Loading...
03-25-2008 I MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 FOR THE 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 City Council Chambers 5 March 25, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. 6 7 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Scholz, Chairman 8 Charles Beard, Member 9 Ray Shipley, Member 10 Godfrey Crane, Member 11 12 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Shawn Evans, Vice Chair 13 Donald Bustos, Secretary 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Cheryl Rodriguez, Senior Planner 16 James White, Planner 17 Gary Hembree, Planner 18 Helen Revels, Associate Planner 19 Jared Abrams, CLC Legal 20 Lt. Steve Archuleta, Fire Department 21 Becky Eich, Recording Secretary 22 23 I. CALL TO ORDER 24 25 Scholz: I'll call this meeting to order. I'd like to introduce the members of 26 Commission and tell you what districts they represent. On my far right is 27 our newest member, Godfrey Crane. Godfrey represents district 4. Next 28 is Ray Shipley who is Mayor's appointment, so he is an at large person on 29 the Board. On my immediate right is Charles Beard. Charles is 30 representing District 2. And I'm Charlie Scholz, and I'm representing 31 District 6. 32 33 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 26, 2008 34 35 Scholz: Next is the approval of the minutes of the February 26, 2008 meeting. Are 36 there any corrections? Seeing none. I'll entertain a motion to accept the 37 minutes. 38 39 Shipley: I motion. 40 41 Beard: Second. 42 43 Schuster: All in favor. 44 45 ALL COMMISSIONERS -AYE. 46 1 1 111. POSTPONEMENTS 2 3 IV. WITHDRAWALS 4 5 V. CONSENT AGENDA 6 7 Scholz: The next item is the consent agenda. This is the way the consent agenda 8 works, we read through the cases that are on the consent agenda, and we 9 ask individually if there's anyone from staff or the Commission or the 10 audience who would like to place these on the business agenda. If there 11 isn't, then we take a vote at the end of the consent agenda to accept the 12 entire consent agenda and then we've dealt with those issues. So Staff, 13 did you want to make an adjustment to the consent agenda? 14 15 Rodriguez: No, Mr. Chairman. If there are any cases that the Commission feels that 16 need to be pulled off or the members of the public, we'll proceed in that 17 fashion. I just want to let you know that you did receive the notices for 18 both Case Z2744 as well as Z2745. For the notice for Z2745, that family 19 was unable to attend, so if the Commission feels that that needs to be 20 withdrawn from the consent agenda, we can accommodate that. 21 22 Scholz: Okay. So here is our consent agenda. The first item is Case Z2744, a 23 request for zone change from R-2 (multi-dwelling low density) to 0-2 24 (office professional limited) for a .570 +/- acre property located at 213 25 North Armijo. The zone change request will facilitate a single-occupant 26 professional office. Submitted by Deborah A. Rivera. Anyone from Staff 27 want to comment on this one? Commissioners? Is there anyone from the 28 public who wants to speak to this particular issue? There is. All right. 29 Would you come up and identify yourself please. Yes, right, and speak 30 into the microphone please. Your name is? 31 32 Nino: Yes, good afternoon. My name is Blanca Hernandez-Nino. 33 34 Scholz: Okay. Ms. Hernandez-Nino. I'll put this as the first item on the new 35 business agenda. Okay. So we will get to it in about, I'm guessing, 36 probably 10 minutes. Thank you very much. Okay, so Case Z2744 is 37 going to be moved to the first item on new business. Okay, the second 38 item on the consent agenda is Case Z2745, a request for a zone change 39 from H (Holding)/REM (Residential Estates Mobile) to R-1 a (Single-Family 40 Medium Density) for 4.44 +/- acres of property and from REM (Residential 41 Estates Mobile) FC (Flood Control) for 0.79 +/- acres of property located 42 west of Elks Drive and north of McCoy Avenue. The purpose of the zone 43 change request is to facilitate the development of a proposed single-family 44 residential development known as Aurora Subdivision. Submitted by 45 Summit Engineering for Richard and Aurora Valverde. Staff? No. 46 Commissioners? 2 I Shipley: I'd like to pull this item. 2 3 Scholz: You would. Okay. And so that's going to be our second item of new 4 business then, and that's Case Z2745. Okay, proceeding. Case number 5 three, Z2746, a request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 6 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 1.25 +/- acres located at 7 4820 Mesa Grande Drive. The zone change will bring the property into 8 compliance with the 2001 Zoning Code, as amended. This action is 9 required primarily based on the property exceeding the one (1) acre 10 maximum threshold for properties having a zoning designation of C-2 11 (Commercial Medium Intensity). Submitted by O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. 