the mountains and it's going 20 across my property all the time. 21 22 Scholz: Mr. White, can you speak to that? I'll let Staff answer that. They know 23 more about this than I do. 24 25 White: Chair Scholz, I'll actually answer both questions. One question regarding 26 about, we talk about large animals; large animals are not defined in the 27 Zoning Code. They're actually defined in the Municipal Code Chapter 28 Seven. The only indication regarding zoning is based upon various zoning 29 districts that permit large animals. Currently in the Urban Ranch District or 30 the Equestrian Estates large animals are permitted based upon the criteria 31 mentioned earlier. Regarding detention/retention ponds, this tract of land 32 will be very similar what you see outside the periphery the City known 33 actually Territorial Zone that really what you have is on lot ponding based 34 upon the actual sheer size of the property. This property being 2.26 acres 35 in size that what they actually require do is on-lot ponding so you look at 36 the impervious surface area. Of course, if you're looking at a 37 manufactured home, that will equate the actual size of the manufactured 38 home. Also if they put in any crusher fine, graveling materials on the 39 property and then the ponding area will be according to that. 40 41 Scholz: Okay, does that answer your question, ma'am? 42 43 Beach: Well, I know that when we applied for, when we going to build our house, 44 that we had to have a ponding area on the, what do I want to say, the 45 paper that shows what we were going to do. We had to have a ponding 21 1 area and we have, I still have a big ponding area west of my house, but 2 where they are, all that is a runoff from their property across mine. 3 4 Scholz: Well, as I understood Mr. White that they would have to have a ponding 5 area. 6 7 Beach: Okay. Here are some other people that live close by. 8 9 Scholz: Okay. Will you identify yourself, ma'am? 10 11 Martinez: I'm Alice Martinez, 1 live at 4849 Dunn. I live north of the property. 12 13 Scholz: Yes, go ahead. 14 15 Martinez: And I oppose for anybody to have large animals because of all the smell 16 and the dust and the flies. We're very comfortable right now where we are 17 with no large animals around. There was a neighbor that had a large, that 18 had a horse in back of us and they took it out because of the same 19 reason, because of the smell and because of the flies that are around and 20 1 really oppose of it. 21 22 Scholz: Okay, well that's a Code issue. That's not a zoning issue and what you'll 23 have to do is probably speak to your City Councillor about that, about 24 getting the Code changed because we can't deal with that here, I'm sorry. 25 26 Gordon: My name is John Gordon. We own two properties on Dunn Drive, 4850 27 and 5017 and we were a little concerned about the fly problem, the smell, 28 the odor and that and when we saw Equestrian Estates we were under the 29 impression that they could have multiple horses. Is that true or are they 30 just allowed one horse per acre or one large animal? 31 32 Scholz: I don't know the Code. I think Mr. White has the answer though. He's 33 chomping at the bit there, figuratively speaking. 34 35 White: To discuss Chapter 7 of the Municipal Code is not something that is 36 actually germane to the Zoning Code, Chair, but what actually transpires 37 is that it's evaluated by the Code Enforcement Division for the City of Las 38 Cruces. What transpires usually is that you put an application in for x, y, z 39 like you stipulated earlier that the minimum lot size is one half acre 40 minimum, they also look at zoning districts based upon lot size. It is 41 permissible in either the Urban Ranch or Equestrian Estates and then it 42 gets evaluated, as stipulated earlier, that you can't have a horse or large 43 animal 35 feet from adjacent structure. I think there's also some State 44 regulations regarding location of water tanks or septic tanks as well, but 45 from a zoning perspective that is handled through a different department. 46 22 1 Scholz: Okay, thank you. Anyone else want to speak to this? I'll close it then to 2 public discussion, Commissioners. Commissioner Crane. 3 4 Crane: I'm curious as to whether with the current zoning for Urban Ranch, are 5 horses or other large animals prohibited and if we therefore put it into 6 Equestrian Estates zoning they will be permitted? In other words, is our 7 action tonight going to have any influence on this animal question? 8 9 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Crane, Municipal Code Chapter 7 identifies 10 that large animals are permitted in either the UR zoning designation or EE, 11 so there's no difference from rezoning the property from UR to EE 12 respectively. 13 14 Crane: Thank you. 15 16 Scholz: Okay, Commissioners, any other questions, comments? Alright, I'll 17 entertain a motion to approve Case Z2771 with the conditions and the 18 conditions are on page three. 19 20 Shipley: Do you want me to read them? Okay. 21 22 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley. 23 24 Shipley: I move to approve Case Z2771 with two conditions: the applicant will be 25 required to maintain minimum front yard setback of 45 feet for all 26 structures adjacent to Dunn Drive; and number two, upon the request for a 27 building permit pursuant to Section 32-36 of the City of Las Cruces Design 28 Standards, the applicant may be required to dedicate an additional 20 feet 29 of right-of-way for Dunn Drive via a dedication plat. 30 31 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved. Is there a second? 32 33 Crane: Second. 34 35 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. I'll call the role. Commissioner Shipley. 36 37 Shipley: Aye, discussion, findings and site visit. 38 39 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 40 41 Crane: Aye, discussions, finding and site visit. 42 43 Scholz: Commissioner Iserman. 44 45 Iserman: Aye, findings, discussion. 46 23 AdIkk I Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 2 3 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 4 5 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 6 7 Beard: Aye, findings and discussions. 8 9 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion and site visit. Ok, passed 10 6-0. 11 12 3. Case S-08-083: A request for final plat approval for right-of-way dedication 13 known as Kennedy Road, Replat No. 2. The final plat proposes to dedicate 14 40 feet of right-of-way to the City of Las Cruces. The subject property 15 consists of 2.39 ± acres of which 0.23 ± acres is the right of way dedication. 16 The subject property is located west of Elks Drive and north of Hatfield Road 17 at 1092 Kennedy Road. Submitted by Center Line Services, LLC for Centro 18 Familiar Manantial De Vida. 19 20 Scholz: Okay, our final item of new, New Business is S-08-083 and this is 21 approval of the Final Plat for Kennedy Road Replat No. 2. Ms. 22 Rodriguez. 23 24 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, the members of the public who pulled this off of the consent 25 agenda, I met with them out in the foyer and answered their questions and 26 1 explained to them the purpose of the Dedication Plat for the right-of-way 27 for Kennedy Road and they were satisfied with my response and therefore 28 they have left the public hearing. Is it the Commission's choice to hear the 29 presentation or would you like to go ahead and vote on it as it was on the 30 consent agenda, if there is any other members of the public who would 31 like to hear it as well? 32 33 Scholz: Are you going to wear your Helen Revels mask to do this? 34 35 Rodriguez: No, but Gary will, so... 36 37 Scholz: Okay, gentlemen, do you want to hear this? Since the public appears to 38 be satisfied. I will open it to public discussion if there is any member of 39 the public who wants to comment on this. No? All right, I'll close it for 40 public discussion. I'll entertain a motion to accept the Case S-08-083 41 approval of the Final Plat, Kennedy Road. 42 43 Evans: I move to accept Case S-08-083. 44 45 Scholz: Is there a second? 46 24 1 Iserman: Second. 2 3 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded, I'll call the role. Commissioner Shipley. 4 5 Shipley: Aye, findings and discussion. 6 7 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 8 9 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 10 11 Scholz: Commissioner Iserman. 12 13 Iserman: Aye, findings, discussion. 14 15 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 16 17 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 18 19 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 20 21 Beard: Aye, findings and discussions. 22 23 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion and site visit. Okay, that's 24 passed 6-0. 25 26 4. Case A1676: A request for a variance of two (2) feet from the minimum 27 required side yard setback of five (5) feet for property located at 210 28 Broadview Court. The subject property encompasses 0.19 ± acres and is 29 zoned R-1aM (Single-Family Medium Density Mobile). The applicant is 30 requesting a variance to allow the continued use of an attached side yard 31 porch built without a building permit. The 224 square foot porch is attached 32 to an existing mobile home approximately three (3) feet from the eastern 33 side yard property boundary. The porch encroaches two (2) feet into the 34 minimum required five (5) foot side yard setback. Submitted by Lupe 35 Marquez, property owner. 36 37 Scholz: Okay, now we are to the first item on new business and, Mr. Ochoa, it 38 looks like you're up. This is Case A1676. 39 40 Ochoa: Good evening. For the record, Adam Ochoa, Community Development 41 Department, close. 42 43 Scholz: I'll get it. 44 45 Ochoa: Next case we got tonight this evening is Case A1676. It's a request for a 46 variance from the minimum required side yard setback for a property 25 I located at 210 Broadview Court. Subject property encompasses .19 +/- 2 acres and is zoned R-1aM which is Single-Family Medium Density Mobile. 3 For code requirements under Article 4, Section 38-31d, development 4 standards for residential zoning districts for R-1aM the minimum building 5 setbacks are: the front yard setback is 15 feet, side yard setback which is 6 what we will be looking at in this case is 5 feet and the rear yard setback 7 will be 20 feet. Some specifics about this case is again, subject property 8 is R-1aM (Single-Family Medium Density Mobile). 9 Applicant is requesting a variance to allow the continued use of a 10 224 square foot attached side porch that was built approximately three 11 feet from the side property boundary without a permit. The porch 12 encroaches two feet into the required minimum 5 foot side yard set back. 13 Applicant has stated that the porch was built without the applicant knowing 14 that a building permit was required and applicant has also stated that 15 having the porch removed at this time would be a major financial burden 16 on the applicant. 17 Here's the vicinity map of the property. It's around the corner of the 18 cul-de-sac here off of Valley View and by the way of Elks. The whole area 19 there is zoned R-1 aM as well. Here are some site photos of the actual 20 porch right there. It is attached to the mobile home as you can see there 21 and the top photo over here actually shows you it is three feet away from 22 the side yard property line. Staff has received a letter supporting this, 1 23 guess, the allowance for keeping this porch by her neighbor, adjacent 24 neighbor that the porch is encroaching onto. Here is a site map right here, 25 just like I said, encroaches three feet into the side yard setback. 26 Findings is: Staff has reviewed has reviewed the variance request 27 and has concluded that no valid physical hardship exists for the subject 28 property as identified in the 2001 Zoning Code under Article 2, Section 38- 29 10. Staff recommends denial based on the preceding findings and options 30 are to approve the variance, approve the variance request with conditions 31 determined appropriate by the Planning and Zoning Commission or deny 32 the variance request. I stand for questions. 33 34 Scholz: Okay, questions for Mr. Ochoa. Yes, Commissioner Crane. 35 36 Crane: I noticed that this porch extends above the roof line by about a foot and a 37 half. Is that also a violation of Code? 38 39 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, no, sir, it does not. When an 40 accessory structure is attached to the main dwelling it can go as high as 41 35 feet, I believe is what the, is 35 feet which is the maximum. If it was 42 detached though, if it wasn't attached, it would have to be below the height 43 of the dwelling itself. 44 45 Crane: Thank you. 46 26 1 Ochoa: Yes, sir. 2 3 Scholz: Any other questions. Yes, Commissioner Shipley. 4 5 Shipley: Mr. Ochoa, could the trailer be moved three feet to the other direction and 6 that all be moved over to comply? Is the trailer on a pad or is just 7 strictly...? 8 9 Ochoa: I did not check with the property owner. I don't see her. The property 10 owner is here so she might be able to answer that question for you but I 11 do believe that the porch is also kind of set on foundation-blocks kinda 12 thing so it would a somewhat major movement for her as well but she will 13 answer that for you, sir. 14 15 Scholz: Okay, can we hear from the applicant, please? 16 17 Ochoa: I will go ahead and be translating for the applicant. 18 19 Marquez: Mi nombre es Lupe Marquez and (inaudible). 20 21 Ochoa: Okay, Commissioner Shipley, she says that there is a gas meter in the 22 way for her and I believe there is a rock wall kind of restricting the bottom 23 of the trailer that would cost her a lot more than anything else so she's 24 basically just trying to seek this variance is what she is trying to do. 25 26 Shipley: Could you put back up the, not the picture but the requirements, setback 27 requirements that you showed initially? So 15 feet in front and as I looked 28 at the diagram she's got 34 feet in the front. 29 30 Ochoa: That is correct. 31 32 Shipley: Okay. I'm just trying to figure out a way that she might be able to do 33 something that would be able to decrease the side maybe there and 34 extend it in front or do something creative so that she would not need a 35 variance all together. 36 37 Ochoa: Yes, sir. 38 39 Shipley: So it would, I mean, is it a porch or is it a carport? 40 41 Ochoa: It's a porch. 42 43 Shipley: Okay. So if we extended, if we took three feet off the or two feet, I guess it 44 is off the side she needs and moved that out forward that porch would still 45 be there but I guess that would interfere with the parking. Does she park 46 right in front? Because it looked like in the pictures that showed vehicles 27 1 parked in front of the porch. 2 3 Ochoa: That is correct, sir. She uses it as a porch for now. If we do cut into it the 4 three feet basically the two support beams here would basically have to be 5 moved in and just another financial burden she can't take right now is 6 what it turns out. 7 8 Scholz: Other questions for Ms. Marquez? Okay, thank you. Any other, anyone 9 else from the public want to comment on this? Okay, I'm going to close it 10 to public comment then, Commissioners? Commissioner Crane. 11 12 Crane: We have been here before in my brief membership of this Commission 13 and it's a sad thing to ask somebody to take down a structure which I've 14 seen and it's certainly well made but as we have discussed before we can 15 dissolve the Commission if we routinely approve variances of this nature 16 when people have put up non-conforming structures and then later ask for 17 variance claiming ignorance of the regulations. I frankly won't have a 18 great deal of sympathy for Ms. Marquez's position. I do not see that we 19 have a great deal of flexibility. 20 21 Scholz: Someone else? Okay, I'll entertain a motion to approve Case A1676. 22 23 Evans: Mr. Chairman I move that we approve Case Al 676. 24 25 Scholz: Okay, it's been... 26 27 Crane: A point of information? 28 29 Scholz: Yes. 30 31 Crane: An approval means denial of the application, right? 32 33 Scholz: No, approval means approval. If you vote aye on this you are approving it. 34 35 Shipley: The variance? 36 37 Scholz: You are approving the variance, right. If you vote no, then you are 38 denying the variance. Okay, is there a second to that motion? 39 40 Shipley: Second. 41 42 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner 43 Shipley. 44 45 Shipley: Nay, for discussion, findings and site visit. 46 28 I Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 2 3 Crane: Nay, discussion, finding and site visit. 4 5 Scholz: Commissioner Iserman. 6 7 Iserman: Nay, findings, discussion, site visit on that one. 8 9 Scholz: Commissioner Evan. 10 11 Evans: No to findings and discussion. 12 13 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 14 15 Beard: No, findings, discussions and site visit. 16 17 Scholz: And the Chair votes Aye, for findings, discussion and site visit. So, it's 18 denied 5-1. 19 20 5. Case A1677: A request for a variance of ten (10) ± feet from the minimum 21 required rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet for property currently zoned R- 22 lb (Single-Family High Density) and located at 4990 Bosworth Road. The 23 applicant is requesting a variance to allow the continued use of a 200 square 24 foot enclosed addition built without a building permit. The addition is located 25 five (5) ± feet from the rear property boundary. The rear yard enclosed 26 addition encroaches ten (10) ± feet into the minimum required fifteen (15) 27 rear yard setback. Submitted by Winston Boyd, property owner. 28 29 Scholz: Okay, Mr. Ochoa, you're up again for Case A1677. 30 31 Ochoa: Next case for the evening is Case A1677. It's a request for a variance 32 from the minimum required rear yard setback for property located at 4990 33 Bosworth Road. The subject property encompasses .106 acres and is 34 zoned R-1b which is Single-Family High Density. Code requirements 35 under Article 4, Section 38-31d, the Development Standards for 36 Residential Zoning Districts. For R-1 b front yard setback requirements is 37 15 feet, the side yard setback is 5 feet and rear yard setback, which is 38 what we will be discussing in this case is 15 feet as well. 39 Again the subject property is zoned R-1 b (Single-Family High 40 Density). Applicant is requesting a variance to allow the continued use of 41 the 200 square foot rear addition that built approximately 5 feet and 3 42 inches from the rear property line boundary without a permit. The addition 43 encroaches 9 feet and 9 inches into the required minimum 15 foot rear 44 yard setback. The applicant has stated that the addition was built without 45 the applicant knowing that a building permit was required. Applicant has 46 also stated that the structure was first built as an open air attached porch 29 I for the applicant's wife, who is very sun sensitive due to her recent 2 strokes, to enjoy the outdoors and to avoid the direct sun exposure. The 3 porch was later enclosed to negate the extreme weather and insects. The 4 home was built by the homebuilder at the limit of the property setbacks not 5 allowing any type of expansion of the home. 6 Here's a vicinity map: Bosworth is found off of Mesa Grande in the 7 East Mesa. Every other property there is also zoned R-1 b, as you can 8 see. Here are the site photos for the addition that was built. This picture 9 is from the property behind it as you can see pretty nice looking structure. 10 From the side yard setback it meets the side yard setbacks; that not an 11 issue. This here is the issue of the rear yard setback which it encroaches 12 the 5 feet 3 inches. Here's the site plan, basically where the addition was 13 built on the back of the home. On the drawing, as you can see, the home 14 was built right on the setbacks. 15 Findings: Staff has reviewed the variance request and concluded 16 that no valid physical hardship exists for the subject property as identified 17 in 2001 Zoning Code under Article 2, Section 38-10. Staff has reviewed 18 the variance and recommends denial based on the preceding findings. 19 Options for you tonight are: approve the variance request, approve the 20 variance request with conditions determined appropriate by the Planning 21 and Zoning Commission and deny the variance request. I stand for 22 question. 23 24 Scholz: Okay, questions for Mr. Ochoa. No? Okay, can we hear from the 25 applicant, please? 26 27 Boyd: I'm Winston Boyd, the owner of the property there. As you know I didn't 28 realize I needed a permit but also we went ahead to build the patio cover 29 over the patio because when we built the house the builder asked us if we 30 wanted a patio out back and I said yes. They built a 10 x 20 concrete slab 31 patio out there and then put up a top over that after we found out last fall 32 that my wife couldn't go out there and use the back. It's on the southern 33 exposure of house. I went straight up off the concrete so I didn't think at 34 the time, obviously, that it was bothering a single thing and then later we 35 enclosed it. I was going to screen it and we ended up, it was easier to put 36 in windows and frame them in and keep the bugs out for her, really is what 37 we were doing and the neighbors and everybody have signed on and think 38 it looks very nice and would like to do the same thing. Matter of fact the 39 next door neighbor has done the same thing. 40 41 Scholz: Okay, any questions for Mr. Boyd? Thank you. Anyone else from the 42 public like to comment on this? 43 44 Ochoa: I would just like to state for the record that next month we will be hearing 45 from two of his neighbors: same thing, back yard setback, back porches 46 and for the record as well, concrete slabs aren't really considered into the 30 Aft 1 setbacks. It's what's built to the dwelling, what's attached to the dwelling, 2 the structures that are attached not the slab unfortunately. 3 4 Scholz: Thank you. 5 6 Crane: Question? 7 8 Scholz: Yes. 9 10 Pearson: George Pearson. As one of the Commissioners stated this a lot of repeat 11 business and City Council has indicated that they'd be willing to at least 12 have a work session and consider some changes to unenclosed porches. 