Loading...
04-22-2008 Owl 1 MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 FOR THE 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 City Council Chambers 5 April 22, 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 14 ABSENT: 15 Donald Bustos, Secretary 16 17 STAFF PRESENT: 18 Vincent Banegas, Development Services & MPO Administrator 19 Cheryl Rodriguez, Senior Planner 20 James White, Planner 21 Helen Revels, Associate Planner 22 Jared Abrams, CLC Legal 23 Lt. Steve Archuleta, Fire Department 24 Becky Eich, Recording Secretary 25 26 I. CALL TO ORDER 27 28 Scholz: Good evening, and welcome to the April 22nd meeting of the Planning and 29 Zoning Commission. I'd like to introduce the members of the Commission 30 to you. On my far right is Mr. Shipley, he is the mayor's appointee for the 31 Commission. Next to him is Commissioner Crane and he represents 32 district 4. Next to him is Commissioner Evans who represents district 5. 33 Commissioner Bustos who represents district 3, 1 believe. Commissioner 34 Bustos phoned me this afternoon and said he'd be late. He'll be here 35 around 6:45. Next to me is Commissioner Beard, who represents district 36 2, and I'm Charlie Scholz, and I'm the Chair of the Commission and 1 37 represent Council District 6. 38 39 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 25, 2008 40 41 Scholz: Our first order of business is the approval of the minutes of March 25th, 42 2008. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? Okay, I have 43 only one. Mr. Beard? Okay. I have only one, at the bottom of the first 44 page it says "Schuster" instead of my name, 1 think that's odd. I like Tom 45 and all that, I give credit, but I think that's the wrong name. So other than 1 1 that I didn't notice any corrections that we needed. Okay. If there are no 2 additions or corrections to the minutes, I'll entertain a motion to approve. 3 4 Crane: So moved. 5 6 Scholz: All those in favor, say aye. 7 8 ALL COMMISSIONERS -AYE. 9 10 Scholz: The minutes are approved. 11 12 III. POSTPONEMENTS 13 14 Scholz: Okay, our next order of business is to deal with postponements, and there 15 are three. They should be up there, I think. We can kind of scroll up a 16 little bit. Are the lights awfully bright on ... there we go. That's better. 17 18 1. Case S-08-006: A request for final plat approval for a replat known as Payan 19 Replat No. 1. The subject property contains 4.20 +/- acres. The final plat 20 proposes to dedicate right-of-way for Payan Drive and replat three single- 21 family residential lots. The subject property is zoned R-1 aM (Single-Family 22 Residential Mobile). Submitted by the City of Las Cruces. POSTPONED TO 23 MAY 27, 2008 24 25 2. Case Z2750: An infill development request for a zone change from R-1a 26 (Single-Family Medium Density) to R-2 (Multi-Dwelling Low Density) for three 27 distinct lots with a combined area of 0.284 +/- acres. The proposed zone 28 change will facilitate the construction of three (3) apartments. Submitted by 29 Baldemar and Socorro Parra, property owners. POSTPONED TO MAY 27, 30 2008 31 32 3. Case Z2751: An infill development request for a zone change from C-2 33 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to R-1 a (Single-Family Medium Density) for 34 three distinct lots with a combined area of 0.20 +/- acres. The proposed zone 35 change will facilitate the construction of a single-family residence. Submitted 36 by Adam Sanchez, property owner. POSTPONED TO MAY 27, 2008 37 38 Scholz: The first one is S-08-006, a request for final plat approval for a replat 39 known as Payan Replat No. 1. It's postponed to May 27th. I assume 40 that's the next Commission meeting. May 27th 2008. The second 41 postponement is Case Z2750, an infill development requesting a zone 42 change from R-1a single-family medium density, to R-2 multi-dwelling low 43 density for three distinct lots. That's been postponed also to the May 27th 44 meeting. The third postponement is Case Z2751, an infill development 45 request for a zone change from C-2 commercial medium intensity to R-1a 46 single-family medium density for three distinct lots. It sounds like the 2 AM 1 same place, but it's not. Okay, and that's also postponed to May 27th, 2 2008. So if you came to hear those three cases, you're free to go. 3 4 IV. WITHDRAWALS 5 6 Scholz: Were there any withdrawals Staff? 