12 Anyone from Staff want to comment on this one? Commissioners? Okay. 13 Anyone in the audience want to comment on this? Okay, there are two 14 people. I assume you're not the applicant, right? No. Okay. Thank you. 15 That will be number three on new business. That's Case Z2746. We're 16 lengthening our agenda. I can see that. 17 18 Okay, number four is case S-08-006, a request for a final plat approval for 19 a replat known as Payan Replat No. 1. The subject property contains 4.20 20 acres. The final plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for Payan Drive 21 and replat three single-family residential lots. The subject property is 22 zoned R-1 aM (Single-Family Residential Mobile). Submitted by the City of 23 Las Cruces. Well, does the City of Las Cruces have anything to say about 24 this? No, okay. Commissioners? Anyone from the audience? Yes, and 25 you're not the applicant, sir? No. Okay. Thank you. That'll become our 26 fourth item under new business. Case S-08-006. 27 28 All right, and number five on the consent agenda is Case S-08-003, a 29 request for dedication plat approval for Sonoma Ranch Boulevard, Phase 30 1. The dedication plat proposes to dedicate 6.83 +/- acres of right-of-way 31 for Sonoma Ranch Boulevard to the City of Las Cruces. The subject area 32 is located generally north of Las Colinas Drive and south of Thurmond 33 (Engler) Road. Submitted by Logos Development. Staff, any comments 34 on this? No. Commissioners? And the public? No, okay. Well I'll ask for 35 a motion then to accept the agenda. Someone? 36 37 Shipley: Move to accept the agenda? 38 39 Scholz: Yes, to accept the agenda, and that would include the consent agenda. 40 41 Shipley: Then I so move to accept the consent agenda. 42 43 Scholz: Is there a second? 44 45 Beard: Second. 46 3 I Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded, all in favor say aye. 2 3 ALL COMMISSIONERS -AYE. 4 5 Scholz.- Those opposed say nay, and any abstentions? All right. It's passed. 6 Commissioner Beard just asked if we have to approve case five. No, it 7 has now been approved since we passed the agenda. 8 9 1. Case S-08-003: A request for dedication plat approval for Sonoma Ranch 10 Boulevard, Phase 1. The dedication plat proposes to dedicate 6.83 +/- acres 11 of right-of-way for Sonoma Ranch Boulevard to the City of Las Cruces. The 12 subject area is located generally north of Las Colinas Drive and south of 13 Thurmond (Engler) Road. Submitted by Logos Development. 14 15 VI. OLD BUSINESS 16 17 1. Case Z2738: A request for a zone change from R-1a (Single-Family Medium 18 Density) to R-2 (Multi-Dwelling Low Density) for 1.905 +/- acres located at 19 5604 Mesa Drive. Submitted by Aurelio Alvarez, property owner. 20 21 Scholz: Okay. Here's how the process works in case you haven't been here 22 before. We have the Staff make their presentation. Then the applicant(s) 23 make their presentation. Then we allow discussion from the public, from 24 the floor, of course using the microphone, then after that's through, we 25 close discussion and the Commissioners have their discussion and make 26 their decision, and that's the process we'll follow this evening. So our first 27 case is old business. It's Case Z2738, a request for a zone change from 28 R-1a (Single-Family Medium Density) to R-2 (Multi-Dwelling Low Density) 29 for 1.9 +/- acres located at 5604 Mesa Drive. Submitted by Aurelio 30 Alvarez, property owner. Staff? 31 32 White: For the record, James White, Community Development Department. The 33 first case this evening under old business is case Z2738, a request for a 34 zone change from R-1a which stands for Single-Family Medium Density to 35 R-2C Multi-Family Low Density Conditional for 1.9 +/- acres located at 36 5604 Mesa Drive. Here's a vicinity map. The subject property is located 37 here, roughly 1.9 acres in size. Mesa is located on the actual western 38 boundary of the property, situated in this area right here. There are some 39 other local streets sections in here such as Melody Lane that is located 40 north of the subject property. Currently the zoning pattern in the area is 41 pretty much R-1 a, which is Single-Family Medium Density, which allows 42 for one dwelling unit per platted lot, or a maximum of eight dwelling units 43 per acre if its properly subdivided. Case specifics: I won't go into the 44 acreage and zoning again. The applicant has requested for the placement 45 of two manufactured homes on the property. The issue in this area is 46 actually that all liquid waste is done by septic tank and not sanitary sewer. 