13 1 was wondering what the status of that would be but of course under the 14 current Code, you don't have many choices. 15 16 Scholz: Sir, I don't know what the City Council is doing. I'm not a member of the 17 Council. Ms. Rodriguez, do you have any insight in this? 18 19 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Staff will be having a work session with City Council on 20 Monday, December 8th to basically present options. But as of today we 21 will enforce the 2001 Zoning Code. Their Development Standards in 22 regards to options and one of the concerns that City Council has been 23 having on variance requests for attached porches is that they have 24 preferred not to see enclosed back patios so if there is an attached porch 25 they have been conditioning it to where there will be no future enclosures 26 to that structure. 27 28 Scholz: Okay, yeah, this is something we asked about I think last month or two 29 months ago when we were talking among ourselves about, you know, 30 problems. Yes, it is a continuing problem, obviously. When contractors 31 build to limits of the property then there is no way for the owner to make 32 any substantive changes because they would have to get a variance. 33 Okay, I'm going to close this to public discussion then if there is no other 34 public comment and Commissioners. Commissioner Crane. 35 36 Crane: I realize this is not a very practical suggestion but is there any relief to be 37 obtained by rebuilding a similar structure detached from the house, moved 38 closer to the property line or is that also forbidden? 39 40 Ochoa: Commissioner Crane, that is possible. There are also setbacks that must 41 be followed for detached accessory structures. The accessory structure 42 has to be 10 feet away from the main dwelling and it has to be 3 feet away 43 from the back wall so basically they'd have about 2 feet to work with for an 44 accessory structure. 45 46 Crane: Thank you. 31 1 2 Ochoa: Yes, sir. 3 4 Scholz: Okay, Commissioners what is your will? 5 6 Shipley: I move to approve Case A1677. 7 8 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved. Is there a second? 9 10 Evans: I second. 11 12 Scholz: Been moved and seconded. I'll call the role. Commissioner Shipley. 13 14 Shipley: No, discussions, findings and site visit. 15 16 Scholz: Commissioner Crane: 17 18 Crane: No, discussion, finding and site visit. 19 20 Scholz: Commissioner Iserman. 21 22 Iserman: No, findings and discussion. 23 24 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 25 26 Evans: No, findings and discussion. 27 28 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 29 30 Beard: No, findings, discussions and site visit. 31 32 Scholz: And the Chair votes no for findings, discussion and site visit so it is denied 33 6-0. 34 35 6. Case No. PA-08-04: A request to amend the University Avenue Corridor 36 Plan for two purposes. First, to extend the eastern boundary of Area 4 of the 37 University Avenue Corridor, to include an adjacent parcel at 1105/1115 East 38 University Avenue, that is currently in Area 2. Second, to add to the allowed 39 uses in Area 4 the following: Bed and Breakfast, Bar, Pub, Tavern (no 40 dancing), Boutique Hotel, Commercial Parking Structure and Hotel/Motel. 41 Submitted by Logos Development, Inc., the "Tenant" leasing the property 42 from the property owners Joan Cunningham Grinnell and Anne Walden 43 Cunningham. 44 45 7. Case No. ZCA-08-04: A request to amend Chapter 38, Section 38-44 of the 46 Municipal Code for three purposes. First, to extend the eastern boundary of 32 1 Area 4 of the University Avenue Corridor Plan Overlay District to include an 2 adjacent parcel at 1105, 1115 East University Avenue, that is currently in 3 Area 2. Second, to add to the allowed uses in Area 4 the following: Bed 4 and Breakfast, Bar, Pub, Tavern (no dancing), Boutique Hotel, Commercial 5 Parking Structure and Hotel/Motel. And third, to amend the front setback 6 requirements in Area 4 from a Minimum of twenty (20) feet to a Minimum of 7 zero feet with conditions. Submitted by Logos Development, Inc., the 8 "Tenant" leasing the property from the property owners Joan Cunningham 9 Grinnell and Anne Walden Cunningham. 10 11 Scholz: All right, the next item of new business is the University Corridor Plan and 12 this is a huge package. I'm going to call a break here for about ten 13 minutes. Can I do that, Ms. Lowell, if you don't mind? Okay, good. We'll 14 all stretch our legs, use the facilities, drink a little water and then we'll 15 tackle this, all right? So, we're going to be back here at about 25 minutes 16 after 7:00. 17 18 Scholz: Okay, we're going to resume. Our next case is, let's see this is the 19 amendment to the University Avenue Corridor Plan and a Code 20 Amendment amending Chapter 38, Section 38-44 of the Municipal Code, 21 amend the boundaries of Areas 2 and 4, Okay, and it contains two specific 22 cases, Ms. Lowell? 23 24 Lowell: Yes, Mr. Chair, I would like to ask if the Chair and Commission would 25 suspend the rules in order to allow the discussion of both the PA and the 26 ZCA cases as they are related. 27 28 Scholz: Okay. I'll entertain a motion to suspend the rules so we can discuss both 29 the PA-08-04 and ZCA-08-04. 30 31 Shipley: So moved. 32 33 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved. Is there a second? 34 35 Iserman: Second. 36 37 Scholz: Okay, we're moving to suspend the rules so we can discuss these at the 38 same time. All in favor say aye. 39 40 ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS -AYE. 41 42 Scholz: Those opposed same sign, and abstentions. Okay, it passes. Ms. Lowell? 43 44 Lowell: Thank you. These cases are requests for Plan and Zone Code 45 Amendments and represent part of the applicant's original request. In 46 addition to the Plan and Code Amendments the original applications 33 I sought approval of a Concept Plan for a boutique hotel and a request for 2 height variance. Staff reviewed the application and requested the 3 applicant more fully develop the Concept Plan for the hotel and height 4 variance, if needed. But the applicant chose to proceed with the request 5 for Plan and Code Amendments. These cases amend both the UAC Plan 6 and Overlay simultaneously. The Plan Amendment proposes altering 7 boundaries and adding allowed land uses. The Overlay Amendment 8 includes boundary and land use changes as well as proposing to reduce 9 the minimum front setback from 20 feet to zero. 10 The University Avenue Corridor Design Review Committee, I'll refer 11 to them as the Design Committee from here on, requested a summary of 12 amendments to the Plan and Code over the last five years as a way to 13 bring context to this case. Since 2004 there have been three 14 amendments to the Code that have expanded allowed land uses in 15 specific areas. Prior to 2004 there were nine amendments. In 2006 a 16 drive through was allowed at the west end of 905 East University, which is 17 in Area 4. In 2008 land uses were added to Areas 1 and 3. Fitness 18 related uses eliminating front setbacks in the Area 1, adding religious 19 institutions to specific parcels in Area 3. Also in 2008 this Commission 20 approved amendments to add Areas 6 and 7 for the Las Cruces Center 21 and NMSU hotel. This is slated for first read by the City Council in early 22 2009. 23 The UAC Committee also requested a map of land uses in each of 24 the areas as part of the data we've been collecting for the Plan update. 25 This is a preliminary map of the current land uses in the district. As you 26 can see, Area 1 is predominately commercial uses. Area 2, multi-family 27 and religious institutions, Area 3 is residential. In fact this is where the 28 district's single family residences are located. Area 4 is multi-family 29 residential and commercial, Area 5a is residential and 5b commercial. 30 The subject property is .975 acres located at the northeast corner of 31 Hagerty and University. It's currently zoned UAC 2 and is at the western 32 edge of Area 2. It's located directly adjacent and east of a mix of 33 commercial uses with heavy pedestrian traffic in Area 4 and across from 34 the core of the NMSU campus. There are two vacant single family 35 dwellings on the parcel. The parcel is outlined in the dotted lines. As you 36 can see Area 4 is directly to the west and Area 3 is directly north. 37 In the case before you there are Plan amendments to change the 38 boundary of Areas 2 and 4 and additional land uses in Area 4. The 39 boundary request is to extend the eastern boundary of Area 4 to 40 incorporate this parcel which fronts University and Hagerty. From the 41 boundary perspective if the parcel in question remains in Area 2, the land 42 uses include church, fraternity and sorority houses, residences, including 43 single family, garden apartments, condos and town homes and offices 44 providing health services to a neighborhood typically generating very low 45 traffic volume. If the parcel is added to Area 4 the land uses are far more 46 diverse and include commercial uses such as restaurants, retail, personal 34 I services, offices and office complex, parking lot, garage and multi-family 2 including garden apartments, condos and townhomes. 3 From a land use perspective the Amendment would add five new 4 uses to Area 4. Of these neither B&B nor boutique hotels are in the 5 existing Code for the UAC. In fact, boutique hotel is not defined in our 6 Code at all. The term generally refers to a luxurious or quirky hotel of no 7 more than 100 rooms. That's distinguished from the larger chains or 8 branded hotels by personalized services and facilities. Bar pub tavern are 9 proposed for Areas 6 and 7 but not allowed in any other area. Hotel/motel 10 and commercial parking facilities are allowed in Areas 1 and 5b and are 11 proposed for Areas 6 and 7 as well. 12 The proposed Overlay Amendment includes the boundary and land 13 use additions as well as a change in the Development Standards to 14 reduced front setbacks in Area 4 from 20 feet to zero. Maximum building 15 height in Area 4 would remain 28 feet or no more than 2 stories. Where it 16 is 18 feet in Area 2 between Hagerty and Jordon, no more than 1 story. 17 The change in front setback is consistent with the American Planning 18 Association's guidelines for developing Pedestrian Friendly Overlay 19 Districts. In that, buildings that are oriented along the front property line 20 are easily accessible to pedestrians and they contribute to activity on the 21 street and frame the corridor itself. A development proposing a zero front 22 setback like all development applications in the UAC would be subject to 23 initial review by the Design Review Committee which would evaluate the 24 proposal in relation to the sidewalk width, property line and all other 25 design guidelines in the Plan. The salient findings include several. 26 The intent of the University Avenue Plan is to create a Pedestrian 27 Friendly District. The American Planning Association guidelines for 28 developing Pedestrian Friendly Overlay Districts, while not adopted City 29 policy, do support the proposed amendments to create an attractive and 30 usual environment for pedestrians generated by NMSU. The 1999 Comp 31 Plan Land Use Element, Goal 3, Policy 3.9 states low density housing 32 shall not front on a Major Thoroughfare or Collector. University Avenue is 33 a Principle Arterial classified by the Metropolitan Planning Organization 34 and the suitable for direct access to low density housing. The 1999 Comp 35 Plan Land Use Element, Goal 1, Policy 3.4 states high density uses shall 36 be encouraged to concentrate in and around transportation and 37 communication corridors supporting a distribution of mix of uses. Lower 38 density residential uses shall be located away from such corridors. 39 University Avenue is clearly a transportation and communication corridor 40 and not suitable for low density residential uses. The 1999 Comp Plan 41 Land Urban Design Element, Goal 2, Objective 6 states, and I quote, 42 "encourage the preservation and/or renovation of historical buildings and 43 places in Las Cruces," end quote. 44 Although the building at 1105 appears to have been designed by 45 Henry Trost, the architect who designed many of the campus buildings at 46 NMSU, it would be eligible for designation but is not currently on either the 35 I State or the Federal registers of historic places. The 1999 Comp Plan 2 Land Urban Design Element, Goal 1, Policy 2.2c states the City should 3 establish streamlined procedures the demolition of structures which 4 cannot be repaired/rehabilitated. Las Cruces Police Department and 5 Codes report that there have been over 20 incident reports filed on these 6 properties since 2004. The applicant submitted a report by a professional 7 engineering firm that performed a visual inspection of the properties. 8 Findings for both structures reveal that the structures are unsafe for 9 occupancy of any type. The Amendments in and of themselves do not 10 force demolition of these buildings; however it is likely the applicant 11 intends to demolish the structures and construct a new structure in their 12 place. The 1999 Comp Plan Land Use Element, Goal 1, Policy 3.6 states 13 residential neighborhoods shall not be divided, redeveloped or non- 14 residential uses unless it can be shown that demand for housing in a 15 neighborhood is diminishing or that a need for more compatible land use 16 relationship can be demonstrated. According to the property owner the 17 property has been vacant for many years. Apparently there is very little 18 demand for it as such. The 1999 Comp Plan Transportation Element, 19 Goal 3, Policy 3.1 states development shall be encouraged using mixed 20 used concept. Compatible non-residential uses would be developed 21 within walking distance of existing residential areas to increase pedestrian 22 activity. The proposed Amendment supports this policy. 23 And finally, major recommendations of the 2006 New Mexico State 24 University's Master Plan describes several significant capital projects 25 fronting University Avenue as well as a vision to work with the City to 26 create a mixed use district and to revise the zoning. Because of the 27 capital investments, there is an expectation that pedestrian activity along 28 University Avenue will increase. The University Avenue Design Review 29 Committee voted on September 8th 4-1 to recommend approval of the 30 Amendments to the Plan and Overlay. 31 Your options for this case are: to recommend approval of the 32 amendments to the City Council, modify the amendments and recommend 33 approval to the City Council, recommend denial, make no 34 recommendation and direct Staff accordingly. That concludes our 35 presentation. We're here for questions. 36 37 Scholz: Ok, I have some comments I'd like to make and one question but I'll let the 38 other Commissioners go first. Commissioner Crane. 39 40 Crane: I respect the interest of property owners in development land they own as 41 they see fit within the law but I, and I was not here in Las Cruces at the 42 time that the Downtown was essentially demolished. You said I think that 43 the two buildings on that lot are uninhabitable. Was I right on that? 44 45 Lowell: According to the report submitted by the applicant's engineers that is in 46 the report, yes, sir. 36 1 2 Crane: Thank you. I think, however it's deplorable to the extent to which we have 3 lost worthy buildings even though the motivation is generally being good. I 4 think they're cute little houses and I'd like to see them in some way 5 preserved as evidence of how things were in Cruces in earlier decades. 6 7 Scholz: Someone else. Ok I had two comments, Ms. Lowell. One of them was in 8 line with what Commissioner Crane said. I grew up in Chicago and one of 9 the things that the property owners used to do in Chicago was let buildings 10 fall apart and then they would ask that they be demolished because they 11 were unsafe. I'm wondering how long the owners of these properties have 12 owned them and how far they let them fall apart before they had an 13 engineer come in and say they were unsafe. I'm just curious about that. 14 I'm sure we can ask the applicant about that but I also deplore the fact that 15 we tend to demolish even significant old buildings simply because of 16 urban renewal and that we have the opportunity to clear the land and do 17 all sorts of things and while I wasn't here when downtown was destroyed 1 18 can still see the wreckage and I can see the economic devastation that it 19 caused. I was in a smaller town in Iowa when that happened and the 20 same thing happened. You know by doing urban renewal they did 21 basically urban demolition. Frankly I hate to see that happen. Now what 22 we're asking here if I'm correct is we're asking for a rezoning so that 23 portion of that residential area will now be included in Section 4. Is that 24 right? 25 26 Lowell: It's classified as a Plan and Code Amendment not as a rezone. 27 28 Scholz: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. So it's a Code Amendment to include that particular 29 property in Section 4. 30 31 Lowell: Yes, sir. 32 33 Scholz: Which would allow it then for commercial development? 34 35 Lowell: Yes, sir. 36 37 Scholz: Okay. I was curious about the commercial development. It said you could 38 have a bar, pub and tavern but no dancing. What do you have against 39 dancing? Or what does the Code have against dancing? 40 41 Lowell: My understanding is that bar, pub, tavern, no dancing refers to a facility 42 that serves food. 43 44 Scholz: Oh, I see. Okay. So people won't dance on the tables and things like that. 45 Okay. Well, I was just curious. If taking out housing is part of the 1999 46 Comp Plan why don't we take wipe out the block? Wouldn't that be a 37 Afft I goal? You just told this is a bad use of residential property to have it front 2 on a commercial street, you know, a high traffic street. I don't know who 3 the other property owners are in there but why haven't they joined us in 4 this or joined you in this? 5 6 Lowell: All questions that I cannot answer. 7 8 Scholz: Okay. Well, Mr. Schuster, are you going to take a run at it? Otherwise 9 we'll ask for the applicant to come up. Okay, let's hear from the applicant. 10 That's funny he doesn't look those two women that applied here. 11 12 Clifton: Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Kirk 13 Clifton and I represent Logos Development Inc. In reference to this 14 specific property Ms. Lowell just gave a presentation on. And I would like 15 to preface this I don't know how many of the Commissioners have read or 16 had a presentation of the NMSU's 2006 Master Plan but it is a 17 phenomenal document and there's a lot exciting things getting ready to 18 happen over at NMSU and if you haven't seen it, I would suggest and 19 recommend that you do take a look at it. The area is changing, and as 20 and alumni and a native Las Crucen, I can attest that the changes are for 21 the better. 22 With that said, yes the property is currently in Area 2. We are, 23 upon the recommendation of Staff, requesting to move the boundary of 24 Area 4 to include this corner piece at Hagerty and University. The 25 property is largely surrounded by commercial rental units. I believe there 26 is a single family house on the corner and one or two in here but there's a 27 large apartment complex directly to the east and rental units to the north. 28 Consequently, this is a large office retail complex where our offices are 29 located as well, so we've had the privilege on a daily basis looking at this 30 property and seeing what's occurred over the last several years at this 31 site. Aerial photo of the property, won't belabor you on this issue, you've 32 seen many of slides already. Just for the record please let me read into 33 the case specifics for this property. It's actually two addresses but one 34 parcel, 1105 and 1115 East University Avenue. Property's on the west 35 end of Area 2 adjacent to Area 4. The proposal includes UAC Plan 36 Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment to adjust the boundary of Area 37 4 to include this parcel. Allowed Area 4 uses within this site include bed 38 and breakfast, bar, pub, tavern (no dancing), boutique hotel, commercial 39 parking structure and hotel/motel and also to allow for a zero front setback 40 as conditioned by Staff. 41 The University Avenue Corridor Plan was approved over 17 years 42 ago. At the time it was approved, that area was much different in nature 43 than it is today. Coupled with the fact that NMSU's plan, the 2006 Master 44 Plan with the proposed art center provided it gets funding, I'm sure one 45 way or the other they will find a way to build it. The area will change. 1 46 mean the fact of the matter is the area will change. It's not going to stay 38 I the way it is today. 2 Large majority of the properties within this area are tenant occupied 3 commercial rental based properties. There are existing structures on this 4 property that were discussed although we have not been provided any 5 documentation to the authenticity of their historical appropriateness nor 6 are they listed on any registers with the state or national levels. The 7 structures are in fact in a state of disrepair and are a general safety 8 hazard as presently standing. We hired a registered licensed professional 9 engineer to do an analysis of the project and the engineer report stated 10 that the status of both structures are unsafe for occupancy of any type. 11 Consequently the City has approved and issued a demolition permit. 12 Demolition of this site has begun and should be completed within the next 13 2 — 3 weeks. 14 Here are site photos of the structure. This is the main house. And 15 again some concepts and elements of the NMSU Master Plan and, once 16 again, we feel this proposal and especially discussing it with Staff at both 17 the City and NMSU is in concert with what NMSU is proposing to do 18 across the street. The intention, to sum it up is to make the University 19 Avenue Corridor a destination, not a place. We are roughly located here. 20 The performing arts center is about a block away to the west of our 21 proposed project. And the university is proposing multiple other uses, 22 structures and buildings over the course of time along University Avenue. 