7 8 Rodriguez: No, sir. 9 10 Scholz: Thank you. 11 12 V. CONSENT AGENDA 13 14 Scholz: Okay, the next items are on the consent agenda, and here's how the 15 consent agenda works. By the way, if you're watching at home the 16 agenda is posted on the web site at the Community Development page of 17 the City of Las Cruces web site. Of course, for you in the chamber, it's on 18 the screen. The way the consent agenda works is that I'll read the case 19 numbers and then I'll ask if there is someone on the Commission or 20 someone on the Staff or someone in the audience who would like to speak 21 to this case. If not, we'll leave it on the consent agenda and then what we 22 do is we pass the consent agenda as one piece; ask for a vote on it from 23 the Commissioners and they vote on the entire thing. So, we'll go down 24 the list. If in fact there is someone who wants to speak to any one of 25 these, that will go then under new business and it'll be the first item under 26 the new business. 27 28 1. Case Z2749: A request for a zone change from c-2 (Commercial Medium 29 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 6.207 +/- acres located at 30 3495 Bataan Memorial West. Submitted by Louis F. and Patricia L. Sisbarro. 31 32 Scholz: Okay, the first one is Case Z2749. A request for a zone change from c-2 33 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 34 6.207 +/- acres located at 3495 Bataan Memorial West. Submitted by 35 Louis F. and Patricia L. Sisbarro. Is there anyone in the audience who 36 wants to speak to this? Commissioners? Staff? Okay that remains on 37 the consent agenda then. 38 39 2. Case Z2747: A request for a zone change for property located at 526 South 40 Alameda Boulevard. The property comprises 3.42 +/- acres and is zoned C- 41 2 (Commercial Medium Intensity). The applicant is seeking a zone change 42 for 1.697 +/- acres to C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity)/R-1a (Single 43 Family Medium Density) overlapping zoning districts to facilitate a single- 44 family residential land use with the existing structure as well as commercial 45 development with the existing structure. The subject property is located east 3 1 of Miranda Street and west of Alameda Boulevard. Submitted by BRG & 2 Associates of Wendall Eugenio and Suzanne Tent. 3 4 5 Scholz: The second one is Case Z2747, a request for a zone change for property 6 located at 526 South Alameda Boulevard. The property comprises 3.42 7 +/- acres and is zoned C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity). The applicant 8 is seeking a zone change for 1.697 +/- acres to C-2 (Commercial Medium 9 Intensity)/R-1a (Single Family Medium Density) overlapping zoning 10 districts to facilitate a single-family residential land use with the existing 11 structure as well as commercial development with the existing structure. 12 The subject property is located east of Miranda Street and west of 13 Alameda Boulevard. Submitted by BRG & Associates of Wendall Eugenio 14 and Suzanne Tent. Is there anyone from the audience who wants to 15 speak to this case? Staff? Commissioners? Okay, it stays on the 16 consent. 17 18 3. Case Z2742: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 19 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 9.143 +/- acres of property 20 located east of Emerald Street, south of Ross Court, west of Sonoma Ranch 21 Boulevard, and north of Highway 70. The purpose of the zone change is to 22 facilitate a proposed master-planned commercial development known as the 23 Marketplace at Sonoma Ranch as well as bring the subject property into 24 compliance with the 2001 Zoning Code, as amended. Submitted by BRG & 25 Associates for Marion William Company, LLC. 26 27 Scholz: Case three is Case Z2742, a request for a zone change from C-2 28 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 29 9.143 +/- acres of property located east of Emerald Street, south of Ross 30 Court, west of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard, and north of Highway 70. The 31 purpose of the zone change is to facilitate a proposed master-planned 32 commercial development known as the Marketplace at Sonoma Ranch as 33 well as bring the subject property into compliance with the 2001 Zoning 34 Code, as amended. Submitted by BRG & Associates for Marion William 35 Company, LLC. And I believe, Staff, that Case S-07-118 is linked to this, 36 isn't it. Okay. So, is there someone in the audience who wants to speak 37 to Case Z2742 or Case S-07-118? All right. Staff? Commissioners? 38 Okay, that remains on the consent agenda. 39 40 4. Case S-07-118: A request for mater plan approval for a commercial 41 development known as The Marketplace at Sonoma Ranch. The subject 42 property comprises 9.1145 +/- acres and is located east of Emerald Street, 43 south of Ross Court, west of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard, and north of 44 Highway 70. The subject property is currently zoned C-2 (Commercial 45 Medium Intensity). The applicant is also seeking a zone change request to 4 AN I C-3 (Commercial High Intensity). Submitted by BRG & Associates for Marion 2 William Company, LLC. 3 4 5. Case S-08-009: A request for dedication plat approval for Sonoma Ranch 5 Boulevard, Phase 2. The dedication plat proposes to dedicate 30.43 +/- 6 acres of right-of-way for Sonoma Ranch Boulevard to the City of Las Cruces. 