4 I So what transpires is that you have New Mexico Environmental 2 Department Regulation regarding septic tank installation. There are two 3 different criteria: when you plat out new lots, the minimum criteria is .75 4 acres. If the lot remains in its entirety of 1.9 acres in size, then the 5 equation that New Mexico Environmental Department uses is based upon 6 the number of bedrooms. So if this property is rezoned to R-2, which 7 would not actually subdivide the property, but change the actual allowable 8 number of units on the property, a maximum of six bedrooms would be 9 permitted on the entire 1.9 acres. Mesa Drive is classified as a Collector 10 Roadway. Here is an MPO Thoroughfare Map showing the specified 11 Collector Roadway known as Mesa Drive which is located here. You also 12 have another portion of a Collector Status Roadway, Central located here. 13 The issue with respect to this case, is the applicant had two possible 14 options to pursue the placement of a secondary manufactured house on 15 the property. The first option was to provide or place through a 16 subdivision of the property, of course, with this subdivision of the property, 17 the applicant is required to do pro-rata road improvements of Mesa Drive, 18 which mean they would be required to do improvements for the section of 19 Mesa Drive from this point to this point here, half a cross section of a 20 collector status roadway. Subsequently that would allow the property to 21 be subdivided. In this case, the issue is not only the zoning, but also the 22 septic tank placement. The new platted lots in this area have to have a 23 minimum of .75 acres in size. The applicant says currently it's not 24 economically feasible to subdivide the property, so the applicant is 25 pursuing a zone change to allow for increased density on the tract of land. 26 Here's an aerial view of the area. You can pretty much see the 27 development pattern of the R-1 a located here on the east side of Mesa 28 Drive, a remote East Mesa which is located on the west side of Mesa 29 Drive. Predominantly what you're seeing in the land use pattern, you're 30 seeing larger lots. The reason for that in this general area are two 31 reasons: number one is that septic tanks are used and not sanitary sewer; 32 and the other issue is that as soon as you subdivide property based upon 33 the Subdivision Code, you are required to do pro-rata improvements of 34 thoroughfares, or if you're adjacent to some of these local roadways it may 35 require additional right-of-way and subsequently that road conforming to 36 City Design Standards. Based upon this section of Mesa, what would be 37 required are sidewalks, street lighting, and a pro-rata share of asphalt 38 from this portion to this portion for the subdivision. The Staff 39 recommendation in respect to this zone change is for denial based on that 40 this property should have probably been subdivided versus seeking a 41 zone change to R-2 which allows for an increased in density, but doesn't 42 actually address the infrastructure related issues in the actual Mesa Drive 43 area. That will end Staff presentation. I'll be glad to stand for any 44 questions or comments this Board may have this evening. 45 5 i fi I Scholz: So, Mr. White, what you're saying is that if this were subdivided then they 2 could put three units on this property? 3 4 White: Chair Scholz, that is correct. Based upon the current zoning of R-1 a it 5 only allows for one residential structure per platted lot. 6 7 Scholz: Okay. And the applicant ... well, we'll listen to the applicant's 8 presentation. But, about the septic system, you'd need, let's see, you 9 have three. You said something about bedrooms and I was confused 10 about that. 11 12 White: Sure. What transpires is there are two different equations you have to 13 evaluate, Chair. The first equation is if you actually subdivide the 14 property, New Mexico Environmental Department will allow you to plat lots 15 on septic tanks with a minimum threshold size of .75 acres. If the lot 16 remains in its entirety as it is currently here, there's a different equation. 17 Since the lot is not .75 acres, you're looking at a maximum number of 18 bedrooms on the property. So what they'll evaluate is that if you keep this 19 property in its entirety, you'd be regulated to six bedrooms for the entire 20 tract of land. 21 22 Scholz: So, in other words, wouldn't three houses have about six bedrooms? 23 24 White: Chair Scholz, that's a possibility. I know currently there is a doublewide 25 manufactured home on the property of roughly 1,800 square feet. I 26 believe in the Staff report it was written that approximately based on the 27 square footage of the home, you probably have a three to four bedroom 28 unit on the current site, so if the zone change is approved, you may be 29 permitted a secondary smaller unit of no more probably than two or three 30 bedrooms, depending upon what's transpiring in the first manufactured 31 dwelling unit. 32 33 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions from Mr. White? 