23 If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Thank 24 you. 25 26 Shipley: I have several. 27 28 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley. 29 30 Shipley: You just said that you've already, the City has already issued a demolition 31 permit to take down these structures? 32 33 Clifton: Yes, sir. 34 35 Shipley: And that's already started? 36 37 Clifton: Yes. 38 39 Shipley: One thing that I dislike very much is being, having things done before you 40 come in to ask us to do something and it really irks me and I'm going to 41 say right now that you've taken down a house that's over a 100 years old 42 without due process. You haven't let the public have its say and I'm really 43 offended by that. 44 The other thing is, I don't like spot zoning and this is spot zoning. 45 You're encroaching into an area that's supposed to be set aside for 46 students. Go back to your chart that shows me the name, the things right 39 1 behind that, that shows the things that you said that's ongoing. Your list of 2 findings, I guess it is. Right there, that's fine. You say the large majority 3 of properties in this area are tenant occupied commercial rental based 4 properties. This is a university; they are student houses, kids live there 5 that can't afford to buy a house. That's what that whole plan was set up 6 for was to make that residential stay there so that they would have a place 7 to live so that they wouldn't have to drive a car; they could walk to the 8 campus and do that. So, to me, you're - what you're trying to convince us 9 to do here is a little smoke and mirrors and I really resent it. It really irks 10 me to no extent that you're tearing down a structure. We could have 11 looked at moving that structure. We could have placed it on another lot in 12 an area that's in a historical site area and we could have had something to 13 say but instead we've let the wrecking ball do our work for us and that 14 ought to make us make us happy and I'm really appalled that you guys 15 would do that. 16 17 Clifton: If I may address that, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Shipley, I don't believe the 18 structure could be moved. It's made of adobe. Second of all, I certainly 19 apologize if we've offended you with our request but like with the public 20 due process we have our due process as well and we are simply going 21 through the process asking for an item to be considered by you as a 22 Planning Commission for recommendation of approval or denial. We're 23 not here to offend you personally or any other member of this 24 Commission. We're simply here to try to start a new project on this site. 25 So again I apologize if you're offended. 26 27 Shipley: Okay. You're asking us to represent the community which is what I think 28 we are here for so that the community gets a just fix on this thing. And 29 you know because you want to come in and take a section that's not in the 30 right section and change that. That's what you're asking us to do. And 1 31 don't think, you know, I think what we need to be factual about is what's 32 going on here and what we're trying to do. There is going to be a revision 33 of this University Avenue Corridor Plan starting in November, I believe 34 November 5th. Wouldn't that be a good time to bring this forward and let 35 people look at that and let the City have an idea of what's going on there? 36 If the City wants to change the Corridor Plan that would be a great time to 37 do that, you know, instead of doing it piecemeal now and then we can't 38 reverse it going back. So my initial thought was maybe, you know, we 39 could postpone this a month or two, let some things happen, let people 40 see if you see that's the way it's going to be, that's the way it's going to be. 41 But I think that it just really - I find it offensive to find out that you're not 42 waiting for that to happen. You're not even considering that. 43 44 Clifton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Shipley, you know with any plan rewrite for those 45 that have been involved in plan rewrites with the City of Las Cruces they 46 could take months if not years and I think it was determined by both Staff 40 1 and us, as the applicant, to proceed forward that this proposal that we are 2 asking for our due process as a citizen. As a Board that you represent us 3 as well; that this would potentially be included as part of the new UAC 4 because it's my understanding when they look at the UAC they're also 5 going to consider the Master Plan for New Mexico State University. 6 7 Shipley: You are proposing a boutique/hotel with 150 rooms. Is that correct? 8 9 Clifton: That is a proposed use. 10 11 Shipley: Okay, and how many parking structure - what size parking structure do 12 you need to house 150 cars? 13 14 Clifton: That will come forward as part of the Conceptual Plan that we will bring 15 back to this Commission... 16 17 Shipley: So, you're going to piecemeal that to us as well, give us a little bit now so 18 we'll change the zoning and then you'll give us what we want to see and it 19 doesn't fit. Why don't we see the whole thing as a completed project? 20 You've had years to decide what you want to do on this piece of property 21 so why don't you bring us the whole thing instead of bringing it to us 22 piecemeal? 23 24 Clifton: Well, as a matter of interest we did have the project as a whole project but 25 it was the Staff that recommended we separate out the Conceptual Plan 26 so that we may have an architect draft a conceptual rendering of the 27 project. The renderings that we submitted were computer aided drafting 28 renderings that were fairly accurate. It included a parking structure with 29 the hotel. 30 31 Shipley: How big is the parking structure? 32 33 Clifton: Five stories. 34 35 Shipley: Five story parking structure. And that's supposed to keep traffic out of that 36 area, make it walkable and friendly to people who are there? 37 38 Scholz: Commissioner Evans, you had some comments or a question? 39 40 Evans: Yeah, I want to make sure that we're all talking about the same University 41 Corridor that we've made some, or made a line with the big shopping 42 center up there without having final plans, you know, and we have taken 43 down some apartments on the corridor also because they, you know, what 44 is across from the Hacienda? There was that new structure that went in 45 there. There were some apartments there that were taken down that were 46 relatively old also. So, I want to make sure that we're not deviating from 41 1 what we've done in the past by looking at this and trying to go forward with 2 it. 3 4 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 5 6 Beard: Not too long ago we changed a Code for the Catholic Church so that we 7 could tear down some housing and we voted against that. But it was 8 overturned later on by the Council and they said they were going to 9 displace nine students or families when they did that and in fact there was 10 26 people living there. So we're piecemealing all these low rent areas for 11 students or families that need, that are low income that need these 12 facilities and I'm against the piecemeal myself because we're just 13 displacing the students and not thinking about the overall population, 14 especially the population that can't afford to move somewhere else and 15 pay higher rent and I don't see the advantage of the student for this 16 particular change. If the Code is not changed, if it stays in Area 2, does 17 that house have to be replaced with another housing structure? 18 19 Clifton: Mr. Chair, Mr. Commissioner, either way in all likelihood the house will be 20 completely demolished. 21 22 Beard: But if it's demolished it will have to be replaced with another housing unit? 23 24 Clifton: I believe in Area 2, Single Family Residential Garden Apartments 25 (inaudible). 26 27 Scholz: Condos were allowed, too, yes. Mr. Schuster, you want to clarify that? 28 29 Schuster: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Beard, there are limited allowances for office 30 uses within Area 2 as well as religious institutional uses but most types of 31 housing are also allowed. 32 33 Beard: It's all housing, though? 34 35 Schuster: No, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Beard, there are, it allows for a single family 36 and various types of multi-family, religious institutional and limited low 37 traffic office uses. 38 39 Clifton: If I could also point out, members of the Commission, our company, our 40 sister company does in fact have over 300 rental units in the area of the 41 university so we do fill a void that's been left by others. We're providing 42 housing at affordable rents. I mean, if you look any of our complexes and 43 their rents, you know affordable rents are provided for students so I don't 44 want you to sit here and be offended, if you will, by me asking for this 45 proposal that we're taking something away that isn't already there. We 46 have several properties in the University Avenue Corridor and this is 42 Aft 1 simply a request to enhance the corridor. 2 3 Scholz: Okay, Mr. Crane? 4 5 Crane: You use the word enhance, what you have described; a five story parking 6 structure with an associated hotel which I will not call a boutique. A 7 boutique that has 100 or 150 units of anything except little stuffed toys is 8 not a boutique. A boutique hotel in my mind is like a B&B, maybe 10 max, 9 10 rooms max. That would be appropriate for this corridor. What you're 10 proposing strikes me as an eyesore right now and I realize I haven't seen 11 a drawing but if the object of the Overlay is to make University Avenue a 12 destination, friendly to pedestrians. I can't quite see what your clients are 13 suggesting is fitting in there. 14 15 Clifton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Crane, once again we're not proposing that at 16 this time, in fact, you as the Commission, could strike that as one of uses 17 out of Area 4 if that was your desire. At this time we have no proposals 18 other than the suggested land uses within Area 4 and the additional uses 19 we're asking for today. 20 21 Evans: Mr. Chairman. 22 23 Scholz: Yes, Commissioner Evans. 24 25 Evans: Again, you know we approved that whole area across from the Pan Am 26 Center to have that zero setback and, you know, we didn't see any plans 27 there and there's existing structures there, existing businesses and we 28 had nothing to really show us what they were going to do in the future 29 other than they had to conform to the rules in which, you know, the 30 covenants in which we are establishing here today. And so I don't 31 understand why this wouldn't fall into the same guidelines that we used for 32 the area across from the Pan Am. 33 34 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley: 35 36 Shipley: I would just say, I wasn't here when that was done and I understand that 37 but the guidelines that I got today say that this is the University Avenue 38 Corridor Plan and if the plan says that Area B, you have certain things and 39 certain things that's approved for that, then we stay with that. If you want 40 to change the Plan then let's take it back to the public, let the public have 41 their day in court so to speak and just tell if they want that or not. But you 42 know, what I try to look out for now is keeping the cars off of University. If 43 you could turn University, if we could put a bypass around the university 44 on the other side and make that foot traffic only and put housing and 45 things of that nature for the university so the students could walk to school 46 or bike or whatever, that's what I would be for, because that's what the 43 Alft I plan calls for. I'm not interested in chipping a piece off here and there of 2 Area 2 to make it Area 4. Area 4 has got a delineation mark and I think it's 3 very clear how it ought to be. I mean we ought to be upholding the plan 4 the way it's written today. If they want to change it, let's go back to the 5 drawing board, let the public have its say and let all the people that do 6 that, then do that. 7 8 Evans: Excuse me, so 1... 9 10 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 11 12 Evans: I believe the University Corridor has approved this Plan. 13 14 Scholz: The Design Review Committee for... 15 16 Evans: Recommended approval (inaudible). So they've reviewed it and... 17 18 Scholz: But 1 think you're aware that the University Avenue Design Review 19 Committee operates without public input. It's not the public are denied to 20 come to the meetings but it's not done like the Commission as 1 21 understand it. Is that correct, Mr. Schuster? 22 23 Schuster: Mr. Chair, actually the Design Review Committee functions in almost 24 exactly the same way as this Commission. 25 26 Scholz: They do. Okay, sorry, misunderstand. So if there are no more questions 27 for Mr. Clifton, I want to open this to the public and let the public comment 28 on it. Okay, let's start on this side of the room. Yes, sir? 29 30 Smith: I'm Greg Smith, currently President of Las Cruces Downtown. I've spoken 31 with the Design Review Committee and also had some communications 32 with other parties involved in this and I'm going to read to you an ongoing 33 communication that I've had with one of them. But I also want to point out 34 that previous communication with one of the parties was shared with other 35 parties so I guess e-mails as we all know can be shared. It does upset me 36 to hear that the property is already slated for demolition. However, I will 37 make this point still in hopes that perhaps that can be reversed. Excuse 38 the reading glasses. Frank Lloyd Wright is probably the one architect of 39 whom just about everyone in this country is aware of the 500 and 40 something homes he designed, about 400 are still standing. Some are 41 now museums or stops on tours but some are still occupied by people 42 who are thrilled to be living in Frank Lloyd Wright homes. The owners of 43 these homes typically put up with a great deal of inconvenience. These 44 homes were not always that comfortable or practical and tourists are often 45 looking at them. Even so, tearing down a house designed by Frank Lloyd 46 Wright is not something most communities in this country would ever 44 Aft oft 1 consider doing. Frank Lloyd only designed one structure in New Mexico. 2 It is a house in Pecos. He only designed four buildings in Texas. Two are 3 homes and none of the structures are any closer to us in Las Cruces than 4 that house in Pecos. Thus we can't lay claim to that particular architect 5 here locally. However, it is highly likely that Wright and Henry C. Trost 6 both worked in the office of Lewis Sullivan at about the same time a little 7 over 110 years ago. Additionally, Trost was clearly influenced by both 8 Sullivan and Wright in a number of his designs. One design that could 9 almost be mistaken for one of Frank Lloyd Wright's is the Miller house at 10 1105 East University. There is little doubt in my mind that this house is 11 one designed by Trost and Henry C. Trost is the only architect we have in 12 this part of the country to come close to having the stature of Frank Lloyd 13 Wright. If we had a Frank Lloyd Wright designed home in Las Cruces 14 would we be rushing to tear it down when there are vacant lots and less 15 significant structures that are sitting vacant not far away? I would hope 16 we'd have a little sense of history and pride in our community than that. 17 Why then should we be in such a hurry, you know prior to this zone 18 consideration for the University Corridor? Why would we be in such a 19 hurry to dispose of a home designed by the one architect who is virtually 20 the Frank Lloyd Wright of our part of the world? Additionally Bill Helm is 21 going to be speaking on the radio with host Leon Metz from 10-12, on 22 Saturday, November 1St regarding Henry C. Trost and the show airs on the 23 El Paso radio station at AM 690 so it might be worth a little additional, I'm 24 not sure how many get it up here, but it might be worth listening to. It 25 would be a real shame for this community to finally get a sense of what 26 treasures it has in the homes like the Mr. Armijo home or the J.O. Miller 27 house only they have been allowed to collapse or be torn down. As I've 28 said previously it reminds me too much and as several of you have said, 29 too much of what happened with the buildings downtown that cannot be 30 replaced. I thank you. 31 32 Scholz: Ok, someone else from the public? Yes, ma'am. 33 34 Meneke: My name is Jackie Meneke and I would like to read a letter from Pat 35 Taylor and I have copies for you. Can I bring them forward? 36 37 Scholz: Sure. I'll pass them down. Thank you. 38 39 Meneke: I don't think anyone is terribly surprised to see me here tonight. This letter 40 is from Pat Taylor, Senior Program Manager, Cornerstone Community 41 Partnerships. It's dated October 28, 2008 regarding the Miller house on 42 University Avenue. 43 Dear City of Las Cruces Planning and Zoning Commissioners and 44 Mayor and City Counselors. 45 1 understand that you will be hearing this case, the Miller house for 46 potential zone change resulting in the buildings demolition. I would like to 45 I convey to you my thoughts regarding this. 2 First is my experience in adobe and in historic preservation. 1 have 3 worked with adobe for 28 plus years and have been involved in historic 4 preservation of earthen architecture for 20 years. 1 am very qualified in 5 these fields and may be the only person in the region who can speak to 6 these issues with the depth of experience that 1 have. 7 l would like to support the preservation of this structure on two 8 basic issues. The first being its importance historically. The Miller house 9 was designed by Trost, a regional famous architect who is credited with 10 many fine examples of architecture during his period. The fact that he 11 designed this house is historically important not to mention that he 12 designed this house for J.O. Miller, a known College official and coach, 13 that was added later, but anyway, a coach. Let's see and then the New 14 Mexico State University President, which is an additional historical 15 accolade. And that was Austin Criles. 16 Secondly I would also like to support the preservation of the Miller 17 house because it is structurally feasible to restore. So a little bit of rebuttal 18 going on here. 1 have done assessments and worked on buildings that 19 have been in worse shape than this building and have been successful in 20 carrying those projects out. This building has repair maintenance issues 21 that can be remedied and if you receive letters or reports that this building 22 can not be restored you should raise questions about their experience in 23 adobe preservation and in their interest in its demolition. 24 My apologies for not making the meeting in which this case is being 25 heard. I work regionally in historic preservation and 1 am not available to 26 attend. 27 Sincerely, Pat Taylor, Senior Program Manager, Cornerstone 28 Community Partnerships. Thank you. 29 30 Scholz: Thank you. Mr. Schuster. 31 32 Schuster: Mr. Chair, with your permission I'd like to just clarify something for both 33 Commission and the public. I believe that the beginning of that statement 34 said that the zone change would result in demolition of the property and I'd 35 just like to point out that the demolition of the property is a separate 36 process and a separate permit from the zone change. If the property 37 owner so chooses they could demolish this whether the zone change 38 takes place or not. The only issues is what they would build to replace 39 that so I just wanted to make sure that everyone is aware of that. 40 41 Scholz: Thank you. Yes, someone else from the public. Sir? 42 43 Pearson: George Pearson. I live in a historic property downtown and it saddens me 44 to hear that the demolition permit's been issued. Another piece of Las 45 Cruces is lost, I think St. Genevieve's church, and it's another part but 46 what can we do to preserve that may be the idea of the property. I don't 46 I know where Design Standards fit into this, if there is a way that you can 2 design standards to the Overlay zone to Area 4 which would require any 3 new structures to be built following the styles of the architect Trost. That 4 would be something that I would recommend. On the uses, the proposed 5 uses the hotel/motel kind of bothers me that sound like a very high intense 6 use. The boutique hotel might make sense in my mind, the hotel-motel 7 makes me think that they, oh, they could put a Motel 6 in there. If I was 8 able to say anything about that I would probably say, delete that use. And 9 the other thing that concerns me without having a lot of knowledge about it 10 is the setback requirements. I can't visualize zero setbacks and that's just 11 my lack of seeing any plans or anything so I'm concerned about that. 12 Thank you. 13 14 Scholz: Okay, sir. 15 16 Hunter: Thank you, Chair, Commissioner, my name is Dr. John Hunter, I direct the 17 Public History program at New Mexico State University. I want to state 18 first of all that I'm not representing the university here. I'm here as a 19 historic preservationist, I use to teach historic preservation at the 20 university. I've served on several historic preservation statewide 21 committees including the Cultural Properties Review Committee that 22 oversees the state's historic preservation. Just a couple brief points, this 23 is a significant historic building; partly because Trost designed it, partly 24 because a university president lived in it. Trost, others have talked about 25 the importance of Trost and he was our most famous regional architect but 26 his legacy lives on not just with the buildings that exist around today and 27 he designed, he designed the Master Plan for the university in 1908 28 around there and we still have some of his buildings on campus but the 29 wave of buildings that have swept NMSU over the last 10 or 15 years, 1 30 call Neo-Trost buildings. They have a lot of the same design elements of 31 say, the Conroy Honor Center which was the first Trost building on 32 campus so that's an important significance is that his legacy lives on just 33 by inspiring the campus building that's going on today. The second point, 34 and some of you have already mentioned this, but what's with the 35 university Master Plan being developed, being implemented. I have a 36 concern that this change from Area 2 to Area 4 is really the development 37 driving the Plan and would I think it would be, make more sense for public 38 discussion to happen, for the Master Plan for the university to start to be 39 implemented more and so that then we have planners guiding 40 development and not the other way around. Thank you. 41 42 Scholz: Commissioner Beard has a question for you, sir. 43 44 Beard: Maybe you're familiar or maybe not; I don't know of other structures within 45 the City that would be comparable to this building. I can think of one there 46 on Amador by the Citizens Bank, the two-story building. Do we have very 47 1 many? We don't preserve our historical buildings it seems like in this city. 2 How many buildings do we have like this that are existing? 