7 The subject area is located generally north of Thurmond (Engler) Road and 8 south of Arroyo Road. Submitted by Logos Development. 9 10 Scholz: Then we have Case S-08-009, a request for dedication plat approval for 11 Sonoma Ranch Boulevard, Phase 2. The dedication plat proposes to 12 dedicate 30.43 +/- acres of right-of-way for Sonoma Ranch Boulevard to 13 the City of Las Cruces. The subject area is located generally north of 14 Thurmond (Engler) Road, one of those wonderful roads that changes 15 names, and south of Arroyo Road. Submitted by Logos Development. Is 16 there someone in the audience that wants to speak to this case? Okay. 17 Staff? All right, Commissioners? Okay, I have some questions about this, 18 so I want to put this as the first item on the new business. That's Case S- 19 08-009. So that'll be first under new business. 20 21 6. Case S-08-010: A request for preliminary plat approval for a single-family 22 residential development known as Pueblo Mesa Village, Phase 1 - 3. The 23 subject property consist of 8.17 +/- acres, proposes 63 +/- residential lots, is 24 zoned R-1 b (Single-Family High Density), and is located west of EI Camino 25 Real, east of Dona Ana Road, and south of the Las Cruces Outfall Channel. 26 Submitted by Southwest Engineering, Inc. for Ed Garland, property owner. 27 28 Scholz: Finally, we have Case S-08-010, a request for preliminary plat approval for 29 a single-family residential development known as Pueblo Mesa Village, 30 Phase 1 - 3. The subject property consist of 8.17 +/- acres, proposes 63 31 +/- residential lots, is zoned R-1 b (Single-Family High Density), and is 32 located west of EI Camino Real, east of Dona Ana Road, and south of the 33 Las Cruces Outfall Channel. Submitted by Southwest Engineering, Inc. 34 for Ed Garland, property owner. Is there anyone from the audience that 35 wants to speak to this case? Staff? And Commissioners? You do, okay. 36 So we'll put that as the second order of business under new business. 37 That's Case S-08-010. All right. Then I'll entertain a motion to accept the 38 consent agenda. 39 40 Shipley: So moved to accept the consent agenda. 41 42 Scholz: A second please. 43 44 Evans: I second. 45 5 AN JAL I Scholz: All those in favor, oh let's see, we have to do a count down don't we? No, 2 we don't. All those in favor say aye. 3 4 ALL COMMISSIONERS -AYE. 5 6 Scholz: Those opposed say nay. And the consent agenda is passed. Thank you 7 gentlemen. Mr. Shipley, you need to be closer to your microphone or use 8 your radio voice. 9 10 VI. OLD BUSINESS 11 12 Scholz: Okay, is there any old business Staff? I didn't see any on the agenda. 13 14 Rodriguez: No, sir. 15 16 VII. NEW BUSINESS 17 18 1. Case S-08-009: A request for dedication plat approval for Sonoma Ranch 19 Boulevard, Phase 2. The dedication plat proposes to dedicate 30.43 +/- 20 acres of right-of-way for Sonoma Ranch Boulevard to the City of Las Cruces. 21 The subject area is located generally north of Thurmond (Engler) Road and 22 south of Arroyo Road. Submitted by Logos Development. 23 24 Scholz: So, the new business then, the first one is Case S-08-009, a request for 25 dedication plat approval for Sonoma Ranch Boulevard, Phase 2. Ms. 26 Rodriguez. 27 28 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I have a very brief presentation. This case 29 before you is a dedication plat to secure the right-of-way necessary for 30 Sonoma Ranch Boulevard which is designated as a principal arterial on 31 the MPO Thoroughfare Plan. The proposal is to dedicate approximately 32 30 acres of right-of-way to the City of Las Cruces. There are notes on the 33 plat that state whether or not the City will accept the improvements. The 34 City will not accept improvements to Sonoma Ranch until they are actually 35 built, so that language has been thoroughly reviewed by Public Works 36 Staff and currently the construction drawings are under review for the 37 applicant to proceed in the construction of the road. The segment of the 38 Phase 2 of Sonoma Ranch is just immediately north of Thurmond Road 39 and then goes up for about two miles and terminates at the south of 40 Arroyo Road. This is just a continuation of what the Commission saw last 41 month of the Sonoma Ranch Phase 1 dedication plat. This is just a 42 continuation up to Arroyo Road, as you recall with the Fountains at Sierra 43 Norte and Jornada del Norte preliminary plats. There were conditions on 44 those preliminary plats that since this is a principal access to those 45 developments, Sonoma Ranch dedication plat needed to be approved, 46 and so the applicant is diligent to get this in so they can proceed with the 6 ® 1 development plans of the far northern Sierra Norte master plan area. 2 Essentially that is my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions 3 that the Commission may have. The applicant is here as well to answer 4 any questions. This proposal did go through the Development Review 5 Committee and the recommendation from the DRC is for approval. 