34 35 Shipley: Not at this time. 36 37 Scholz: Okay. We'll hear from the applicant please. 38 39 Alvarez: Hi, my name is Cesar Alvarez. This is my dad, Aurelio Alvarez. 40 41 Scholz: Okay. 42 43 Alvarez: That over there is my aunt. They're both the property owners. About a 44 year ago, around February 22nd, my dad was looking to purchase this 45 property with his real estate agent. He purchased the property because 46 they assured him that he was going to be able to put three manufactured 6 1 homes on the property. They even gave him this paper by the City, 2 should I present it? 3 4 Scholz: I'd like to see a copy of that, certainly. Thank you. Go ahead. 5 6 Alvarez: That's all that they explained and my dad was under the impression that 7 he was going to be able to put two additional manufactured homes without 8 any further requirements. Indeed that's what they told him, so that's why 9 he went ahead and bought the property at a price of$125,000. Later on, it 10 was revealed to him that he would have to subdivide or have a zone 11 change in order to add two additional manufactured homes on the 12 property and that is basically what we're trying to do right here. What 13 we're trying to do right now is get those two additional manufactured 14 homes on the property and we plan to subdivide about two years or three 15 years from now when there's a sewer line that passes by Mesa Drive. It is 16 our intention to subdivide the property eventually. Right now, we don't 17 have the money right now to do that. 18 19 Scholz: Okay. Questions for the applicants, Commissioners? Okay. Well, I have 20 two. One is that the problem here with putting additional units on this 21 property is not a problem of zoning as much as it is a problem of waste. If 22 you're using septic systems, which you are because there's no sewer line 23 out there yet, you can't have more than about, well, what is the state 24 environmental people say, that no more than about six bedrooms. How 25 many bedrooms are in that doublewide which is there right now? 26 27 Alvarez: Four. 28 29 Scholz: Four. So you'd be able to add one more small unit and that's because of 30 the septic problem, not because of the zoning problem or anything else. 31 So, it doesn't seem to me like there's any solution here other than to deny 32 this at this time. So the problem is not the division of land, as I see it, the 33 problem is the septic system. So when there's a sewer out there, then 34 you'll be able to subdivide, then there won't be a problem. But you'll have 35 to remember when you subdivide you will have to bring the roadway, 36 Mesa Drive, up to standards because that's part of the development 37 process. 38 39 Alvarez: Right. 40 41 Scholz: Is there anyone else from the audience who wants to speak to this? Do 42 any of your family want to speak to this? 43 44 Alvarez: No. I don't think they have anything else to say. 45 7 1 Scholz: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else from the audience who 2 wants to speak to this issue? Okay, I'm going to close this to audience 3 participation then and see what the Commissioners have to say. Thank 4 you very much folks. Commissioners, what are your thoughts? 5 6 Crane: It does seem to me that it's very difficult to see how the applicants could 7 go from four bedrooms presently to put in two more units and only add two 8 bedrooms between them. It's an impossibility. I agree with the idea of 9 denial at the present. 10 11 Shipley: I also feel the same way. I mean it's fairly straightforward about the 12 sanitary sewer not being there and so I think the findings are correct. 13 14 Scholz: Okay. I'll entertain a motion then to accept Case Z2738. 15 16 Shipley: I'll move to accept Case Z2738. 17 18 Scholz: Is there a second? 19 20 Beard: I second. 21 22 Scholz: Okay. I'll call the roll. Commissioner Crane? 23 24 Crane: Vote for denial. 25 26 Scholz: You'll have to vote no if you're denying. 27 28 Crane: No. Voting no. 29 30 Scholz: Okay, and that is for ...? Findings? 31 32 Crane: Findings and discussion. 33 34 Scholz: Thank you. Commissioner Shipley? 35 36 Shipley: The recommendation is denial, so I'm voting for. 37 38 Scholz: If you're voting for denial you'll have to vote no. 39 40 Shipley: Then I vote nay for site visit, recommendations, and findings. 41 42 Scholz: Thank you. Commissioner Beard. 43 44 Beard: I vote no, findings and conditions. 45 46 Scholz: And the Chair votes no for findings and conditions. 8 A ft- 1 2 White: Just for a point of record, this is a recommendation from the Planning and 3 Zoning Commission. T his case goes before the City Council for final 4 consideration. 5 6 Scholz: Thank you, Mr. White. 7 8 VII. NEW BUSINESS 9 10 1. Case Z2744: A request for a zone change from R-2 (Multi-Dwelling Low 11 Density) to 0-2 (Office Professional Limited) for a .570 +/- acre property 12 located at 213 N. Armijo. The zone change request will facilitate a single- 13 occupant professional office. Submitted by Deborah A. Rivera. 