3 4 Hunter: We have a few Trost buildings that are private residences, the H.B. Holt 5 house which is at the southwest corner of Picacho and Alameda. It kind of 6 has a little turret on the top of it, that's a Trost house. I think kitty-corner to 7 that there is another Trost-inspired house. He was a very eclectic 8 architect. There's no one style that is his style per say. He could design in 9 Frank Lloyd Wright style, the prairie style, but he's known for the style that 10 he brought to NMSU. He also designed the buildings at UTEP but he was 11 told to design in was called the Bhutanese style so it would kind of look 12 like Bhutan. But we have a few historic buildings around but we have lost 13 a lot of the historic fabric in our buildings in the City. 14 15 Scholz: Thank you. 16 17 Hunter: Thank you. 18 19 Scholz: Someone else? Yes, ma'am. 20 21 Geiger: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Sandy Geiger. I would like to 22 read a quote from the NMSU Master Plan. "In this disposable unstable 23 world where only now and here is valued and where performance is 24 judged on the return on margins we need the dimension of time provided 25 by historical buildings. We need the sense of permanence that an old 26 building, an old piece of art, an old book can give. A reassurance that 27 generations struggled before us for the same goals and felt the same pain 28 and joy". I'd also like to not reiterate what has been already been said by 29 others this evening that I agree with but make a few points that perhaps 30 need a little bit of elaboration. These are points that are also included in 31 your packet. Area and usage changes appear to fly in the face of the 32 letter and spirit of the current UAC Plan. Area 2 was set aside specifically 33 to preserve its residential character while strictly residential usages may 34 no longer practical or desired, the City of Las Cruces should work carefully 35 to adopt specific uses that encourage the preservation of the architectural 36 character and the historical integrity of the neighborhood. 37 Another point regarding the NMSU Master Plan, earlier this year 38 back in May the Commission considered the request for annexation, the 39 master plan and zoning overlay for Area 6 and 7 in the University Avenue 40 Corridor Plan. I came before you then and I asked "where is the historical 41 preservation plan for NMSU?" It is incredibly important that as we move 42 forward with planning for the future that we preserve and protect our 43 history at the same time and that we integrate these efforts. The exact 44 same statement can be made for what is going on this evening which 1 45 interpret not as an amendment to the code but as a zone change. Beyond 46 the two properties in question these usage changes will probably 48 1 significantly impact the rest of the historic adobe home along University 2 Avenue. With this precedent other property owners will rapidly appeal to 3 have their permitted uses changed as well and the best intentions of the 4 original UAC Plan will be undone. 5 6 Scholz: Anything else? 7 8 Geiger: Yes, just a minute. I had to find it. I would agree that the timing of this 9 particular request is unfortunate and premature because we do have the 10 revision of the University Avenue Corridor Plan public process beginning 11 November 5th. That the home, the Miller Trost home, is presently unsafe 12 is not relevant and consequently, I take exception to number 9 in your list 13 of findings. I have a note from Sonia Cooper, Professional Engineer from 14 NMSU, to say that a historic building is safe or unsafe is irrelevant to the 15 effort of preservation. Any building could be deemed unsafe for 16 occupancy. That doesn't mean that we tear it down. We make it safe 17 especially if the structure is historic by State and Federal definitions. 18 Owners of these structures must take measures to preserve, rehabilitate 19 or restore and sometimes retrofit these structures to protect our cultural 20 resources. I would recommend that a conditions assessment be 21 performed on this structure by a qualified preservation professional in 22 order to know the true extent of repair required to make it safe and usable 23 for intended purposes. Anything less is irresponsible. That the Miller 24 home has not yet been nominated to the State or Federal registers does 25 not imply that it can't be that it shouldn't be. 26 We are having a similar difficulty with the historical preservation 27 plan at NMSU. An intensive architectural and historical survey has been 28 completed that would lead to the identification of which structures and 29 landscapes and districts could be nominated and these plans must go 30 forth. 31 We talked about the approval by the Design Review Committee of 32 the University Avenue Corridor Plan. It's important that this Commission 33 realize the composition of that Committee. There are five people: one is 34 the City Councillor, Delores Connor; one is the NMSU Architect, Michael 35 Rickenbacker, who is promoting the Master Plan for NMSU and receives 36 direction from the administration and the Board of Regents. Another 37 member is John Curry, who is a developer with development property 38 along the University Corridor, and the remaining two are retired 39 professors, John White and Dr. Maggard. Dr. Maggard also has 40 University Avenue Corridor property. I say this because you can see 41 where a majority vote might come from. I also would like to make it clear 42 to the Commissioners that findings provided to the Planning and Zoning 43 Commission by City Staff don't necessarily include rationale that would 44 support the denial, although there is plenty to support that. A good 45 question for the Commission to ask, and I believe it's been alluded to 46 already by Commissioner Scholz, is how did this property and the 49 1 structures on the property become so dilapidated? There is a University 2 Avenue Corridor Plan requirement to maintain structures and to provide 3 landscaping and to provide visual beauty along the University Avenue 4 Corridor. In conclusion, I hope that this Commission will join with those of 5 us who have spoken tonight from the public in agreeing that the proper 6 place for this particular type of zone change to take place would be in a 7 public process that is up and coming with the revision of the Plan. Thank 8 you very much. 9 10 Scholz: Thank you. Yes, do you have anything new to add to this, sir? Okay. 11 12 Wittern: Klaus Wittern. Commissioners I think we all need to recognize that this is 13 private property. This is not public property whereas the university is 14 public property. As the property owner, if he determines that he would like 15 to destroy the building whether it is right or wrong, that is his right and 16 cannot be taken away from him unless somebody wants to pay for it. 17 That's the American way. I don't believe that you, as a Body, can be held 18 responsible or should be held responsible or should that the responsibility 19 to determine what a private property owner deems to be in his or her best 20 interest to do. I believe you cannot and should not let your personal 21 feelings interfere with the needs of the property owner who has 22 determined for whatever reason, whether I agree with it or not, to make a 23 determination. Because, as I think as we have heard here and I think as 24 the City has acted upon, which I'm not aware of, but a demolition permit 25 was issued. I presume that was issued in accordance with all the 26 regulatory requirements that exist. And that may be something that you 27 could inquire about but other than that, I don't believe you can deny the 28 applicant the right to demolish it and then it's a new, completely new deal. 29 That is sad and I want you to be aware that I am very much 30 concerned about what happened across the street here. The St. 31 Genevieve's and those wounds are still here and they are sad to have to 32 admit to but if the community wants to engage in historic preservation then 33 that is potentially reasonable and maybe there needs to, and I thought 34 there was a process, whereby a 90 day period had to be given by which 35 this process can be explored. Ninety days is not very much time when 36 you talk about raising potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars 37 because that could be a requirement but I would for all of us to live by the 38 laws and not by innuendo. Thank you. 39 40 Scholz: Thank you. I would comment that as Mr. Schuster said a few minutes ago 41 we are not determining whether the building is razed or not. We have no 42 control over that. That's a function of another part of the City. And so 43 while it may be our concern it's certainly isn't going to affect the ruling on 44 the, or how the Commission decides on this Code change or you know 45 whatever, all right? Because that's out of our control; we have no control 46 over that. On the other hand you made an interesting point about the City 50 1 not being able to tell private property owners what they can do. As a 2 matter of fact the City can tell private property owners what they can do. 3 We just did that this evening. We told several private property owners we 4 denied them their extensions to their property. I think you were here when 5 that happened, sir, and that's also within the Code because we were 6 following the law. We were following the Building Code. So, yes, the City 7 does have, I think it's always a tension: individual rights and the greater 8 good, and that's one of the tensions that we all live with when we write 9 Zoning Codes and Municipal Codes. Okay, is there any additional public 10 discussion of this? All right, I'm going to close it to public discussion, 11 Commissioner Crane. 12 13 Crane: It's been an interesting few minutes. I'd like to interject that the public 14 good is something which is not been given much attention in this country 15 in the last, let's say, 5 or 10 years and there can't be many people in this 16 room who have not come to recognize that the public good does trump 17 individual desires, shall we say. 1 also would, and I would agree that if 18 some property is to be to have his property, his not to be able to demolish 19 his property because of the public good; yes, the public has the obligation 20 to compensate him for that fairly and this happens all the time in matters 21 of eminent domain for highway space and so on. I am fascinated by this 22 question of how the demolition permit was approved. Was there any 23 public input to that? I don't know what the process is. I'd like to know if 24 somebody can tell us and if it's not going to eat up too much time, can 1 25 demolish my house by paying a fee and asking nicely? 26 27 Scholz: Mr. Schuster. 28 29 Schuster: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Crane, essentially, yes. There is one district in 30 town, the Mesquite Historic District that does have a moratorium when a 31 demolition permit is pulled on a building that is on the Historic Register, it's 32 a 60 day moratorium. That applies only within the boundaries of that 33 District and nowhere else in the City. 34 35 Scholz: Okay, I guess that answers your question. All right, what is your pleasure 36 Councillors? Commissioner Beard? 37 38 Evans: I have one more comment. 39 40 Scholz: Yes? Commissioner Beard and then Commissioner Evans. 41 42 Beard: I realize that we can't do anything about demolishing that if the City goes 43 ahead and allows it. It really does sadden me that that house is going to 44 be demolished. It's such a beautiful piece of property. It's set back. It just 45 shines when you drive by it and fifty years from now when people drive 46 down that University Avenue Road and see everything built right up next 51 I down that University Avenue Road and see everything built right up next 2 to the avenue, they're really going to miss what this City was about 100 3 years ago because those structures are eventually going to be gone. So it 4 saddens me that that's really happening and that we don't have very many 5 of those types of structures in this town anymore. 6 As far as extending the Zone I think the Zone was put there for a 7 reason, it has to be looked at as an overall project. You just can't take 8 one piece and then change it piecemeal. There has to be a reason for 9 having all these zones in there and if there are reasons for it, then we stay 10 with it. If there are reasons for changing it then the whole concept has to 11 be considered. 12 13 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 14 15 Evans: Yes, I would just like to state that the City has approve this, the University 16 Avenue Corridor, has approved this and we have approved similar things 17 many time along the University Corridor exactly like this and 1 don't 18 understand why we are singling out this to conform to a much higher 19 standard than we have in the past. Granted that some of the other 20 Commissioners are new, so I'm a big proponent of consistency, 21 consistency when people mistakenly believe that they don't need a permit 22 and they build a structure in the setbacks and we routinely ask them take 23 those down because it's part of the zoning and we are being consistent. 24 And so I'd like to see us be consistent with the proposal also. 25 26 Scholz: If I can respond to that, I think what you are referring to is the re-imagining 27 if it was, of the area across from Pan Am Plaza. 28 29 Evans: And Pan Am Plaza and also the Catholic Church there and also the 30 structure where Starbucks is currently in. 31 32 Scholz: Right, of course as a Commission we voted against the modification for 33 the Catholic Church which was then passed by the City Council. And of 34 course as the Pan Am Plaza goes, it's a commercial plaza. It was always 35 zoned commercial so I don't think anyone on the Commission questioned 36 the fact that they were simply changing the way it was being applied, 37 allowing buildings to be moved up to the sidewalk and the light. I think 38 we're dealing with a different case here but go ahead, Commissioner 39 Shipley. 40 41 Shipley: I would also say, I guess you can understand that I really care. I'm not up 42 here just to be a rubber stamp. I'm up here to try to find solutions to 43 problems. Just tonight I offered, tried to say can we move a porch, can we 44 move a trailer, can we do this? Because what we really want to do here is 45 we want to do good for everybody with as minimal impact as possible? 46 We understand business is business and business will continue. 52 1 are not allowed in Area 4 right now, that's one thing. If that's what you 2 want to do in Area 4 and there's a good reason for doing that, I can see 3 that. But if you're looking at Area 2 and changing that, that's where I have 4 a problem because that's, you're encroaching from Area 4 into Area 2, 5 pulling that in. You have a clear demarcation with that street that goes 6 there and everybody knows that this is what you expect to see in Area 2, 7 this is what you expect in Area 4. Now, if you want to change that over 8 time, modify the Corridor Plan and go back to the public and allow them 9 have its say because they may think that there's a better use for some of 10 those things in Area 2 than what we've got privy to here and I would just 11 agree that you're asking us here tonight to look at adjusting the boundary 12 and then you're allowing us to add four uses to Area 4 that have never 13 been there before and have never seemed to be needed. So I don't see 14 that given what we are given tonight, we're not told what's exactly going to 15 be on that site and I don't think there is a reason to put it into Area 4 to do 16 that just to find out what your whims are. I would rather you come to me 17 with a plan that says this is exactly what we want to do there, this is why 18 we want to do it and then let the public have a chance to tune in on that so 19 everything is done above the board out here in the open and we can all go 20 home tonight and say what we did here tonight was a good job and I'm not 21 against something. Your point is well taken and I support that a property 22 owner has a right to do with what his property is but he also, we have a 23 responsibility here as a Commission to make sure that we explore all 24 avenues before we make a decision and saying that I would just say that 25 my feelings right now are that we don't need to do any of this to change 26 Area 4 at this time. If there is a better plan for this parcel and you want to 27 take it back and let the citizens have a chance to chime in on it, then bring 28 us a completed Plan or completed Concept Plan that says this is what 29 we're going to do because I want to know about safety. I want to know 30 about traffic. I want to know how many trips you're generating with your 31 business. I want to know what it's going to do to the other neighbors in 32 there. Are they going to object to the noise, the refuse, to the potential of 33 having strangers running through their neighborhood getting lost? I want 34 to know that before we get started with this Plan and this doesn't allow 35 that. This is giving me a little bit and I call it the old bait and switch and 36 that's what I'm not for and I won't support it. 37 38 Scholz: All right, Commissioners any other comments, questions? Okay, what we 39 need to do is, let's see, we suspended the rules, didn't we? Okay, we 40 must unsuspend the rules now so we can vote on these cases... 41 42 Shipley: I move to re-restore the rules. 43 44 Scholz: Okay, is there a second to that? 45 46 Evans: I second. 53 1 2 Scholz: All those in favor, say aye. 3 4 ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS -AYE. 5 6 Scholz: Those opposed same sign, and abstentions. Okay, we have (inaudible) 7 and we have unsuspended the rules. Alright, I'll entertain a motion to 8 accept Case No. PA-08-04. 9 10 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Case No. PA-08-04. 11 12 Scholz: Okay, is there a second to that? 13 14 Beard: I second it. 15 16 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I'll call the role. Commissioner 17 Shipley. 18 19 Shipley: No, findings, discussion and site visit. 20 21 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 22 23 Crane: No, discussion and site visit. 24 25 Scholz: Commissioner Iserman. 26 27 Iserman: I'm gonna have to go no, findings and discussion. 28 29 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 30 31 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 32 33 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 34 35 Beard: No, findings and discussions. 36 37 Scholz: And the Board votes no for findings, discussion and site visit. Okay, so 38 Case No. PA-08-04 is denied 5-1. Okay, I'll entertain a motion for Case 39 No. ZCA-08-04. 40 41 Shipley: I so move. 42 43 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved is there a second? 44 45 Crane: Second it. 46 54 I Scholz: It's been moved and seconded I'll call the role. Commissioner Shipley. 2 3 Shipley: No, findings, discussion and site visit. 4 5 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 6 7 Crane: No, discussion and site visit. 8 9 Scholz: Commissioner Iserman. 10 11 Iserman: No, findings and discussion. 12 13 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 14 15 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 16 17 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 18 19 Beard: No, findings and discussions. 20 21 Scholz: And the Chair votes no for findings, discussion and site visit. So, that is 22 denied 5-1. 23 24 Schuster: Mr. Chair, if I may. I just want to make sure that members of the public 25 are aware that the action here tonight is a recommendation to City Council 26 because it is a Plan and Zoning Code Amendment. 27 28 Scholz: I understand that. Thank you very much, Mr. Schuster. 29 30 8. Case PUD-08-03: A request for Final Site Plan approval for 187.30 +/- 31 acres of land known as the Metro Verde Planned Unit Development (PUD). 32 The Metro Verde development is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) 33 requiring land uses, roadway construction, etc to follow the approved 34 concept plan. The subject properties are located south of the future 35 extension of Dragon Fly Boulevard east and west of the future extension of 36 Luna Vista Road. The Metro Verde PUD Final Site Plan proposes 37 commercial, multi-family, mixed use and residential land use components 38 consisting of a combined 308 +/- lots. Submitted by Denton Ventures, Inc 39 for SN2 land Holding, LLC. 40 41 Schuster: Okay, our next one is a request for final site plan. It's Case PUD-08-03, a 42 request for final site plan approval of 187.3 acres of land known as Metro 43 Verde Planned Unit Development and you all have seen the packet on this 44 and we got a map on this as well. Mr. White. 45 46 White: It will take a moment to load. It's a rather lengthy presentation. The next 55 a 1 case on the agenda is Case PUD-08-03. It's a request for Final Site Plan 2 approval for roughly 187 acres of land known as the Metro Verde Planned 3 Unit Development. The Metro Verde Planned Unit Concept Plan was 4 approved by City Council on May 27, 2008. The Final Site Plan is a 5 subsequent document in the process. 