6 7 Scholz: Okay. Commissioners, questions on this? The only questions I had and 8 maybe the applicant can answer them, who owns this land right now? 9 10 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, the owner of the land is the State Land Office and they are 11 a signature on the development application. 12 13 Scholz: Okay. I was wondering, can we dedicate what would be Las Cruces 14 property in State Land? 15 16 Rodriguez: Yes. 17 18 Scholz: Oh, we can? Oh, okay, I wasn't aware of that. All right. I think that 19 answers my question ... well actually, I had one other question. When will 20 this road be built? 21 22 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I'll defer that to the applicant. 23 24 Scholz: Okay. Is the applicant here? By the way, I should have explained the 25 procedure if I didn't before. We usually have a Staff presentation first, 26 then the applicant presents, then the public speaks to this, and then we 27 close public discussion and the Commissioners discuss it. 28 29 Clifton: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, Kirk Clifton with 30 Logos Development representing Philippou, LLC. Our anticipated date of 31 construction, actually we're waiting on construction drawings back from 32 the City of Las Cruces for final review and approval. Once we obtain the 33 approvals and the permits, we'll begin construction. Portions of Sonoma 34 Ranch have been previously permitted and partially constructed at this 35 point, and just.as a matter of clarification, the State Land Office only owns 36 the first mile of Sonoma Ranch right-of-way, beyond that point I believe it's 37 Katrina, Inc, or Katrina, LLC who owns the balance of the property. 38 39 Scholz: Okay. Good, thank you very much. Any other questions Commissioners? 40 41 Shipley: Just a question for you, were you going to address the letter that came in? 42 43 Scholz: I was only going to address that if in fact someone from the public was 44 here. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this matter? 45 No. Then I'm not concerned about. Okay, I'm going to close public 7 1 discussion. Commissioners, what is your pleasure? I'll entertain a motion 2 to accept. 3 4 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Case S-08-009. 5 6 Scholz: Okay, is there a second? 7 8 Shipley: I'll second. 9 10 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Let's call the role. Commissioner 11 Shipley? 12 13 Shipley: Aye, conditions, findings. 14 15 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Crane? 16 17 Crane: Aye, based on findings. 18 19 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Evans? 20 21 Evans: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 22 23 Scholz: Commissioner Beard? 24 25 Beard: Aye, based on findings and discussions. 26 27 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye based on findings, discussion, and site visit. 28 Okay, that takes care of that. 29 30 2. Case S-08-010: A request for preliminary plat approval for a single-family 31 residential development known as Pueblo Mesa Village, Phase 1 - 3. The 32 subject property consist of 8.17 +/- acres, proposes 63 +/- residential lots, is 33 zoned R-1 b (Single-Family High Density), and is located west of EI Camino 34 Real, east of Dona Ana Road, and south of the Las Cruces Outfall Channel. 35 Submitted by Southwest Engineering, Inc. for Ed Garland, property owner. 36 37 Scholz: Now, our next new business is Case S-08-10, a request for preliminary 38 plat approval for a single-family residential development known as Pueblo 39 Mesa Village, Phase 1 - 3. 40 41 Revels: Good evening. Helen Revels for the record. Commissioner Shipley, do 42 you have specific questions, or would you like me to go through the 43 presentation? 44 45 Shipley: Just one specific question. In the application there was nothing regarding 46 trips generated. I know that there was previously a mobile home park 8 AWN 1 there, but I don't know how many units were there, so I don't know if there 2 is a significant increase/decrease in the number of trips that are 3 anticipated to be generated, that's very simple. 4 5 Revels: Okay, I can defer that question to Paul. 6 7 Scholz: Be sure to give us your name for the record. 8 9 Pompeo: Paul Pompeo, Southwest Engineering, 475 Archuleta Road. The answer 10 to your question about the traffic, this was the current condition when my 11 client purchased the property. Now, if you've been out there lately, most 12 of these units are removed. I don't know how many are in here, I've not 13 counted them. There are probably more than the 63 lots that we are 14 proposing by this application. Using the IT generation rate of slightly 15 under 10 trips per units, we're looking at 630 trips per day. As you can 16 see, there are more than the 63 single-family units that were in there prior 17 to this applicant obtaining the property. 