14 15 Scholz: Okay, that brings us to our new business. Our first order of new business 16 is Case Z2744, a request for a zone change from R-2 Multi-Dwelling Low 17 Density to 0-2 office professional limited for a .57 +/- acre property located 18 at 213 N. Armijo. The zone change request will facilitate a single 19 occupant professional office. Submitted by Deborah A. Rivera. Mr. White, 20 you're up again. 21 22 White: Again for the record, Case Z2744 is a request for a zone change from R-2 23 multi-dwelling low density to 0-2 office professional limited for .57 acres of 24 land located at 213 N. Armijo, submitted by the property owner. Here's a 25 vicinity map showing the subject property located here at 213 Armijo. It 26 has ingress and egress on Organ Avenue. The actual parking area is off 27 of Organ. The structure that was previously used as a Montessori, prior to 28 that as daycare facility, actually fronts Armijo located here. The area is in 29 the Alameda Depot Early Notification Neighborhood Association. Early 30 notice was made to the property owners of the four individuals located in 31 the area. Case specifics: as stated earlier the property is in the Alameda 32 Depot neighborhood association. Subject size is roughly .570 acres in 33 size. The existing building is roughly 2,500 square feet. Parking lot 34 access is from Organ Avenue. Parking stall requirements based upon the 35 square footage of the existing building are between six and eight stalls. 36 The actual site plan as depicted actually shows eight stalls. The applicant 37 is receptive to restricting the business access from the alleyway. Here's a 38 site plan that was submitted. Ingress and egress currently is off of Organ 39 Avenue. Here's the actual parking area here, identified eight parking 40 stalls. The existing building with 2,500 square feet is located here. Here's 41 the actual antiquated alleyway that's located on this area where which is 42 16-feet in width. Site photos: you have pedestrian ingress and egress to 43 the property site located here but no vehicular access. Here's a portion of 44 the paved parking lot in respect to the property in question. Aerial view of 45 213 North Armijo, located here. You can actually notice here that you're 46 actually seeing off Organ a couple of cars parked up in this area here, 9 I based upon this 2004 aerial. Staff recommendation is for conditional 2 approval for this case. The first condition is the subject property will be 3 limited to a maximum building coverage area of 3,000 square feet. 4 Meaning that there could be an expansion up to 500 square feet on the 5 existing building. Number two, business related traffic will be prohibited 6 from utilizing the 16-foot alleyway. Number three, the applicant will replat 7 the property within a manner that all existing lot lines straddling the 8 existing building will be eliminated. Pretty much what's occurring here, 9 can go into very brief detail, is that in these antiquated areas of the old 10 subdivisions, there are numerous lots lines that traverse the property, and 11 if you look at the actual plat for this area there are about four lot lines that 12 go across the property. So there's a problem there with actual setbacks 13 and the zoning district. So by eliminating those actual lot lines, it will 14 confirm to the setback requirements for the proposed 0-2 zoning district. 15 That will end Staff presentation. I'd be glad to stand for any comments or 16 questions this Board may have this evening. 17 18 Scholz: Commissioners, questions? 19 20 Shipley: The only question I had after looking at it Mr. White was when I went out 21 to the look at the site earlier today. Parking is in the rear and there's no 22 walkway around to the front of the building. So I'm under the assumption 23 that they're going to use the rear as the main entrance? 24 25 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Shipley, I'll defer that question over to the 26 actual applicant. 27 28 Scholz: I do have one question, Mr. White. Is that parking lot of adequate size for 29 that building? I looked at it and I noticed that there were I think, on our 30 map, five parking places at the back of the lot between the pond area and 31 that open area. Are those legal width parking spaces? 32 33 White: That is correct. The assessment, I actually evaluated this afternoon was 34 based upon, we have a parking matrix in the actual Zoning Code and it's 35 based upon the square footage of the type of use of the building. 