6 Here is a vicinity map showing that the primary ingress and egress 7 to the property is from Sonoma Ranch Blvd. It is roughly 3.17 miles away. 8 Identifying points down on the south is that you actually have here is you 9 have Las Colinas. It's located in this general area. You have Bataan East 10 and Memorial West located here with US 70. You have some 11 thoroughfares in the area, some of the east/west thoroughfares, you have 12 Peachtree Hills which is located in this area here. To the south you have 13 Thurman Road and the northern periphery of the Metro Verde project you 14 have Dragonfly which is located in this area here. 15 Here is a colored zoning map based upon the action that occurred 16 in front of City Council on May 27, 2008. Roughly 187 acres of land was 17 zoned PUD or Planned Unit Development. What PUD actually is, is that 18 through a conceptual plan you're able to define land uses, you can also 19 define densities and also the type of development provided for the area. 20 What also occurred recently on October 3, 2008 is that there was a minor 21 amendment approved by the planning, by actually the Community 22 Development Department regarding infrastructure improvement criteria 23 regarding Sonoma Ranch Boulevard and some of the adjacent roadways. 24 This also shows, depicts the actual zoning of the area as identified earlier. 25 Metro Verde is actually zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. If you 26 also look to the west you have overlapping zoning of C-3, R-1 a, 27 respectively. If you look down this area you have a commercial node that 28 it is actually zoned C-3 and you have overlapping zoning here to the west 29 of C-3, R-2. This is the Sierra Norte Master Plan. The area was actually 30 annexed into the City circa 2006. Those are part of 1,940 acre annexation 31 into the City limits and what I actually, what you have here is a part of the 32 Sierra Norte Master Plan and the area we are speaking about is located in 33 this general area here. That's that reason I show only a portion of the 34 entire Sierra Norte Master Plan. There are some identifying points I would 35 like to bring out: Dragonfly Boulevard, which is on the northern boundary, 36 here of the Sierra Norte Master Plan; Luna Vista, which is located pretty 37 central in this area here and on the south here you have Arroyo Road 38 which is located here. 39 Based upon the annexation that occurred this is actually a funnel 40 that was used through City Council for the pieces of Presidio and a few 41 other annexations that occurred. They're pretty much the development 42 process. The PUD process is a little bit different than what you see here 43 but the same basic elements you do see through the PUD process. When 44 you're looking at a PUD the Master Plan becomes a Concept Plan. Also a 45 portion of the PUD you have what we call zoning. The PUD is actually a 46 Physical Zoning District or what they use in planning, it's called a Base 56 1 Zone. 2 What we're looking at this evening is what we call in the PUD 3 process, called a Final Site Plan and then a Final Plat is down here and 4 then you go in to the administrative technical documents such as right-of- 5 way, construction drawings, permit, and all the way down the actual funnel 6 system here. Prior to going into the Final Site Plan I think first we need to 7 evaluate what actually was approved regarding the Concept Plan in May 8 of this year by City Council. In the actual Concept Plan that was approved 9 you have a centralized mixed use area here; you also have a multitude of 10 different type of densities; you have multi-family; you have single family; 11 you have some commercial component and you also have in roughly this 12 area here is going to be predominately mixed use development. Other 13 landmarks is that if you notice here to the west you have a preliminary plat 14 known as the Founders of Sierra Norte. It's a planned golf course 15 community. This in respect to the PUD flow chart of what I was kind of 16 going through, through the funnel system based upon the difference 17 between a zoning and subdivision process. 18 What we're following this evening is this section here, the Zoning 19 PUD process. As illustrated and discussed earlier, the Concept Plan was 20 approved. The second step here is to go a final site plan which we're 21 discussing this evening. Based upon the concept plan creating a bay 22 zone for the property, it required City Council action. The final site plan 23 since it was separated from the actual concept plan; the final authority 24 resides with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Again it is a platting 25 document very similar to a preliminary plat and then when you get beyond 26 this line to the final plat, construction drawings and permitting, this area 27 here is done administratively. Just to reiterate the differences that if you 28 had a subdivision process you would go through a master plan, 29 preliminary plat, final plat and construction drawings. 30 Basic elements of the Metro Verde PUD, as stipulated earlier, it is a 31 mixed use development. There are modified street cross sections and 32 there are also roundabouts. The applicant has requested via the Concept 33 Plan for no street lighting for some of the residential lots. There is a 34 Landscape Median Plan. There's also a request I spoke about earlier 35 regarding some of the concepts and the minor amendment that was made 36 to the concept plan that was granted by the Planning Staff in October 37 2008. These are some of the specified development plans for the different 38 types of uses within the Metro Verde and I won't go through the entire 39 thing but just roughly to go through it multi-dwelling: you're looking at a 40 high limitation of three stories of 45 feet and four stories of 60 feet. Patio 41 homes, just to go through the actual: you look a minimum lot area of 2000 42 square feet and regarding, you have townhome and villas development 43 properties as well. 44 The MPO Thoroughfare, when you start getting into some of the 45 outlying areas of the City you're going to start seeing a lot of segmented 46 lines. What these segmented lines actually mean is those roads are not 57 I actually built as of date. If you look at what is actually built out to date 2 what you have, is you have Jornada Road that is actually built, which is 3 actually classified as a Collector on the eastern boundary, the property 4 actually is a little bit off the eastern boundary and to identify some of the 5 actual thoroughfares that would traverse the proposed project, we have 6 Dragonfly on the actual far northern boundary of property located here, we 7 have Luna Vista. Luna Vista will actually be one of the connecting 8 roadways that will go back into the, through the town so it's called a 9 Village Center. On the southern boundary you have here what is called 10 Arroyo Road. Actually Arroyo Road is actually outside the actual physical 11 boundaries of Metro Verde. It's roughly about 200 or 300 feet south. But 12 what the request is, is actually now is that the applicant is required prior to 13 any development to connect Arroyo Road back into the respective 14 development. So applicant is responsible for off-site improvements. What 15 also was required based upon; if you look at Sonoma Ranch Blvd. here, 16 the applicant would connect Sonoma Ranch Blvd. from this point here 17 back into Metro Verde. 18 Aerial view, regarding the subject tract of land. Here is actual the 19 final site plan regarding the project. You do have a full size version in your 20 packet regarding the actual Final Site Plan. Page F5 is what I would call 21 is actually the entire, is actually label existent topography but it actually 22 shows various elements of where the land how it's going to be platted out 23 in the various phasing schedule so it's really an important document to 24 evaluate. Again, various portions, I do have the match lines on this 25 actually how it's going to be connected, F2, F3, F4. What I did here, very 26 briefly, is just trying to discuss the PUD process and where we are this 27 afternoon. Based upon what City Council did on May 27th, these are the 28 elements that was done to the concept plan. The creative concept master 29 technical documents specified design ingress and egress. Land use plan 30 design standards where we cross section amenities, open space and 31 phasing schedule. 32 What we're discussing this evening is things below this red line and 33 pretty much what a Final Site Plan does, if you will notice this box here: 34 specified lot design, lot widths, dimensions etc. It has to conform to the 35 approved Concept Plan, established easements, right-of-way, ponding 36 areas and it requires planning and zoning action and of course, down here 37 is a subsequent step in the process which the Final Plat is done 38 administratively in which you're dealing final plat review, construction 39 drawings, administrative reprove, final technical documents and financial 40 approvals. 41 Staff recommendation is approval without conditions and of course 42 in this actually that's incorrect, P & Z has final action regarding this case 43 since it is a Final Site Plan. 44 45 Scholz: Okay, any questions for Mr. White? All right may we hear from the 46 applicant, please? 58 Aqk 1 2 Kinney: Good evening. Matt Kinney with DVI. Let me find the PowerPoint. As 1 3 mentioned, I'm Matt Kinney with DVI and I'm here to present on behalf of 4 the developer. The owner is SN@ Land Holdings. The developer is Bright 5 View Land Company and we are the planning urban design and 6 engineering firm for the project and Geo Test will be the developer's, the 7 technical engineering firm. As James mentioned, Metro Verde is on the 8 northern end of Sierra Norte master planned area and the primary access 9 will be from Sonoma Ranch Blvd. To clarify something that James said, 10 the secondary access issue is, there's a note on the plans that say that 11 secondary access will be coordinated in a way that is comfortable with the 12 fire department. There's no offsite roads that are required specifically by 13 the concept plan. I just wanted to make that clarification. While we're on 14 the secondary access, what we're thinking at this point is that secondary 15 access would be Dragonfly to Jornada so that there's a route that comes 16 into the top of the project is kind of what we're thinking at this point. This 17 is the concept plan that was unanimously approved by City Council, it 18 involves a village center with a mixed use that is connected to residential 19 uses by a 13 acre park and trail plan. There are multi-family areas 20 through out the project and then there's Single Family on the outer limits 21 of the project. Within the village center we have a two acre plaza, mixed 22 use buildings and then some free standing commercial buildings as well. 23 And the plaza concept is to create a place to have a potentially a stage, 24 viewing towers, some shade structures and kiosks that could be used for 25 farmers market or other uses. So then, I'll go through some of the sheets 26 of the final site plan as Mr. White mentioned, a final site plan is really the 27 equivalent of a preliminary plat. Hopefully someday we'll get the word 28 final out of there because I think it's confusing to use the word final 29 because it's not a final document. We have a lot of work yet to do before 30 we get to the final documents but this is the equivalent a preliminary plat 31 as Mr. White demonstrated to you. An important note is when it basically 32 says that the developer has the right to go forward with construction 33 drawings and final plats and those kind of things but will not be allowed to 34 file a plat until access is provided to the property so until Sonoma Ranch 35 Blvd. and utilities are brought to the site no final plats will be recorded and 36 that was a note that was agreed to by the directors of the different 37 departments. The Director of Public Works and the Director of Utilities 38 worked on this note with the developer. So these drawings simply show 39 you that a final site plan is really equivalent to a preliminary plat, it shows 40 in a conceptual way the bearings and distances of the lot lines, it has 41 existing topography and some other things included as well. Utilities will 42 be City sewer, water and gas, well Rio Grande Natural Gas. And then the 43 drainage report as you may recall the parking lots in the multi-family areas 44 and the mixed used commercial are proposed to be pervious concrete 45 which is concrete that lets the water run through and when we did the 46 drainage report we showed that this project with that product would only 59 I need five acre feed of ponding as apposed to a typical asphalt type 2 scenario, you'd need about 25 acre feet, so by using that system we have 3 a much better low impact development than is typically done. That 4 completes my presentation, I'd be happy to answer any questions you 5 may have. 6 7 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley. 8 9 Shipley: Good evening. I'm looking at the sheets and you showed a preliminary 10 plan with roundabouts and that, I don't see any of the roundabouts or 11 anything on this particular plot. So this doesn't agree with what you 12 basically got approved by City Council. Is that correct? 13 14 Kinney: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Shipley that is not correct. The roundabouts are 15 still there. When you go to a plat what you're showing is the right-of-way 16 limits and you don't show any of the curb lines or sidewalk lines or any of 17 the physical improvements of the roadway itself, so what you're going to 18 see is the gap that represents the space that is needed for the 19 roundabout, you're not going to have the roundabout showing but it is still 20 the plan to do roundabouts at the intersections. 21 22 Shipley: Okay, because that's what I thought one of our mandates was, is to make 23 sure that this agreed with what was previously approved and it's, Okay. 24 25 Scholz: Alright, other questions for Mr. Kinney? Okay, thank you very much. 26 Anyone from the public want to comment on this? Yes mam. 27 28 Geiger: Good evening Commissioners again, Sandy Geiger. I'd like to go back 29 and pull up the slide that has the agreement if that's Okay? I have a 30 question about the agreement, was this in place for the approval of the 31 concept plan, you remember? 32 33 (Inaudible) 34 35 Scholz: You have to closer to the microphone, please. 36 37 Geiger: Okay, my question was, was this agreement in place for the approval of 38 the concept plan and Matt answered no, that it's part of the refinement. 39 40 Kinney: Matt Kinney with DVI, a preliminary plat is a more detailed study, a master 41 plan is a very basic plan and preliminary plat takes it to a higher level of 42 detail and so there are, this is one of the things that was agreed to with 43 Staff is we went through the improvement to preliminary plat. 44 45 Scholz: It was our understanding Ms. Geiger, that as I recall when we talked about 46 the original, the master plan, it was our understanding that the road would 60 1 the original, the master plan, it was our understanding that the road would 2 be built first and then utilities extended before building permits would be 3 allowed or whatever in the area. I don't recall seeing this language but 1 4 think this language would satisfy the needs of the Commission. 5 Gentlemen? 6 7 Geiger: Thank you. 8 9 Scholz: Okay. Anything else? Alright, I'm going to close it to public discussion 10 then. 11 12 Shipley: One more question. 13 14 Scholz: One more question? Yes, go ahead Commissioner Shipley. 15 16 Shipley: In the staff report it talks about internal roads and you talk about there's 17 the lighting, not having the lighting. I'm just concerned that you know 18 you're the farthest northern boundary and you're not going to have street 19 lighting in some areas which lends itself to safety as far as I'm concerned 20 that you have the potential for more robberies, more home break ins, 21 those kinds of things because when there isn't sufficient lighting for people 22 to recognize license plates and see cars and get descriptions of people 23 then you tend to have that and I just wondered, I had a great big why (?) 24 safety and the second thing is I still don't see we talked about bike lanes 25 and some other things and there is no reference to any bike lanes except 26 along Sonoma Ranch Blvd. and so how are people supposed to get from 27 there to the commercial area or whatever if they want to use a bike? 28 29 Kinney: Okay, on the first issue, street lights will be provided on Sonoma Ranch 30 Blvd. and Dragonfly because those are arterial roadways so there will be 31 street lights in there. The plaza and Promenade Park will be lit as well 32 and then multi-family areas are typically lit and some light in parking lots 33 and things in multi-family areas. You can see from the map that covers 34 most of the project. We have had an experience in the Pueblos at 35 Alameda Ranch when we worked next to Jornada Subdivision, the 36 residents actually came to us and asked us not to put in street lights in the 37 Pueblos and so it was a variance in the Pueblos not to do street lights and 38 there's kind of a love/hate relationship with street lights. Some people 39 really like them, other people complain that is shines in their bedroom 40 window and but again the street light issue was a part of the concept plan 41 that was approved by City Council and we're simply carrying that forward 42 as part of this preliminary plat. In terms of the bike lanes and connectivity 43 and pedestrian connectivity, that's all there as it was in the concept plan. 44 There's bike lanes in the street section of Sonoma Ranch Blvd. and 45 Dragonfly, there's a shared use path that follows Dragonfly and Sonoma 46 Ranch Blvd. and then the Promenade Park is a connection for pedestrians 61 1 center. 2 3 Shipley: But if I live out here on the 50th lot out here on the north side, northwest 4 side, I don't have street lights and I don't have any way to get there except 5 driving down the middle of the street on my bicycle, is that correct? 6 7 Kinney: You will have sidewalks as well as the street that is correct. 8 9 Shipley: Are the houses, do they have lighted signs on the, numerical signs on 10 there so that you can identify which house is in that long row, if there's an 11 emergency and an ambulance needs to find that? 12 13 Kinney: That's restricted a covenant issue that we haven't gotten to yet because 14 we're not at the final design. 15 16 Shipley: Well, I mean if you've got no lights there not going to be able to, they're 17 going to have to sign a spot light up on the house to find the house is the 18 way I see it is that correct? 19 20 Kinney: Actually the fire department requires that you paint an address on the curb 21 before you get a certificate of occupancy on a house. 22 23 Scholz: Thank you Mr. Kinney. Any other questions, comments? Okay, I'm 24 looking for a motion to approve PUD-08-03. 25 26 Crane: So move. 27 28 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved, is there a second? 29 30 Evans: I second. 31 32 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded; I'll call the roll, Commissioner Shipley. 33 34 Shipley: I'm going to abstain. 35 36 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley abstains, Okay. Commissioner Crane. 37 38 Crane: Aye, discussion, findings. 39 40 Scholz: Commissioner Iserman. 41 42 Iserman: Aye, findings and discussion. 43 44 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 45 46 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 62 1 2 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 3 4 Beard: Aye, findings and discussions. 5 6 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye so it's 5 in favor, one abstained and passes. 7 Alright, thank you gentlemen, thank you Mr. Kinney. May we keep the 8 maps, they're great. I was thinking of papering my office with them. 9 10 9. Case Z2765: A request for a zone change from R-1a (Single-Family 11 Medium Intensity) to R-2C (Multi-Dwelling Low Density-Conditional) for 12 9.680 +/- acres located at the northeastern intersection of Mesa Drive and 13 Central Avenue. The zone change request will facilitate the construction of 14 an apartment complex with a maximum permissible density of 15 dwelling 15 units per acre. Submitted by Dann Casey for More Gelt Holding, LLC. 16 17 Scholz: Alright, our next one is I think you're up again aren't you; we're really 18 working you hard today. 19 20 White: Yes, you sure are. 21 22 Scholz: Yeah, son of a gun, we'll have to take you out for a beer or something. 23 Okay, this is Case Z2765, request for zoning change from R-1a to R-2C. 24 25 White: The next case this evening is Case Z2765; it's a request for a zone 26 change from R-1 a which is Single Family Medium Intensity to R-2c which 27 is Multi-Dwelling Low Density-Conditional for 9.6 acres of land. First let's 28 actually look at the development of criteria between R-1 a and R-2. Where 29 this green line starts here is the actual R-1 a zoning district and pretty 30 much what we are looking at there is that currently R-1a allows for one 31 dwelling unit per platted lot. In respect R-3, there is no minimum density 32 but there is a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre. Regarding 33 the setbacks the variation is that if you're multi-family such as proposed 34 apartment complex you're required a 20 foot front yard setback, seven 35 side and seven rear. Also, the height, currently the R-1a zoning district 36 you're allowed 35 foot maximum height, in the R-2 is also 35 feet. Also 37 something to be reminded is minimum lot size that in theory if you're trying 38 to develop the R-1 a property as it is currently, you're allowed to get eight 39 dwelling units per acre or 5000 square foot lots but to be honest with you 40 by the time you put roadways in and all the utilities you roughly get five to 41 six so if you have roughly a ten acre tract of land and you tried to 42 subdivide it you probably get between 40 to 50 single family residential 43 units on the actual 10 acres of land. Here's actual a zoning map and 44 vicinity map of the area. Just to give you an identifying point the 9.6 acres 45 is located roughly right here. It's is roughly a half mile back to Bataan 46 Memorial West. The zoning pattern and area predominately what you're 63 1 seeing out there is that; let's just talk about land uses. Currently to the 2 actual east you have the Oro Vista Ponds, a City ponding facility. It's 3 currently unoccupied as it being a ponding area. To the north you have 4 Mesa Development, they have some water tanks and water wells. About 5 two years ago this tract of land here was a proposed subdivision and this 6 area here is zoned R-1a but the subdivision did not come to fruition. 