18 19 Shipley: Okay. I couldn't tell from ... I didn't have these pictures and all I have is 20 your application, so 1 didn't know if there was five or 55 or 105 units out 21 there. 22 23 Pompeo: Okay. With this application, 630 trips per day. 24 25 Scholz: Okay Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant? Okay, thank 26 your sir. 27 28 Pompeo: Thank you. 29 30 Scholz: Is there anyone from the audience who wants to speak to this issue? 31 Okay, I'll close it for audience participation. I'll accept a motion to accept 32 this. 33 34 Beard: I move that we accept S-08-010. 35 36 Scholz: Is there a second? 37 38 Crane: Second. 39 40 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I'll call the role. Commissioner 41 Shipley? 42 43 Shipley: I vote aye, discussion, findings, and also a site visit. 44 45 Scholz: Commissioner Crane? 46 9 I Crane: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 2 3 Scholz: Commissioner Evans? 4 5 Evans: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 6 7 Scholz: Commissioner Beard? 8 9 Beard: Aye, based on findings and discussions. 10 11 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye based on findings, discussion, and site visitation. 12 Okay, passed. 13 14 3. Case ZCA-08-01: A request to approve an amendment to Chapter 38 of the 15 2001 Las Cruces Municipal Code, as amended, by enacting Section 38-46.1 16 Airport Overlay District (AOD). Submitted by the City of Las Cruces. 17 18 Scholz: All right. That brings us to new business, and this is Case ZCA-08-01, a 19 request to approve an amendment to Chapter 38 of the 2001 Las Cruces 20 Municipal Code, as amended, by enacting Section 38-46.1 Airport Overlay 21 District (AOD). Submitted by the City of Las Cruces. You don't look like 22 the City of Las Cruces. 23 24 Murphy: I am a segment of the City of Las Cruces. 25 26 Scholz: Yes, ma'am, I know. 27 28 Murphy: Mr. Chairman, for the record my name is Lisa Murphy and I am the airport 29 manager. The airport is, of course, a City owned airport, so I am a City 30 employee. I'm going to start here with some background. Airports are, as 31 I'm sure you're aware, very susceptible to incompatible land uses and until 32 recently the airport, which is in the City limits, was totally surrounded by 33 land that was in the County, actually within the Extraterritorial Zone. The 34 Extraterritorial Zoning Authority had adopted what they called the EAO, 35 the Airport Operations Zoning District, and this provided protection to 36 protect the aerial approaches and prevent incompatible land uses around 37 the airport. However, in 2007 the City completed the Kennon Anexation. 38 One of its stated goals was to provide protection for the airport. So while 39 we at the airport were very happy to see this happen, it did bring much of 40 the land that had previously been under the protection of the ETZ into the 41 City which had no comparable zoning district at the time. I do want to 42 point out though that airport compatible zoning conditions were placed on 43 portions of the Kennon Annexation property. 44 This slide is just for informational purposes. This is the existing 45 ETZ Airport Overlay Zone. The yellow area is airport property and the 46 way this zone was defined was they took a 2.5 mile radius off this red line 10 I and within this zone it was required that there would be disclosure of the 2 airport's proximity for any type of residential subdivision. There were 3 some other conditions too that were intended to protect the aerial 4 approaches for aircraft. Now this is just sort of a sketch plan of the 5 Kennon Annexation and it's kind of hard to see, but you can see that a lot 6 of this black area was brought into the City limits which then took it out of 7 the protection of the ETZ Overlay Zoning District. I'll just go over some of 8 the highlights of the zone. One of the most important things that it does is 9 it defines what we refer to as the Federal aviation regulations, these are 10 Federal regs, part 77 which is called "objects affecting navigable air 11 space." It defines these zones because even though they are Federal 12 regulations, the Federal Aviation Administration does not enforce these 13 and rather they put that responsibility on the airport owner, which is in this 14 case the City of Las Cruces. It also defines an area of disclose. Now 15 what we do is, we don't restrict residential subdivisions here. Some 16 places do, but we're not asking for that, but we are asking that when a 17 final residential subdivision plat is filed, that there be a note placed on this 18 final plat that does