36 37 Scholz: Okay. 38 39 White: Based upon that, eight stalls is sufficient. I do know that in your packet 40 there's also a letter from a surrounding property owner who questions 41 some of the off site parking such as on Organ Avenue and some of the 42 surrounding lots. 43 44 Scholz: Yes, I was going to bring that up. 45 10 1 White: But based upon the Zoning Code it is sufficient parking for a building of 2 that size and that type of use. 3 4 Scholz: Okay. Now how do you prevent people from using the alley? I noticed 5 that you said that you don't want people to drive down the alley or use the 6 alley as an entrance to the parking area. 7 8 White: Chair Scholz, hopefully by placing a condition on the zone change it'll be 9 restricted. If there are any complaints from the general neighborhood 10 association Code Enforcement will go out and evaluate the situation. If 11 the zone change is approved with that condition and we find out that there 12 are violations of it then, of course, we'd site the individual based upon the 13 condition of the actual zoning for the property. 14 15 Scholz: I think there's a fence there now, which would prevent entrance into the 16 parking lot. Okay. Well, those were my questions. Can we hear from the 17 applicant, please? 18 19 Rivera: Yes, I'm Deborah Rivera. I'm the owner and the applicant for this zone 20 change. Would you like for me to answer the questions first, or give a 21 description of what we plan to do? 22 23 Scholz: Why don't you give us a description? 24 25 Rivera: The property is located at 213 North Armijo and it's currently zoned R-2 26 Multiple Dwelling with a Special Use Permit to operate a childcare center. 27 We, A and I Incorporated, have utilized the 2,500 square foot building as a 28 center since 1994. Prior to our ownership it was utilized as a childcare 29 center since 1972. The center closed in February 2007 and is now 30 vacant. ASA Architects is seeking a zone change with me to allow the 31 existing building to be converted to professional offices. The property has 32 been used commercially for over 35 years and the change would have 33 very low impact to the neighborhood. ASA Architects present office is one 34 block away on the corner of Alameda and Organ. ASA would upgrade the 35 interior of the building without changing the square footage and would be 36 changing the exterior to better reflect its historical importance. There is 37 currently a paved parking lot with additional areas that could be used for 38 parking. Landscaping would remain in the south area facing the 39 neighborhood. The building would be utilized Monday through Friday from 40 8:00 until 6:00 and would be considered low traffic professional offices. 41 The square footage of the building, per County records, is 2,520 square 42 feet. The lot size is .750 acres per County records. Hours of operation 43 would be Monday through Friday 8:30 to 6:00. On lot ponding is already 44 on the lot from the existing parking lot. Existing fencing may be replaced 45 and landscaping enhanced in regards to the surrounding neighborhood. 46 The overall change to the surrounding neighborhood is minimal with a 11 I change of zoning and ownership. In 1994 1 requested and applied for a 2 Special Use Permit. At that time I was required to pave our parking lot, so 3 the eight stalls were the minimum size of the parking lot. 4 5 Scholz: Okay. 6 7 Rivera: In this area right here, this is the paved parking lot. All of this dirt area 8 right here can be additional parking. There is a chain link fence right now 9 that runs ... we don't have access to the alley as is. This was the 10 playground for the childcare center. It will become more parking. So as to 11 the parking issues, there will be plenty of parking. In this area right here, 12 this is just a grass landscape but I do have some drawings to show you 13 what it will look like after we do the improvements. Now, the other 14 question, Mr. Shipley. 15 16 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley. 17 18 Shipley: Mr. Chairman, the question I had was the front entrance is on the street 19 and the parking is all in the rear. There's no walkway around the exterior 20 side of the building. Do you plan on installing that so people can walk to 21 the front? 22 23 Rivera: As the childcare center, we always entered from this part of the building. 24 From this side there is a sidewalk to the front of the building. As far as 25 using the street side of the building, I don't know what their plans are. But 26 we had always used the parking lot side. 27 28 Shipley: So my question is then, is this architectural firm going to be in the 29 building? 30 31 Rivera: Can I refer to them? 32 33 Shelton: Ted Shelton. I own ASA Architects. We're the building here on the far 34 right hand side of the ... 