7 Specifics on the land as stipulated earlier the property is currently vacant, 8 it is currently zoned R-1a which is Single Family Medium Density. The 9 zone change request is to R-2 a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre. 10 The proposal is for a 138 unit apartment complex and on the actual 11 western boundary of the property you have Mesa Drive which is classified 12 as a collector and Central Avenue to the south which is classified as a 13 major local. We'll go into, what the applicant has provided Staff with was 14 a traffic impact analysis. The traffic impact analysis was evaluated by the 15 Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. Based upon the 16 findings of the traffic impact analysis there was a few roadway 17 improvements required in case this property is to be developed as an 18 apartment complex. Let's first start with Mesa Drive, as its labeled here; 19 it's labeled as a collector. What the issued was that since in this area 20 Mesa Drive is improved but it doesn't actually meet the minimum 21 requirements for a collector. So based upon the discussion with the City 22 Traffic Engineer and Public Works and the TIA document submitted, the 23 applicant is required to do pro-rata improvements for a collector status 24 roadway. A collector status roadway currently requires 85 feet of right-of- 25 way so the developer will be required to do a dedication of additional 26 grants of right-of-way and do pro-rata improvements for the western side 27 of Mesa to be improved. In respect to Central, this portion of Central is 28 unimproved. From this portion back to the east is actually classified as a 29 major local. A major local even though it's not really on a major 30 thoroughfare, it does require 60 foot of right-of-way but we had to go 31 through some negotiation because how a major local is classified in the 32 City design standards is that they are only responsible to half of a major 33 local. The problem with that is if you actually look at the City design code 34 you'll only be required to do one driving lane of eleven feet in size. So 35 based upon that, that we had a negotiation; the negotiation was for the 36 developer to build two 11 foot driving lanes parallel to the property, this 37 location here. But based upon the additional improvement he would not 38 be responsible for street lighting or sidewalks or curb and gutter so that is 39 the reason we have a compromise in the improvement schedule for 40 Central Road in this location here. Here is an aerial photo of the subject 41 property roughly 9.6 acres in size. As stipulated earlier to the west you 42 have City ponding areas, to the north you have Mesa Development water 43 tanks. This tract of land is the one I was discussing earlier regarding a 44 potential subdivision application that did not come to fruition and what you 45 have in this area, you have a multitude of different types of housing 46 stocks; you have manufactured homes and you have some site built 64 4 1 homes. What you're seeing in this general area now based upon the 2 comprehensive plan is that we look at zoning property from let's say 3 Single Family to Multi-Family. One of the biggest elements we started 4 evaluating is the actual transportation network and based upon something 5 such as an apartment complex and a minimum you would want a 6 thoroughfare such as Mesa located in direct proximity or adjacent to the 7 property such as you have here on the actual western boundary. Here is 8 a black and white version of the concept plan. Again to orient you this is 9 the north arrow, we're looking north, you have Central Road on this little 10 area and Mesa on this area. You do have a curb cut proposed in this area 11 here and you also have a curb cut proposed in this area up here. The 12 Staff recommendation is for conditional approval. There was two 13 conditions attached to this. Number one is based on the traffic study 14 approved by the City Traffic Engineer, multi-dwelling development or two 15 shall require pro-rata improvements to Mesa Drive in accordance with the 16 City of Las of Cruces design standards for a collector. In respect to the 17 major local is based upon the negotiation that we had regarding the 18 construction of two 12 foot driving lanes excluding street lighting and 19 sidewalks. The second condition is that the applicant will be required to 20 dedicate additional rights-of-way for the pro-rata construction on Mesa 21 Drive and Central respectively. And since this is a zoning ordinance it 22 requires that recommendation to P & Z be forwarded to City Council for 23 final consideration. That will end Staff presentation, be glad to stand for 24 any questions this board may have. 25 26 Scholz: Okay, questions? Mr. Shipley. 27 28 Shipley: When I looked at the concept plan again I kind of did a little count and this 29 shows about 144 units based upon what they gave there. Is this accurate 30 of is this just kind of a design plan to show us what it might look like? 31 32 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Shipley, the 138 units that I took of was from 33 the actual traffic impact analysis or TIA so there may be some variation in 34 the entire project the applicant's agent is here this evening to discuss 35 those issues. 36 37 Shipley: Okay. 38 39 Scholz: Okay, let's here from the applicant. 40 41 Denton: Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Drew Denton with DVI. I'm here 42 on behalf of the owner of this property. We are dealing with a piece of 43 land off Mesa Drive and Central and we here for a zoning changing as Mr. 44 White explained. And briefly to explain your question, which I will I guess 45 Commissioner Shipley, which I will get to later. In essence, yes the 46 concept plan is here for an idea of a possibility that could go onto this 65 1 property at this time. This is not a plan put forth to the Commission for 2 approval at this time; it's more how to show how something could be done 3 on this property I guess in more of a tasteful way instead of... I guess 4 when you think of apartment complex you think big towering structure and 5 this is a way of trying to show that it can be done in several different 6 buildings instead of one huge structure with 140 roughly units in it. But 1 7 will get to that further too. As Mr. White showed this is where the property 8 is located. We have Highway 70 coming up, here is our Mesa Grande exit 9 and here is our Porter exit here and Mesa Drive and Central and here is 10 our City property so we can tell that it is within the City limits. The site is 11 approximately 9.6 acres, currently it's zoned R-1 a which is Single Family 12 Medium Density which allows for eight units per acre which I believe when 13 you break that down right now granted you would roadways but would 14 allow for roughly 76 single family units on this property currently. And as 15 Mr. White pointed out, the land to east is currently City owned being used 16 for a pond and I will also mention both the pond in this section and this 17 section are ponds with three street lights going up both sides of the ponds 18 which when you think of single family residences that could be something 19 that kind of make sense to put a multi-family use here with the street light 20 safety issues. You do have a ponding area over to the east and down to 21 the south so you know you don't have single family residences here, you 22 do have the water tanks above. Currently you have two R-2 zoned areas 23 further to the east already and then you kind of have commercial zoning 24 along 1-70 here and again the black here is where our property is located. 25 I'll probably be flipping back to this slide but we're here to propose to 26 rezone to an R-2 zoning which will allow us 15 units per acre. This will 27 allow roughly a 144 units on the property. We think this use and if I can 28 flip back to the slide before too here, this use, I don't want to say 29 necessary but works really well in this area, as I showed here it can 30 accommodate for the roughly 9000 new soldiers at White Sands is 31 bringing in which they have currently started to bring in and I believe the 32 Mayor has also said he would like Las Cruces to be the town that helps to 33 serve the growing impact that White Sands has and so if we look at being 34 out on 1-70 here easy access for those soldiers. Someplace that is a little 35 bit more affordable to rent, a little bit more of multi-family type of area that 36 you can rent, you don't know how long you're going to be there, you're not 37 stuck trying to buy a house. I would also like to point out that I think is 38 partly the vision of the City to start implementing a few more smart growth 39 practices and trying to reduce the urban sprawl that we've seen just 40 expand in the City and if we do look at the variation of zoning changes we 41 have in this area with the commercial zoning down by 1-70 the R-2 zones 42 that you currently have here and here, the R-1a around, I think by 43 implementing a few multi-family areas in this location you being to 44 implement more of a smart growth area that starts to combine those ideas 45 together and allows someplace again for those soldiers to come and have 46 easy access back to White Sands which this area will be growing too. 66 ® 0 1 Also if we look at the market right now, we have a single family market 2 which for a lack of better words is kind of saturated and if we look at this 3 map again up in the right hand corner we have single family development 4 going in here. Up in the left hand corner one over here, we have one 5 down here, we can see one across 1-70 and several other locations. If we 6 look at these areas we currently have lot that have not been sold or are 7 still being built and at the current time have trouble selling a lot of the 8 single family residences and have seen the need for or a higher need in 9 multi-family units, in rental units, so again I think it's an area that fits very 10 well that I think this multi-family use out here works very well for the area. 11 As Mr. White said the primary access should be along Mesa Drive as it is 12 a collector and again one of the first things you look at when looking at a 13 multi-family site is do you have that collector to bring you back down to an 14 arterial or to hand the traffic coming out of the multi-family area and then 15 the secondary access would be along Central Avenue, along the south 16 and would be paved along the frontage to accommodate for the necessary 17 requirements that were set forth as Mr. White said earlier. Here again and 18 this is a bit different of a concept plan, we've left a little more open space 19 in this than what you saw previously but this is roughly those 144 units. 20 When you look at this I think you can tell that you're sticking to two-story 21 structure accommodating 144 units and still able to leave a large chunk, 22 which, I don't know exact numbers but I'd say roughly ten percent of the 23 land for an open space park area for the residents of this multi-family area 24 so you begin to see that something can be done on this site that isn't just 25 concrete building going five stories tall to accommodate this and it can be 26 something that works nicely into the area the surrounding community. 27 That ends my presentation; I'll answer any questions that you may have. 28 29 Scholz: Okay, questions for the applicant? Commissioner Beard. 30 31 Beard: There's what you've provided here as far a concept plan? This looks like 32 a development that's very similar on Avenida de Mesilla that west of the I- 33 10. Is it a mirror image of that or do you know about that one? 34 35 Denton: This was not meant to be a mirror image, I'm sorry I do not know which 36 one you are talking about. 37 38 Scholz: It's a condo development on the north side of Avenida de Mesilla about 39 two blocks or so... 40 41 Denton: I think I know which one you're about but... 42 43 Scholz: Yeah, half a mile west of 1-10. 44 67 I Denton: That was not in our minds when presenting this to you. This is not meant 2 to be a mirror image and again just an idea of what could go on this 3 property. It's not a plan being put forth. 4 5 Beard: Well, I like that one. 6 7 Denton: That's good (inaudible). 8 9 Scholz: Well, there are units available for sale, I understand so if you're interested. 10 11 Denton: I hope you like this one too. 12 13 Scholz: Other questions? 14 15 Shipley: I'm just going to say there's a discrepancy between what's in the report 16 with 138 units and you're saying 144 and when I did the math on the site 17 plan I got 144 also so as far as what we were given in this presentation 18 and what you're quoting needs to be worked out so we're not talking about 19 apples and oranges. 20 21 Denton: To answer that Commissioner Shipley, if I may. 22 23 Shipley: Okay. 24 25 Denton: As Mr. White mentioned, the 138 was a number brought about in the 26 traffic impact analysis and if we're talking a difference of six units at a 27 state of zoning change before the plans, that will be something that will 28 need to be dealt with. Where I come up with 144 is taking the 15 allowed 29 units per acre and then 9.6 acres we have and multiplying those together 30 which allows 144 units. I am not saying there will be 144 just that is the 31 allowable amount under the zoning code. 32 33 Scholz: Other questions, I have comment about the increase in troops at White 34 Sands. I was at the 2040 meeting last Tuesday and there was a 35 representative from White Sands there and he said that this is a proposed 36 increase and of course they're not sure what budgets will be next year or 37 in the coming years and so their still not sure that we will see that many 38 soldiers there. I just thought I'd tell you about that. 39 40 Denton: That is not something I had heard. Good to know but I still think it is a use 41 that fits in the area. If they do come in they will be looking for housing and 42 even if we take that increase in soldiers out of the equation I do believe 43 you're looking at an area in town that is currently expanding and if we 44 continue with just pure urban sprawl out in this area I think we will come to 45 a point where we wish we had a little bit more multi-family areas out on the 46 East Mesa or around 1-70 here. 68 1 2 Scholz: Well as a matter of fact the gentleman from White Sands did say that the 3 majority of soldiers would be based there and as at Bliss for a relatively 4 short period of time, maybe two to four years and they probably wouldn't 5 be interested in buying houses but they would be interested in renting. 6 Thank you. Okay, this is open to public comment. Members of the public, 7 yes sir? 8 9 Rodriguez: Good evening. 10 11 Scholz: Be sure and speak directly to the microphone. You've gotta pull it down, 12 right to your face there. 13 14 Rodriguez: Good evening gentlemen. I am J.D. Rodriguez. I reside in the good 15 community of Mesa Development and I've got a few questions. First and 16 foremost I would like to be to allowed to request or submit a petition for 17 denial of this concept. My petition is the following, Mr. Charles Scholz, 18 Chairman, I Jose D. Rodriguez proprietor at 6601 Mesa Drive within the 19 good community of Mesa Development within the corporate boundaries of 20 the City Las Cruces, state of New Mexico hereby offer my protest of such 21 proposed Case Z2765 for the following perceived reasons. Number one 22 proposed change; zone change will contain 92 apartments which will 23 constitute a water usage negative impact for the community of Mesa 24 Development residents. Proposed zone change will have approximately 25 92 apartments for a 192, 182 dwellers egressing/digressing with 184 26 vehicles which will create a potential for a life hazard at Central Street and 27 surrounding streets. Proposed zone change will create a health hazard to 28 dwellers due to the mosquito problem due to close proximity to water 29 retention pond on east side of that proposed community. Proposed zone 30 change will have the potential for a total negative impact on the good 31 community of Mesa Development. Request for proposed zone change be 32 denied and be reverted to Single Family Medium Density. Thank you. 33 Respectfully submitted, J.D. Rodriguez. Now, if I may be so bold, in the 34 past in the 1983, March of 1983, 1 as Amicus Curiae represented the good 35 community of Mesa Development before the New Mexico Public Service 36 Commission, now the New Mexico Public Utility Commission. We had a 37 big fight with the developer and we prevailed, this was in Santa Fe, now in 38 the past I have also represented several of my neighbors with the respect 39 to zoning codes I'm mean not zoning but codes violations and that sort of 40 thing. Now, this thing it's an astonishing thing to be it's, let's see, this is 41 where I live right here on the corner of Mesa Drive and Genesis Lane, now 42 this area right here that this concept that we're talking about here, I've got 43 a lot of questions about this thing. May I be so bold? 44 69 I Scholz: Well, you've already given us your reasons why you don't want to see this. 2 Yes, you've said where will the water come from, there are traffic 3 problems and the mosquito problem. Did you have any other points? 4 5 Rodriguez: Yes. 6 7 Scholz: Okay, go ahead. 8 9 Rodriguez: Myself and my neighbors would like to know who would provide the water 10 services. 11 12 Scholz: Okay, we can ask the developer that. 13 14 Rodriguez: Okay, will emergency vehicles have access to all locations within the 15 center of that concept? Emergency vehicles, I'm talking about the fire 16 trucks with the ladders, the big ones you know? Will they have access for 17 those vehicles? Anyway, have impact studies been performed on the 18 existing community traffic to Highway 70 and for school busses, school 19 bus stops, water usage, that sort of thing? Who will pay for road 20 construction east on Central Road? Will the plan be for adults only? Will 21 children be allowed? Why the change from Single Family to Multi- 22 Dwelling? Will there be two-story buildings? An entrance/exit be changed 23 from Central Street to the east side of the plan? Fire protection, will 24 concept plan for fire hydrants? How many, where will they be located? 25 Will these apartments have handicap accessibility accessible restrooms? 26 Who will pay for natural gas extensions and that sort of thing? I would like 27 to have some answers for these questions. 28 29 Scholz: Okay, Mr. Rodriguez, I think we can bring the developer back and I think 30 he can probably answer the majority of these questions. Before he does 31 that though, I'm wondering if there's anybody else in the audience that 32 wants to speak to this. There's a gentleman in the back, yes would you 33 come up please, sir? 34 35 Rodriguez: I'd like to ask a question if I may regarding the... 36 37 Scholz: Oh, I thought you were finished, go ahead. 38 39 Rodriguez: Regarding the concept, I have gone through the concept myself and 1 40 have calculated many more apartments than were discussed while ago. 41 42 Scholz: I think the developer said 144. 43 44 Rodriguez: Well I've done a lot of calculations sir. Take number one, building number 45 one. It's got two bedrooms. 46 70 I Scholz: Yeah, I think the concept plan is a little misleading, Mr. Rodriguez. 2 3 Rodriguez: Yes sir. 4 5 Scholz: I believe the number of apartments was calculated by saying that there 6 would be 15 units per acre and there were nine acres, 9.6 acres and so he 7 multiplied 15 times 9.6 and came up with 144. And that's what he came 8 up with. 9 10 Rodriguez: Well, I've calculated 18 times 18 for bedrooms. At any rate, I've made my 11 presentation and I respectfully request that our petition be accepted and 12 implemented. 13 14 Scholz: Okay, thank for you speaking. There's a gentleman in the back who 15 wants to speak to this. 16 17 Rodriguez: Thank you. 18 19 Fernandez: Hello, Raymond Fernandez, I'm also a resident of that adjacent lot. I'm 20 just concerned about some issues that were already I guess maybe 21 addressed but the zoning change as far as I'm know the lot hasn't been 22 sold? It's still up for sale? 23 24 Scholz: Yes (inaudible). 25 26 Fernandez: So they're trying to make the zoning change before the lot is sold? 27 28 Scholz: I don't know, we can ask the developer that. 29 30 Fernandez: I didn't know if that could done, I thought the property needed to be sold 31 as is basically because everybody else around there for the same zoning, 32 you know for single dwelling, now it's being changed or trying to be 33 changed. Central Road also is I believe there's an area that they're 34 talking about right here that as far as we understand that still belongs to 35 my in-laws and I don't believe that Central Road continues. I've been told 36 by the City that Central Road goes from Mesa Grande to Mesa Drive and 37 this is not Central Road right in here yet. Right in here, that's not Central 38 Road, that is just a dirt road right now and they're not maintaining the road 39 because of the problems they had with the pond and the gang related 40 issues so we have talked to the City about that and they're not maintaining 41 that road to cut down on traffic and that's what cut down on all the 42 problems we used to have over here in this area. I can see a lot of 43 problems coming up if you get a lot of kids that move into these areas. 