disclose the airport's proximity. Finally, it does add 19 some additional restrictions to present hazards to aviation such as glare, 20 smoke, bird strikes, and obstructions, by that I mean high objects. I do 21 want to clarify at this time though that these additional restrictions to 22 protect these hazards to aviation only apply, and this is a diagram of the 23 part 77, to imaginary surfaces, and these really only apply within these 24 defined Federal aviation regulation zones, and then of course only within 25 the City limits. So what happens is we'll end up with a dove tailing, 26 because we'll have this overlay zone within the City limits but then the ETZ 27 existing zone will still be in effect for these areas outside the City limits, so 28 it's really sort of a dove tailing. This right down here, we attempted to do a 29 three-dimensional depiction of these zones because they exist not as flat 30 things on the ground, but of course they go up and out, and it's intended to 31 give the pilots the approaches they need to be free of obstructions. 32 All right, this is a map of the actual proposed Airport Overlay 33 District. It takes in all the land within the City limits to the west of this line 34 right here. What we wanted to do was keep it very simple. The ETZ 35 zone, you may have noticed it was based on a radius from the edge of a 36 particular imaginary surface, but we just wanted to make it very simple. 37 Everything to the west of this line, which as it turns out is actually the New 38 Mexico Principal Meridian Line, some sort of mapping anomaly there, but 39 anything to the west of there is within this zone and except for the airport, 40 all of this is considered the area of disclosure. So again, any residential 41 subdivision in this area is required to disclose on the final plat. This is just 42 an informational picture. This was an airport called Evergreen Field which 43 was in Washington state. This is it in February 1996, and then you can 44 see 10 years later it was so encroached upon by various types of 45 development that they ended up having to close it. So we certainly don't 46 want to see something like that happen. 11 I The benefits of the Airport Overlay District zone are very important 2 because, one thing I want to point out is our airport is a federally funded 3 public use airport and because of that we do get funding for airport 4 maintenance and improvement projects from the Federal Aviation 5 Administration. Every time we accept this Federal funding our mayor is 6 required to sign what are called Grant Assurances. One of these Grant 7 Assurances #20, requires the City to put in place measures to ensure that 8 the approach will be protected and to mitigate or remove anything that is 9 too high essentially. Then Grant Assurance #21 requires the City to adopt 10 zoning to prevent incompatible land uses and to protect not only the 11 current operations of the airport, but any potential future growth. Another 12 thing is it'll help protect a valuable City asset from closure. This is 13 something we really don't want to happen, and it happens all the time. It'll 14 also help ensure the safe operation of aircraft in the vicinity of the airport. 15 Finally it helps ensure the safety of properties around the airport as well by 16 making sure nothing gets built in a critical approach zone. 17 1 will go very quickly through the findings if you would like me to. If 18 you've already read them on your packet I certainly understand, but 19 essentially the airport master plan supports this. This is an adopted 20 planning document for the airport, adopted by City Council, again because 21 large areas can be affected by the need to constrain heights, zoning is 22 generally the most reasonable, and effective means of protection. Again, 23 purpose of an Airport Zoning District is to protect operations at the airport 24 from encroachment of land uses that may inhibit or restrict airport 25 operations. Another thing is our airport is part of what's called the National 26 Plan of Integrated Airport System and that means that the Federal 27 government has deemed our airport to be one of 3,300 airports nationwide 28 that are considered to be a critical part of the national aviation 29 transportation system, so that adds that additional burden of responsibility 30 to us to preserve this airport. Then, I already mentioned the two FAA 31 Grant Assurances, so I will not go through those again. 32 Again, Staff recommendation of this is approval. I do want to 33 mention that this afternoon I did receive word of some concern from some 34 of the property owners in the area, so I'll be happy to address any of their 35 concerns or what every the Commission chooses to do; if they would 36 prefer Staff to go back and do some additional work on this, but I think that 37 ... I just want to point out that this is really exactly what was already in 38 place when this land was in the ETZ and all we're doing is just to bring this 39 same protection into the City. 40 41 Scholz: Okay, Commissioners questions, comments? I just have one. I'm familiar 42 with this encroachment problem. I grew up in Chicago and when O'Hara 43 was expanded, in fact, when O'Hara proposed to build I think a 10,000- 44 foot runway, there were all kinds of neighborhood complaints, even though 45 the people knew they were living next to an airport. And of course, there 46 were always the concerns about noise and so on. This also happened 1 12 1 understand in south Minneapolis with the expansion of that field. So 2 obviously, we have to protect our airport, though it's not going to be a 3 major one like larger City airports. That was a good presentation, thank 4 you. Okay. If there's nothing else from Staff, I'll open this to the audience. 5 Is there someone from the audience who wants to speak to this? Yes, sir, 6 please identify yourself and speak directly to the microphone. 7 8 Cupit: My name is Bill Cupit. I'm a resident of Las Cruces and a land owner on 9 the West Mesa. We had gotten our packet a little bit late and we wanted 10 to at least express some concerns that we had at the meeting. I had 11 written a letter to the Staff and talked to them and basically before I even 12 came into the meeting, a lot of the questions were answered, some of 13 them were solved, but I think on record I want to state that this area right 14 here is an area that me as a landowner and obviously something I want to 15 give my grand kids and something down the road, this is an area we'd like 16 to see the ... as a possible renewable energy and you know to look at 17 wind power, solar, in this whole area on that West Mesa. We don't want to 18 obviously on the approaches itself, but some of the questions I had, in the 19 literature it made it ... I didn't see it clear that that was part of it, just the 20 approach. But I was clarified by Ms. Murphy that that was only concerning 21 the approach that the height restrictions were really the major issues. 22 Because what we wanted to do in the next 20 or 30 years, we want to 23 have that capability because that's going to be a logical place to put some 24 wind power possibly, generating some type of power in the future for Las 25 Cruces. Same thing with railroad stations or anything in the future for 26 transportation. That's going to have to be another area and I just didn't 27 want that to be, you know, a restriction put on those items before we even 28 got to that stage. So that's what my concern was. I don't really have any 29 negative at this point, just a concern. 30 31 Scholz: Okay. Questions for this gentleman? 32 33 Beard: Could you point out where your property is? 34 35 Cupit: I don't know how I could do it, well maybe I can. My property is basically 36 all this land right in here. So I'm in the ... really the flight path, it's not, the 37 property I really have I'm not really representing that as much as I am this 38 area right here. This is my main concern because this whole area right 39 here is an escarpment which lends itself to having wind generating power, 40 solar, all of this area is basically flat from about this point down. You 41 know, there maybe an elevation change of, what, maybe 20-feet, at that, 42 so it lends itself to a lot of uses in the future. Obviously the number one 43 thing we've got to consider, since we don't wanna really put that thing, or 44 any of these items in front of the Organs, we almost gotta look at 45 something to the west to putting those, and some of the things that have 46 come to my attention, and y'all might as well know it, is some of the 13 I baseball leagues and some of the other people have got the light 2 concerns. You know, that's a concern cause they can't go to the east 3 cause you have too many people gonna be complaining looking at 4 baseball field lights in the middle of the night when you're looking at the 5 Organ's. So, this is obviously a logical place in the future, not now, but in 6 the future that we're going to have to think about that and how we plan 7 around it, working with the airport and the community, you know 8 Development Department to make sure we accommodate and look at 9 those. Cause right now I just noticed it in the paper today that those are 10 some issues that we've gotta look at, is where are we going to put these 11 big baseball fields and recreation areas with these big lights? We'd like to 12 keep it out of the valley. We'd like to keep it off of the East Mesa because 13 it's not going to be the prettiest thing to look at. But on the other hand, it's 14 a need and I hate to admit it, the growth in town is really squeezing those 15 poor people out. But that's some of my concern, is the recreation