44 Another thing that's been on the table was, well the electric company is 1 45 believe proposing a high power line coming through here, overhead high 46 power lines coming down Central and I don't think that's been resolved 71 I and I think changing the zone will affect that issue as well. They're 2 proposing a high power line to service all the areas of construction that 3 have come up on the east side of that lot, those other subdivisions. 4 Another thing is you're talking about White Sands soldiers coming into 5 play, I believe White Sands is accommodating their soldiers with all the 6 construction they have. They are building a bunch of houses on the other 7 side of the hill. They've knocked down the old structures to put new 8 structures and that is for most of their solders so that's just a couple more 9 issues that I think need to be addressed before the zone takes place. The 10 water for instance, Mr. Rodriguez was talking about fire hydrants, we do 11 not have fire hydrants out there. The water system that's out there will not 12 handle a fire hydrant at this time and I believe that's an issue with the 13 owners of the water system. I believe they're still arguing with the City 14 whether the City is going to take over their system, buy it out from them or 15 not so I don't know, has that been solved before, again this is you know 16 added to the zoning problem. Will they be able to have their fire hydrants 17 and so on if all that hasn't been solved? That's all, thank you. 18 19 Scholz: Okay, let me call the developer back because we have a couple of 20 questions, particularly about utilities. 21 22 Denton: Again, Drew Denton, DVI. Chairman, Commissioners, just to answer a 23 few of these questions, I think a lot of the questions raised do not deal with 24 the zoning change at this time, would deal with further developing of plan 25 and coming back to make sure that enough fire hydrants are there but 1 26 will address and say that it is my understanding that there is a 15 inch 27 water line of the City which would adequately serve the property and that 28 City would serve the water for this property and we would have City water, 29 City sewer and in fact there is a sewer line currently going along Central 30 Avenue so the infrastructure is there to connect to for City to provide these 31 utilities for this site and again if I might say that regardless of whether this 32 zone change happens these utilities are going to have to be in place for 33 what could be possibly be 76 single family units or roughly 15 or so 34 individual buildings that house 144 different units so whether we do the 35 zone change or not, these are all issues that will have to be addressed 36 sooner or later in the design phase and the planning phases of this 37 process. Also, as far as emergency vehicle access the concept plan 38 shown does provide the adequate 20 foot back to curb that the fire 39 department would need to get their vehicles throughout the whole 40 development. As far as the cost of who would be updating Central along 41 the frontage, per the standards of the City that would be the cost of the 42 developer to make those changes and to upgrade and pave that road. 43 And then from my understanding I don't see anywhere with a power line 44 going across as was mentioned in this past presentation or I guess 45 questions, I don't believe there is anything with the zone change that 46 would affect that power line coming across Central Avenue right there and 72 I I had not heard about an over line or an overhead power line coming 2 through when we were committing to doing underground utilities coming 3 into this property but regardless I don't think with an overhead power line 4 coming across Central that it should affect a zone change and I think 5 everything else deals more with further design than actually coming back 6 with a concept plan to get approval on those matters and for the zone 7 change I think I've addressed all questions. 8 9 Scholz: Okay, I want to talk to Staff about a couple of things here. Mr. White you 10 said that the developer will be required to pave one half of that is two 11 lanes of Central, right from Mesa east to the end of the property. 12 13 White: Chair Scholz, that is correct. 14 15 Scholz: Okay, well what's happening with the drainage ponds? That's City 16 property, isn't it? 17 18 White: Correct, the drainage ponds are actually to the west. 19 20 Scholz: No, to the east. 21 22 White: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. If we start talking about the east, the 23 improvements that are required by the traffic impact analysis is only for the 24 intersection going back from the property here to the respective boundary 25 to this portion right here. 26 27 Scholz: Yes, I understand that but does the City plan to pave the rest of Central? 28 29 White: There's no current plan for improvements. 30 31 Scholz: Well, I drove today and Mr. Fernandez is correct, it's a dirt road, you know 32 and it's not in particularly good condition. What is to prevent people from 33 driving on that coming up Porter and you know and coming over on 34 Central if we authorize an apartment development here? 35 36 White: Commissioner Scholz, the plan for this is very similar to a subdivision 37 application. We subdivide property, to develop property you're required to 38 do adjacent roadway improvements. In respect to this instance since it 39 has primary connection off an improved roadway such as Mesa Drive, you 40 have and adjacent secondary road such as Central, that's the rationale for 41 improvements here. In theory what happens is the property starts being 42 developed to the east then you also get those improvements being done. 43 Of course in this are since you have City property the City will be 44 responsible for maybe at time they'd get the proper connection. In this 45 area here let's talk about this; this is called Sunrise Mesa PUD, it's a 46 mobile home and manufactured home subdivision. Phase one was done 73 I roughly about 10 years ago and roughly about a year or two ago phase 2 two was submitted back to the P & Z Commission. The applicant is 3 responsible to improve this portion to this portion here with Phase two of 4 Sunrise Mesa it was converted from a 1 think a manufactured home PUD 5 to a single family site built PUD so this portion to this portion would be 6 improved with the development application. The applicant will be 7 improved from this portion to this portion so the gap in roadway you'll 8 actually have will be from this tract back to this portion right here. 9 10 Scholz: And that's all City land? 11 12 White: That is correct. 13 14 Scholz: Yes, Commissioner Beard. 15 16 Beard: Just some clarification. This property, I guess was a County or excuse me 17 County about 1983 and then incorporated into the City about 1984 or 18 1985? At that time the water out there was supplied by Pettes Water and 19 that was a bad water system. Is the City now putting in additional lines out 20 there? 21 22 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Beard, the subject property is in the Mesa 23 Development water service area. 24 25 Beard: The who? 26 27 White: The Mesa Development which you're speaking about is called Mesa 28 Development, that's the water company. The subject property is within 29 their service area. What the discussion was and there is an email that 1 30 have that I believe that it's located with the developer, is that the applicant 31 has provided City Staff that he is going pursue getting water service from 32 the City of Las Cruces for the subject tract of land and sanitary sewer. So 33 those issues have to be evaluated prior to any building permit being 34 issued for the property. 35 36 Beard: Also, that was a flood area down Central back in the 80's. Is that no 37 longer a flood area, I mean when it rained hard that road was gouged out 38 by water. 39 40 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Beard, again other documents will be 41 required for this property. We discussed with the Public Works Staff as 42 prior to any building permit being issued, they'd be required to do a 43 drainage report on the subject tract of land and those kinds of issues 44 would be evaluated at time. So, yes, we are aware there are issues in 45 that area and a technical document would be required prior to a building 46 permit being issued. 74 1 2 Beard: Do we have an aerial photograph of that area because as I remember 3 that's almost trailer, what do they call it, manufactured homes? 4 5 Scholz: Yes, some of them are. 6 7 Beard: I think a lot of it is, especially further to the west. 8 9 Scholz: Okay, any other questions or comments? Alright gentlemen it's up to you, 10 Mr. Kinney you had a question or comment? 11 12 Kinney: I wanted to add just a couple things if I may, Matt Kinney with DVI. I just 13 wanted to point out that the road improvements that are required are 14 required whether it's a single family residential development or the R-2 15 request that's before you. I just want to point that out that Mesa Drive, the 16 frontage on Mesa Drive would have to be improved and then Central as 17 well. Central simply ends as a collector at Mesa it doesn't necessarily end 18 as a roadway, it's just on the major thoroughfare plan that ends as a 19 collector at Mesa so that may be what some of the confusion. And then in 20 terms of the flooding, these two ponds provide protection but the City is 21 also building a larger regional detention facility within this system that will 22 provide a lot of relief from flooding down Central, it's a 120 acre ponding 23 facility that the City is currently building. 24 25 Scholz: And where is that because I recall seeing a plan for that oh a year, year 26 and a half ago. 27 28 Kinney: Its east and south of 70 but it is in the same drainage system that affects 29 this property and Central Drive. 30 31 Scholz: Its east of Dunn Road isn't it? 32 33 Kinney: I believe so. 34 35 Scholz: Yeah, Okay. Yeah, I seem to recall that. Okay, gentlemen, it's up to you. 36 37 Shipley: Just a clarification. 38 39 Scholz: Yes. 40 41 Shipley: On the picture there, (inaudible) concrete is that spillways or what is that 42 on that photograph? 43 44 Denton: That is concrete spillways coming down in those ponds, yes. 45 46 Shipley: So does it drain, I mean it's drained from east to west, correct? 75 1 2 Scholz: Well, it's actually draining off the road. The road is the high point and 3 those two ponds are the low points. Mr. Fernandez, you had another 4 question or a comment? 5 6 Fernandez: Yes, like I said I live out there and the City is still having trouble controlling 7 that water even with the concrete spills. What seems to be the problem is 8 Porter is a little lower than Central so they're having problems controlling 9 that water and you're talking about another pond on the south side of 70? 10 11 Scholz: Yes. 12 13 Fernandez: I don't see how the south side of 70 is going to control the north side of 70. 14 15 Scholz: I don't know either. 16 17 Fernandez: And as far as the water and sewer system that was put in there that was 18 to accommodate basically the new subdivisions and stuff so are they just 19 pushing Pettes' water system out with that argument you have with him 20 now, is he just getting pushed out of it because that's... 21 22 Scholz: And I don't know that. 23 24 Fernandez: It's his water system that is in that area. 25 26 Scholz: And obviously that is something that would have to be negotiated before 27 anything was built. 28 29 Fernandez: Maybe before the zone change takes place as well? 30 31 Scholz: Alright, gentlemen, I'll accept a motion. I know you're all tired, come on. 1 32 mean I could do this all myself but I don't intend to. Yes, Commissioner 33 Beard. 34 35 Beard: I didn't hear any discussions about you know about have multi-story 36 buildings opposed to the manufactured homes that are in there right now 37 mostly and I guess there's nobody complaining about that. 38 39 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley. 40 41 Shipley: its one story buildings is what I understand, this... 42 43 Scholz: No, multi. 44 45 Shipley: Multi-story? 46 76 1 Scholz: Two-story buildings. Okay, do I hear a motion? 2 3 Crane: I move that Case Z2765 be approved with the conditions as stated by the 4 Staff. 5 6 Scholz: Okay, is there a second? The conditions are on page 3 by the way. 7 8 Evans: I second. 9 10 Scholz: Okay, would you read the conditions Commissioner Crane? 11 12 Crane: Condition one; based on the traffic study approved by the City Traffic 13 Engineer multi-dwelling development (R-2) shall require pro-rata 14 improvements to Mesa Drive in accordance with City of Las Cruces 15 Design Standards for a Collector status roadway and Central Avenue 16 (Major Local). The approved modified cross-section for Central Avenue 17 includes the construction of two (2) twelve (12) foot driving lanes excluding 18 street lighting and sidewalks. Second requirement is the applicant will be 19 required to dedicate additional rights-of-way for the pro-rata construction 20 on Mesa Drive and/or Central Avenue. 21 22 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded, I'll call the roll. Commissioner 23 Shipley. 24 25 Shipley: Nay, findings, approval, findings and discussions, excuse me. 26 27 Scholz: I'm sorry you said? 28 29 Shipley: Nay. 30 31 Scholz: Okay, Commissioner Crane. 32 33 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 34 35 Scholz: Commissioner Iserman. 36 37 Iserman: Aye, findings and discussion. 38 39 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 40 41 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 42 43 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 44 45 Beard: No, findings and discussions. 46 77 I Scholz: And the Chair votes aye, findings and discussion which makes it 4-2, it's 2 passed. 3 4 10. Case Z2773: A request for a zone change from R-2 (Multi-Dwelling Low 5 Density) to 0-2 (Office Professional-Limited Retail Service) and R-2 (Multi- 6 Dwelling Low Density) overlapping for 0.611 +/- acres located at 266 W. 7 Court Avenue. Submitted by Sandra Stubblefield for David Stowe, property 8 owner. 9 10 Scholz: Okay, our next item is Case Z2773, a request for zone change from R-2 to 11 Office Space. I have copies, thank you, and Mr. White as soon as your 12 finished dealing out copies you can lay it on us. Okay, is everyone copied 13 now? 14 15 White: The next case this evening is Case Z2773; it's a request for a zone 16 change from R-2 which is Multi-Dwelling Low Density to 0-2 Office 17 Professional-Limited Retail and R-2 Multi-Dwelling Low Density. Really 18 what you're looking here is for overlapping zoning, so the applicant is 19 requesting that the uses to be permitted on the property either be R-2 or 20 0-2 for roughly .6111 acres of land located at 266 West Court Street. Just 21 want to tell you what you're looking at there, the shaded area is the actual 22 existing boundaries of the Central Business District. This property is one 23 lot west of the Central Business District, it is currently zoned R-2. 24 Identifying point, the property is located due north of the Sun News, the 25 Sun News facility is located right here. What I did here, this is the 26 overlapping zoning district, so what I did is I actually cut and paste what 27 the permissible uses would be for the property regarding if it's granted R- 28 2/0-2 zoning. The biggest issue you see between R-2 and 0-2 is building 29 height. That currently in the R-2 there is a maximum permissible height of 30 35 feet and 0-2 requires a permissible height of 60 feet. Again, detail 31 zoning map showing the Central Business District, subject property is 32 located here and directly west you have Alameda Boulevard which is 33 located in this area here. Here's the improvement survey of the subject 34 property in question. As state in your packet, you have a primary 35 residence which is located to the front of the property, here is West Court 36 Avenue located here. There's roughly about 2700 square feet +/-. You 37 have a carport located in this area and you have a two-story apartment 38 located in this area to the rear of the property. You also have a studio 39 apartment that is directly attached to the primary dwelling unit located 40 here. Ingress and egress is from an unimproved driveway, it's located 41 here. The parking area is located here done in crusher fine. And based 42 upon discussion with the applicant the two-story apartment complex at first 43 floor used to be used as an art studio, now it's just used as storage. Case 44 specifics, currently the property is utilized as single family residence and 45 apartments zoned R-2, acreage as stipulated earlier. The actual square 46 footage is the ones that I actually got from the County Tax Assessor. It 78 I showed that the single family residential structure that fronts West Court is 2 roughly 2775 square feet. There's an attached studio apartment of 800 3 square feet and a two-story apartment building that is located in the rear of 4 the apartment is roughly 2500 square feet. The property is in the Alameda 5 Depot Neighborhood Association. Staff did send out early notification on 6 this case on September 8, 2008. We do have a few comments that has 7 been received, prior to the meeting this evening I gave you an email from 8 Marty Sarvo regarding the request and I also you just prior to this 9 discussion a letter from the Court Street and from the downtown 10 partnership for the City of Las Cruces. MPO thoroughfare plan is showing 11 that Alameda Blvd. which is located here is located as a minor arterial. If 12 you notice here Court Street as you start going east of Alameda is actually 13 a local roadway but you start going west it's actually a collector. And of 14 course this right here is the Downtown Mall area and you do have bicycle 15 lanes that actually go in through the downtown mall on North Main Street. 16 Aerial view of the subject property, subject property in question is located 17 here. This here is a financial institution within the Central Business 18 District, of course to the south you have the Las Cruces Sun News and 19 you have some single family residential structures located in this area 20 here. Site photos; here's a front view regarding looking from West Court, 21 looking north onto the property. 22 23 Scholz: Is that a political statement Mr. White? 24 25 White: Not really, it's just (inaudible) season. 26 27 Scholz: Okay, I'm just curious. It certainly is. 28 29 White: And of course this is the rear portion of the property that's unimproved. As 30 specified this is the carport and these are the apartment complexes 31 located here. Staff recommendation is for conditional approval. The first 32 condition is that a maximum permissible height for the structures located 33 on the property be 35 feet as stipulated in the R-2 zoning district and 34 number two in the event the single family residence, that's the one up front 35 of the property is fully converted to a professional office or similar type of 36 land use, the rear parking lot will be resurfaced with materials as set forth 37 in the 2001 Zoning Code. Pretty much improve the asphalt, asphalt 38 parking area and of course since this a zoning ordinance it requires final 39 consideration by the City Council at a later date. That will end Staff 40 presentation. 41 42 Scholz: Okay, questions for Mr. White. No questions Commissioner Shipley, I'm 43 shocked. Alright, we'll open it to public comment. Anyone want to add to 44 what we already know? 45 79 I Smith: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Gregg Smith again, President of Las Cruces 2 Downtown. You do have a letter from or Executive Director, Cindy Fargo 3 and I would just like to say that yes, it's another old house and one we 4 hope that can be a vibrant part of our downtown and it is a very historic 5 structure so hopefully your considerations will allow that to continue to be 6 a part of the fabric of our community, thank you. 7 8 Scholz: Yes sir. 9 10 Sarvo: My name is Monty Sarvo with the Alameda Depot Civic Association. I 11 know I sent you a letter but in addition to what I wrote in the letter, 1 12 wanted to point out that one of the things that arose to my attention in this 13 is there were mentions of wanting impose paved parking restrictions if 14 they used the property later parts of it in a way that that is has typically 15 been used for many, many, many years and I want to emphasize that 1 16 don't agree with putting those restrictions them if they use the property as 17 it's been used years ago because part of the emphasis in our plan that will 18 eventually get to you, actually soon than you think, the idea is to keep the 19 neighborhood healthy the way it's been healthy which is why it's a well 20 preserved neighborhood which is allowing the multi-use standard that 21 existed prior to the imposition of this universal and standardized coding 22 that we keep adopting and changing to fit us since 2001, we want to keep 23 that multi-use feeling and I don't know, I'm not trying to tell you that that's 24 something that you have to do here and there but in looking at this 25 property over a long term, I just feel those impositions of saying that later if 26 they use it the back building as a little art studio, they have to pave it 27 suddenly. Paving is one of the worst nemeses of our society and 28 especially in an old neighborhood. It has its place in a Wal-Mart parking 29 lot not in a historical home that has had business use back there over the 30 years off and on. This was Dr. Babbi's office for years; we didn't require 31 him to pave it. They've rented those apartment s for years we didn't 32 require them to pave it. We need to get away from the fixation of requiring 33 people to pave in this neighborhood and that is just one thing that I wanted 34 to ask you to keep in mind should that issue come up, other than that of 35 course as my letter I support this zone change because I think that kind of 36 mixed use is what's kept the neighborhood healthy and that is the last of 37 three houses built by William Rhinerson, two of which was in that parking 38 lot or that drainage ditch where the Bank of the Rio Grande now sits which 39 was the home he built for John Lemmon's daughter when he married John 40 well Lemmon's wife and this is big history and the one across the street 41 where the Sun News back building is, is where the other house was; those 42 two buildings are gone. I think allowing this will help preserve this house 43 rather than hurting it. Thank you. 44 45 Scholz: I was interested in scanning your letter or your email and I thought it said 46 John Lennon and I realized it was John Lemmon and I was thinking of the 80 1 Lemmon Sisters who were you know on, what it, the Lawrence Welk, was 2 yes. Well anyway. 3 4 Sarvo: No, John Lemmon was a famous riot who was on side of the political 5 fence and his opponent was on the other and he was killed and then 6 William Rhinerson ended up marrying his wife and adopting the daughters 7 and building those two homes that are now gone and this is the last 8 remaining home of one of the most important people from this community 9 back in the 1800's, William Rhinerson. 10 11 Scholz: I was quite surprised to see it, I've driven past that street many times and 1 12 have never looked at that house. It's almost invisible with all the growth 13 around it. 14 15 Sarvo: I almost bought that house and they beat me to the punch and I really, 16 they're doing good by the house. I looked at it thoroughly and they have 17 really done structural things to secure that house from deteriorating and 1 18 think that says everything about their intention. 19 20 Scholz: Thank you Mr. Sarvo. 21 22 Sarvo: Thank you. 23 24 Shipley: Question. 25 26 Scholz: Yes, you have a comment sir? Something to add to this that hasn't 27 already been said? Alright, go ahead. It's 10:00. 28 29 Pearson: You sound surprised. George Pearson. 30 31 Scholz: No, no you've given a number of comments Mr. Pearson; I'm just saying 32 you know if it's something new we'll take it. 33 34 Pearson: Well, this is my neighborhood; I live within a stone throw of this. It's 35 important to keep the house for preservation and the character of the 36 neighborhood. I'm kind of concerned, it's not clear from the presentation 37 what could have to the property if the whole thing could be turned into 38 office space, I don't know, I can't tell from if that would be part of the 39 allowed uses. 40 41 Scholz: It is. 42 43 Pearson: I would be in favor of a condition that would preserve say fifty percent of 44 the property must remain as residential. The other comments about the 45 driveway, those are well taken. This property's come up before zone 46 changes for a couple of times before with the idea that it would be 81 Ask I converted into a restaurant then the neighborhood embraced that idea, 2 unfortunately those plans fell through. The last time it came up there was 3 talk of need to pave that whole parking area. There's a similar case in a 4 different location where the requirement was only to pave the first 15 feet 5 of the driveway so I would ask that you can change that requirement 6 instead of the entire parking area to be impermeable that the first 15 feet 7 or first 10 feet be impermeable so that the rocks from in there don't come 8 out into the roadway and those are my two main comments. 9 10 Scholz: Thank you. Yes, do you have anything else add, something new? Oh, 11 you're the applicant, well shucks we ignored you entirely, sorry about that. 12 Go ahead Miss Applicant. 13 14 Stubblefield: My name is Sandra Stubblefield, I want to just verify what happened on a 15 previous zoning. We were approved zoning for a restaurant on the 16 condition that we widen the driveway and tear out all those trees and I felt 17 it would ruin the integrity of the property so that is why we did not go 18 forward with the restaurant. 19 20 Scholz: You have to stay closer to the microphone please. 21 22 Stubblefield: Sorry. That was the reason we did not go forward with the restaurant. 23 24 Scholz: Because you would have had to widen the driveway and cut down the 25 trees. 26 27 Stubblefield: The City Council, yes. It was not a requirement from the fire department, 28 that's just what they wanted so we maintained integrity by not doing that 29 and this home was built in 1870, it is a very rare example of Queen Anne 30 adobe architecture and very historically significant so we agree with Staff 31 and we'll go from there, thank you. 32 33 Scholz: Okay, thank you very much. 34 35 Shipley: Is it on the register? 36 37 Stubblefield: It's on the national and the state register. 38 39 Scholz: Thank you. Okay, comments, questions? Commissioner Shipley? 40 41 Shipley: I had a question for Mr. White. 42 43 Scholz: Yes. 44 45 Shipley: In this neighborhood I would agree that the thought of paving everything 46 back there was one of the things that concerned me but the suggestion of 82 I paving the first 15 or 20 feet and then having gravel like it was before is 2 probably, is that a doable solution and does that fit in with the Alameda 3 Depot Plan that we have been looking at do those kind of things on 4 historical properties to maintain them that way? 5 6 White: Commissioner Scholz, Commissioner Shipley, actually let's start back and 7 look at the Staff recommendation. The Staff recommendation I think what 8 we were discussing is item No. 2 here. Item No. 2 is only triggered if there 9 is a change in use on the primary residence. If the primary residence 10 stays in tact and the rear is either converted into offices or apartments, 11 there's no requirement for improvements to the parking area. The trigger 12 is if the 2700 square foot home, the primary residence now, is converted 13 into an office building. The reason for that is that based upon the square 14 footage of 2700 square foot for the single family residential structure and 15 the existing 2500 square feet for the apartment complex, you have over 16 5000 square feet that could be utilized as office related spaces so at the 17 junction you're going to have roughly maybe 10-15 vehicle parked to the 18 rear of the property so I think that some of the confusion you have to 19 understand that the Staff conditions only triggered by the primary 20 residence being fully converted into an office related use. In respect to the 21 Alameda Depot Plan, I don't know enough about that to answer that 22 question. Thomas Schuster can probably address that. 23 24 Schuster: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Tom Schuster again. The draft 25 Alameda Depot Neighborhood Plan is written currently policy 2.4 deals 26 with proposed parking policies in the neighborhood, one policy states that 27 there should be an allowed reduction in the number of off-street spaces by 28 giving greater allowance to on-street parking where practical. That's 29 something that's normally not allowed in other parts of the City but what 30 you could do is look at your property frontage and get credit for those 31 space which could potentially allow for greater flexibility in cases such as 32 this. The second policy is to encourage different types of surfacing 33 materials to enhance aesthetics of parking lots while maintaining ADA 34 compliance and emergency vehicle accessibility so there would still be, 35 there's federal requirement for ADA accessibility and that you'd have to 36 have surfaces that are flat enough for wheelchairs to cross on but the 37 idea, the intent is to establish through the codes in this neighborhood 38 some flexibility with regard to parking surfaces. (Inaudible) question? 39 40 Scholz: I think you answered it very well, thank you. Okay, we'll close it to public 41 participation. Gentlemen, I'm waiting a motion. 42 43 Shipley: We have some discussion before. 44 45 Scholz: Go ahead. 46 83 Aft I Shipley: I just wanted to say that in reading the development statement it also 2 stated in there that this property has been an office for many, many years 3 and is surrounded by commercial use which is extremely noisy at night so 4 when 1 read it's already being used for commercial usage I was surprised 5 that we're just now getting around to permitting it for that and then I also 6 didn't know the history of the home and certainly appreciate that from the 7 application as well. But as I looked at it I was really impressed with it and 8 it's one of those things that we get the pleasure to do when this 9 Commission get to be a part of maintaining some of our history and some 10 of our past and as you know from earlier tonight I'm pretty vocal about 11 doing that, I like that. I guess I'm getting to be old so I think everything 12 ought to be old too, so I think it's a good proposal. 13 14 Scholz: I'm glad you said that. Yes Commissioner Crane? 15 16 Crane: If it's already being used as an office and has been for many years doesn't 17 the recommendation that the rear parking lot be resurfaced go into effect 18 now? 19 20 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Crane, the answer is no. The key tenant to 21 that is if the primary residence is fully converted to an office. 22 23 Crane: And what is it now? 24 25 White: I believe currently the property owner only uses it as a real estate office or 26 something to that capacity but it's still a primarily a single family residential 27 structure. 28 29 Crane: Thank you. 30 31 Scholz: Okay, any other comments or questions? Alright, Commissioners give me 32 a motion. 33 34 Shipley: I move to approve Case No. Z2773 with conditions. 35 36 Scholz: On page 5. 37 38 Shipley: Yes, one, maximum permissible height for structures located on the 39 property will be limited to 35 feet and number two, in the event the single 40 family residence is fully converted to a professional office or similar land 41 use the rear parking lot will be resurfaced with material as set forth in the 42 2001 Zoning Code as amended, section 38-58, J2. 43 44 Scholz: Is there a second? 45 46 Crane: Second. 84 Aftk 1 2 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded, I'll call the roll. Commissioner 3 Shipley. 4 5 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion, site visit. 6 7 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 8 9 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 10 11 Scholz: Commissioner Iserman. 12 13 Iserman: Aye, findings and discussion. 14 15 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 16 17 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 18 19 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 20 21 Beard: Aye, findings and discussions. 22 23 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye so it passes 6-0. 24 25 11. Case Z2774: A request for various zone changes located at the 26 southwestern and northwestern intersections of Telshor Boulevard and 27 Missouri Avenue. The zone changes will bring the properties into zoning 28 compliance, based on the properties exceeding the 0.75 acre maximum size 29 or existing structures exceeding the maximum gross floor area allowance of 30 2,500 square feet for commercial properties zoned C-1 (Commercial Low 31 Intensity). The zone change requests are as follows: 32 33 ■ A zone change request from C-1 (Commercial Low Intensity) to C-2 34 (Commercial Medium Intensity) for 0.56 +/- acres located at 1720 S. Telshor 35 Boulevard; 36 ■ A zone change request from C-1 (Commercial Low Intensity) to C-3 37 (Commercial High Intensity) for 1.04 +/- acres located at 1770 S. Telshor 38 Boulevard; 39 ■ A zone change request from C-1 (Commercial Low Intensity) to C-3 40 (Commercial High Intensity) for 1.36 +/- acres located at 1800 S. Telshor 41 Boulevard; 42 ■ A zone change request from C-1 (Commercial Low Intensity) to C-2 43 (Commercial Medium Intensity) for 0.37 +/- acres located at 1900 Telshor 44 Boulevard; 45 ■ A zone change request from C-1 (Commercial Low Intensity) to OSR (Open- 46 Space Recreation) for 4.3 +/- acres located at 2802 Missouri Avenue; 85 1 ■ A zone change request from C-1 (Commercial Low Intensity) to C-3 2 (Commercial High Intensity) for 1.62 +/- acres located at 2801 Missouri 3 Avenue; 4 ■ A zone change request from C-1 (Commercial Low Intensity) to C-3 5 (Commercial High Intensity) for 2.18 +/- acres located at 2801 Missouri 6 Avenue. 7 8 Scholz: Alright, we have one left. This is Case Z2774 a request for various zone 9 changes at the southwest and northwest intersections of Telshor Blvd. 10 and Missouri Avenue. And I drove by, since I drive by Telshor and 11 Missouri every day I drove by and paid particular attention to these 12 properties. 13 14 White: I will give a very succinct presentation regarding this. 15 16 Scholz: Good thinking. 17 18 White: Case Z2774 is a request for various zone changes along Telshor and 19 Missouri Drive, Missouri Avenue actually. Here's a list of the specified 20 zoning conversions and I'll go through them briefly. The property here 21 with the cursor is located at 1720 Telshor Blvd. The request is to go from 22 C-1 to C-2. Currently there is mini strip mall that is being renovated on 23 the property and the basis of the zoning conversion is based upon the 24 overall square footage of the existing building and it seats 2500 square 25 feet which is the maximum threshold for properties in the C-1 zoning 26 district. 1770, the land mark there is the PicQuik Convenience Store and 27 there's also a mini strip mall associated with the property as well. The 28 basis of the zone change from C-1 to C-3 is based upon the property 29 exceeding the C-2 maximum of one acre or the C-1 requirement of 3/ 30 acres so the rationale reason to go for C-3 zoning on the property, this is 31 strictly based upon the square footage and based upon the parcel size 32 thus C-3 zoning. Property at 1800 Telshor Blvd. is currently a financial 33 institution, the issue there is based upon the square footage of the 34 building and also based upon the parcel size, it requires it to be in 35 compliance to be rezoned from C-1 to C-3 respectively. Property located 36 here in the southern segment is 1900 Telshor Blvd., the request is to go 37 from C-1 to C-2, the parcel size is under one acre in size, the rational 38 reason for the rezoning is based upon the square footage of the existing 39 mini shopping center. 2802 Missouri Avenue, the request, this is a little 40 bit different from the rest. Apparently zoned C-1, this is currently the City 41 fire substation and a City park so the request is to go from C-1, OSR 42 stands for Open Space Recreation. So pretty much what the City is 43 trying to do for this 4.3 acres is to allow for recreational uses or the public 44 building that is currently on the property, no other uses. 2801 which is 45 located on the northern side of Missouri Avenue, two tracts of land, it's 46 actually a shopping center, a large size life scale shopping center, there's 86 O 1 two distinct tracts of land with numerous building going across the 2 parking area. Based upon the existing zoning and the actual size of the 3 buildings it's requested to go from C-1 to C-3. That is the entire zone 4 change and the various zoning conversions in a nut shell. I won't go 5 through this thoroughfare plan again. Telshor Blvd. is classified as a 6 principle arterial roadway. Missouri Avenue up to the intersection of 7 Telshor is also classified as a principle arterial and then it becomes a 8 minor arterial as you start going west. Aerial view of the subject 9 properties as stipulated earlier, I think this is called Bonita Plaza, a 10 shopping center located here, a large scale shopping center. This is the 11 current City property located here, financial institution, PicQuik, building 12 being renovated and small strip mall located here. Zoning pattern in the 13 area will bring all these properties here into zoning compliance. Staff 14 recommendation is for approval without conditions and of course this is 15 an ordinance, it requires final consideration by City Council. That will end 16 Staff presentation. 17 18 Scholz: Okay, any questions for Mr. White about this? Okay, Miss Shinn do you 19 want to give us any additional information? Thank you for waiting. 20 21 Shinn: We're all here together aren't we? 22 23 Scholz: Yes. 24 25 Shinn: Yes, my name is Peggy Shinn; I am the representative for all of the 26 applicants collectively. I came in with a client at 1720 Telshor Blvd. who 27 had purchased, already purchased the property not asking for zone 28 change subject to purchase and recognized that all of the property 29 owners in that vicinity when I went to the City's pre-app meeting, we 30 realized that everyone had been asleep at the switch, missed the 31 grandfathering period when they could have come in after 2001 zone 32 change to get their property rezoned appropriately including the City and 33 so the Staff asked for me to see to it that I got all the other property 34 owners onboard along with my clients at 1720 to clean up this whole 35 corner and that's what we've done. 36 37 Scholz: Good, any questions for Miss. Shinn? Alright, anyone else from the 38 public want to speak to this? Alright, we'll close it to public participation 39 and gentlemen; I'll entertain a motion here unless you have some 40 discussion. 41 42 Shipley: As Larry the Cable Guy says, Getter Done. 43 44 Scholz: Okay. 45 46 Shipley: Okay, I move to approve Case Z2774 without conditions. 87 1 2 Scholz: Is there a second? 3 4 Evans: I second. 5 6 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded, I'll call the roll. Commissioner Shipley. 7 8 Shipley: Aye, discussion, findings and site visit, visits. 9 10 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 11 12 Crane: Aye, discussion, findings and site visit. 13 14 Scholz: Commissioner Iserman. 15 16 Iserman: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 17 18 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 19 20 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 21 22 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 23 24 Beard: Aye, findings and discussion. 25 26 Scholz: Okay, and the Chair says aye and that's 6-0 approved. 27 28 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS 29 30 Scholz: Now, we have two items before us from Ms. Rodriguez, one is a 31 memorandum from David Dollahon of the Neighborhood Services 32 Administrator about Fair Housing Awareness training, what do you want 33 us to do with this? 34 35 Rodriguez: Yes, Mr. Chairman, essentially the Neighborhood Services Section of the 36 Community Development Department, they are a recipient of federal 37 funding and they are basically promoting a fair housing awareness 38 training as part of their being recipients of federal funding. That fair 39 housing training is a mandatory training session for all various City 40 Boards, Commissions and Committee Members and I have worked with 41 David Dollahon to schedule the Planning and Zoning mandatory training 42 for your regularly scheduled work session for Tuesday, November 18th at 43 6 pm at City Council Chambers. If you cannot attend the regularly 44 scheduled work session then you will be required to go to a make-up 45 session and the make-up sessions would be Tuesday, December 9th and 46 there's two different times but I highly encourage the Commission if we 88 AWN I could do it on November 18tH. If you can please let me know for your 2 attendance for November 18tH, that way I can communicate it to the 3 Neighborhood Services Section, I'd greatly appreciate it. 4 5 Scholz: Do we have to fill this out? 6 7 Rodriguez: You can, if you'd like or you can just give me a verbal. 8 9 Scholz: Well, I'll be there on the 18tH 10 11 Rodriguez: This session is special for the Planning and Zoning Commission so it'll 12 just be us that evening. 13 14 Scholz: That's at 6:00. 15 16 Rodriguez: 6 pm here at Council Chambers. The other item that I have given you a 17 copy of is last month Commissioner Shipley asked about the landscape 18 median policy and right now the Facilities Department is undertaking the 19 task to amend the City of Las Cruces design standards to adopt a 20 landscaping ordinance. And essentially this ordinance will be considered 21 for approval at the November 17th regularly scheduled City Council 22 meeting. If you have the entire Council Action Packet with the proposed 23 ordinance, the proposed amendment to the design standards, Kathy 24 Matthews presentation and as well as they did have a public meeting on 25 September 10th and the minutes to those meetings are all part of this 26 packet. I'd encourage you if you have any questions about this proposed 27 ordinance to please contact Kathy Matthews. Her number is listed on the 28 front page of the Council Action report. Essentially what the proposed 29 ordinance will do, will implement design standards as for new 30 development both commercial and residential for any development that 31 includes a thoroughfare with a median attached to it, developers or 32 property owners will be responsible for landscaping those medians and 33 depending on the nature of the development the City of Las Cruces may 34 or may not accept those medians into their maintenance program. All the 35 language is there in the proposed ordinance so if you have any 36 questions, I encourage you to contact Kathy Matthews or you may 37 facilitate comments directly to your City Councillor, I'd encourage you to 38 do that as well. My third announcement this evening is I'd like to 39 introduce to the Commission our newest Staff member, Jennifer 40 Robertson, she's our Planner, and so I'm pleased to report that 41 Development Services Section is now fully staffed. Jennifer will be 42 working on both City and ETZ subdivisions so we welcome her aboard. 43 44 Scholz: Welcome, Jennifer. Alright, if there's no other business, Mr. Shipley... 45 89 I Shipley: Is there anyway that we can get electronically the pictures of the briefing? 2 1 mean because you can't really read them, you can read what it is but 3 can't pick it out. 4 5 Rodriguez: Commissioner Shipley, you would like her Power Point presentation? 6 Okay, I will email Kathy and ask her to send it to me and I will facilitate it 7 to the group. 8 9 Shipley: Thank you very much. 10 11 IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 12 13 X. STAFF COMMENT 14 15 XI. ADJOURNMENT 10:17 16 17 Scholz: Alright, it is, let's see 10:17 and we are adjourned. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 h person 26 90