areas 16 and those (inaudible), and what I was concerned is, since we didn't have 17 enough time to review it and really have enough time, my concern is we're 18 putting restrictions on things that, wait a minute, we ought to be talking 19 and looking and visiting with New Mexico State, visiting with some other 20 people from the City and we ought to be trying to master plan that area for 21 a huge development growth for industrial, you know, commercial type use 22 and possibly some residential, but we don't need to conflict with the 23 airport. I'm a user myself for the airport and you know I don't wanna block 24 the view, but on the other hand it just wasn't clear to me and that's why 1 25 wanted to bring it to your attention. That's my concern and I want you 26 guys to be concerned as well for the community. 27 28 Scholz: Okay. 29 30 Cupit: Thank you. 31 32 Scholz: Any other comments, questions? 33 34 Shipley: Seeing how you're talking about heights, what kind of heights are we 35 talking about in that, where it says area of disclosure, could you put a 100- 36 foot tower there? 37 38 Murphy: The height restrictions apply mostly to the part 77 surfaces and I just kind 39 of have some examples here, again these are three-dimensional surfaces. 40 So roughly if you are wanting to build something right about here, right at 41 the City limits line here, the maximum height at that point would be about 42 230-feet, and then it just continues going on up; over here right at the 43 edge here it's about 150-feet, if you extend out over here it goes up so 44 sharply there that you can up as high as 350-feet, and even in some 45 cases the FAA will allow especially tall items, towers. You've seen radio 46 towers all the time with flashing lights and they put it on the Aviation 14 1 Navigational Charts. So it's not necessarily incompatible, but down in this 2 area would be about 200-230 feet. 3 4 Scholz: Good. Well thank you Mr. Cupit for bringing those things to our attention. 5 And you're right, I think, I don't know if you're aware of the 2040 Plan? 6 7 Cupit: Yes, sir. 8 9 Scholz: Okay, have you attended any of those meetings? 10 11 Cupit: Yes, sir. 12 13 Scholz: Good. Well make sure you do and keep your voice heard because that's 14 the way to get this sort of thing incorporated in the County master plan. 15 And I agree, we have to think big picture here, we can't just think, you 16 know, spot zoning and keep making adjustments. 17 18 Cupit: And one of the things and I'm sure the City will catch it, but it was in the 19 paper here the other day, they're looking at moving their compost area out 20 there. Believe it or not, the compost area is right in the alignment of the 21 approach. Well, if you put compost ... you've got to look at that because 22 that creates birds and, so, you know, if the City can ... we don't want the 23 City doing anything that they'd regret, so. We're in the same boat. 24 Everybody's got to comply. 25 26 Scholz: I read those comments of the people who had driven in on Interstate-10, 27 you know, and the first thing they smelled was the Las Cruces waste 28 dump, and I thought well, if we bring it out to the airport then the first thing 29 people will smell when they fly in is that same thing. Okay. Thank you sir. 30 Okay. Commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to accept unless you have 31 other comments or questions. We'll close it for public debate. 32 33 Crane: So moved. 34 35 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved. Do I hear a second? 36 37 Beard: Second it. 38 39 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and second that we accept ZCA-08-01. I'll call the 40 role. Commissioner Shipley? 41 42 Shipley: Aye, discussion, findings, and site visit. 43 44 Scholz: Commissioner Crane? 45 46 Crane: Aye, discussion and findings. 15 i 1 2 Scholz: Commissioner Evans? 3 4 Evans: Aye, based on discussion and findings. 5 6 Scholz: Commissioner Beard? 7 8 Beard: Aye, based on finding and discussions. 9 10 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye, based on findings and discussion. So it passed 11 5-0. Well that concludes our new business. 12 13 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS 14 15 Scholz: Is there other business to be brought before the Commission today? Staff 16 is shaking their heads vigorously. 17 18 IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 19 20 Scholz: Is there anyone else who wants to do public participation? Seeing no one 21 rush to the microphone. 22 23 X. STAFF COMMENT 24 25 Scholz: I'll assume we have time for Staff comment. Staff? You're all putting 26 things away in your notebooks. 27 28 XI. ADJOURNMENT 29 30 Scholz: Well, I assume then we are adjourned at what looks like 6:37. Thank you 31 very much folks. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Chairperson 39 16