35 36 Scholz: Ted, we need you closer to the mike. 37 38 Shelton: I'm sorry. Can you hear me? 39 40 Scholz: Yes. 41 42 Shelton: Our building is the rectangular old warehouse building on the far right side. 43 We do plan to occupy the building with our accounting Staff and also to 44 locate some of our records that we keep. We've been in business for 45 more than 30 years and we have a lot of drawings and things from 46 projects for many years and we're going to catalog those and sort of store 12 I them there in a library sort of fashion. And our accounting Staff will be 2 there in the building. The building that's there originally had a zaguan 3 running through the center, which is a hallway that goes from front to 4 back, and there have been some changes inside over the years in its use 5 as a daycare center that have changed that. Our intention is to restore 6 that zaguan back so that both entrances, the one on the street and the 7 one from the rear parking area, access the same space. The spaces that 8 we'll be utilizing inside the building will be off of that central hallway. So 9 we plan to use the entrance toward the parking lot side as the 10 handicapped entrance. There is a sidewalk that goes along the parking 11 and around and into the front. It's a historical structure and the front door 12 has a step. We plan to maintain the front porch and that step at the front 13 for historical reasons but the rear has been improved to a handicapped 14 accessible entrance, which we would propose to continue using. 15 16 Scholz: Okay. Any other questions of the applicants? Okay, I'll open this to 17 public. Is there some member of the public who'd like to comment on this 18 case? 19 20 Rivera: We have a drawing that we'd like to give you of the proposed site. 21 22 Scholz: Okay. Would you give it Mr. White and he'll pass it up to us? And yes, I 23 saw the lady in the back who came up before and identified herself. Why 24 don't you come up and identify yourself again, ma'am. 25 26 Nino: My name is Blanca Hernandez-Nino. I have a home located directly 27 across the street on Organ Avenue from where the daycare center used to 28 be located, from 213 North Armijo. 1 have no opposition whatsoever for 29 this commercial service to be housed there at the Armijo location. 30 However, I would like to express one concern with some problems that I 31 have encountered in the past, being that this, even as a daycare center 32 was somewhat of a commercial use also. Basically my concern is with I 33 guess the traffic going in and out of that parking lot and with my home 34 located directly across from where their driveway is, and being that Organ 35 Avenue is quite narrow. It's a quite narrow street. If there are vehicles 36 parked on both sides of the street it's a very tight traffic area for two-way 37 traffic to go by there. It's very seldom that there are any vehicles parked 38 across the street which would be, let me see if I can find this. My home is 39 right here and their driveway is about from here to about here. They have 40 traffic going in and out through here. It's very seldom that there is traffic 41 parked around here. When it was a daycare center for some reason, I 42 don't understand why, because they do have ample parking in their 43 parking lot, but occasionally I guess some of the parents would park right 44 here along this side and there would be traffic going in and out of the 45 parking lot, and it would get very close to my vehicles here. At times, you 46 know, I would have to, before I could get into my vehicle I would have to 13 I wait until they would go through. They do have, like Deborah was saying, 2 there is a lot of space over here where they had a playground here and 3 she says that they plan to have some additional parking through there. All 4 of Armijo, the street is a lot wider than Organ Avenue and as you can see 5 all these cars parked over here. I don't know if they belong to this 6 architecture firm, but they've been using that as a parking area too. This 7 is the Carrillo home here. There's a fence here. As you can see there's a 8 lot of parallel parking there across from them. If they would like to 9 consider this, propose that they open up a driveway here at this end and 10 close this driveway here, and if they could drive their traffic through to the 11 rear parking lot that would be great. If not, then if the City could put up 12 some signs right here along this side of Armijo prohibiting any kind of 13 parking on there. I don't know if that's possible or not. But that is my 14 concern. Like I said, I don't oppose any kind of commercial business 15 being there at that facility. That's fine. I'm just concerned about that 16 through traffic here. 17 18 Scholz: Thank you. 19 20 Nino: Thank you. 21 22 Scholz: Any questions for this lady? Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, any 23 other comments from the public? Yes, sir? No, you have to speak from 24 the microphone. Otherwise it doesn't go in the recording system. You're 25 not suffering from mike fright, are you sir? 26 27 Schlothauer: Yes, sir, I am. 28 29 Scholz: Oh, okay, well. 30 31 Schlothauer: I'm Gary Schlothauer. I live catty-corner from the property that's in 32 question here. I've seen an architectural drawing of what they're planning 33 on doing. I think it's great. Improve the neighborhood quite a bit. I'm 34 familiar with the traffic flow around there and my house and what they're 35 doing there and 1 don't think there's going to be that much in and out 36 traffic. People come to work. Most of them stay there. As far as I'm 37 concerned, why it's not going to hurt anything, and it will really improve the 38 neighborhood. Thank you. 39 40 Scholz: Thank you very much. Anyone else from the audience wants to speak to 41 this? Yes, sir. 42 43 Schlothauer: I am Cliff Schlothauer. I own the old Carrillo home which is 318 West 44 Organ. It is directly east from the front of this building. Anyway, I am in 45 full favor of this zone change. 46 14 I Scholz: Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else? All right, I'll close it to public 2 discussion. Commissioners, comments? 3 4 Shipley: My only comment would be that I drove through that area today and 5 looked at it and I think that this will improve the neighborhood and 6 hopefully it will kind of set a trend where all the neighbors that live around 7 there will take a little more pride in their homes and their land and clean 8 out a lot of the junk that seems to be around there and make this a nicer 9 part of town again. This is a beautiful section of town and it has a lot of 10 potential and I think this is the first step to getting it back on track and I 11 think it's a good project. 12 13 Scholz: All right. I'll entertain a motion to accept Case Z2744. 14 15 Shipley: I move to accept Case Z2744. 16 17 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley, you're going to have to read the conditions. 18 They're on page five, at the top. Thank you, Mr. White. 19 20 Shipley: Conditional approval for a zone change to Z2744; the subject property will 21 be limited to a maximum building coverage area of 3,000 square feet; the 22 business related traffic will be prohibited from utilizing the 16-foot 23 alleyway; the applicant will replat the property within a manner that all 24 existing lot lines straddling the existing building will be eliminated; the 25 replatted lot lines will also be in adherence with all required setback for the 26 respective zoning district. 27 28 Scholz: Thank you, Commissioner Shipley. Is there a second to that motion? 29 Commissioner Crane seconds. I'll call the roll. Commissioner Crane? 30 31 Crane: Vote aye. 32 33 Scholz: For? 34 35 Crane: The discussion we've had. 36 37 Scholz: Thank you. Commissioner Shipley? 38 39 Shipley: Aye, for site visit, discussion, and findings. 40 41 Scholz: Commissioner Beard? 42 43 Beard: Aye, based on discussions and findings. 44 45 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for discussion, findings, and site visitation. 46 15 1 2. Case Z2745: A request for a zone change from H (Holding)/REM 2 (Residential Estates Mobile) to R-1a (Single-Family Medium Density) for 4.44 3 +/- acres of property and from REM (Residential Estates Mobile) to FC (Flood 4 Control) for 0.79 +/- acres of property located west of Elks Drive and north of 5 McCoy Avenue. The purpose of the zone change request is to facilitate the 6 development of a proposed single-family residential development known as 7 Aurora Subdivision. Submitted by Summit Engineering for Richard and 8 Aurora Valverde. 9 10 Scholz: All right. Next up is Case Z2745, a request for a zone change from H 11 (Holding)/REM (Residential Estates Mobile) to R-1 a (Single-Family 12 Medium Density) for 4.44 acres of property and from REM (Residential 13 Estates Mobile) to FC (Flood Control) for 0.79 +/- acres of property located 14 west of Elks Drive and north of McCoy Avenue. The purpose of the zone 15 change request is to facilitate the development of a proposed single-family 16 residential development known as Aurora Subdivision. Submitted by 17 Summit Engineering for Richard and Aurora Valverde. And Ms. 18 Rodriguez, you're up. 19 20 Rodriguez: Apologize for that. There was a typographical error in my title on the 21 PowerPoint. For the record, Cheryl Rodriguez, Community Development. 22 Presented before you is a zone change request for a property comprising 23 5.23 acres that is located just north of McCoy and generally west of Elks. 24 McCoy can be accessed off of Lavender or Rio Bravo from Elks Drive. 25 The purpose of the zone change is to facilitate a future residential 26 subdivision. The existing subject property has two zoning districts on it: 27 the rear portion of the lot has zoning designation of REM, for Residential 28 Estates Mobile, comprising approximately 4.44 acres, and the front of the 29 property has a zoning designation of Holding. The application is seeking 30 to rezone the property and there are two specific zonings proposed. First 31 and foremost, there is a zone change request to R-1 a for Single-Family 32 Medium Density for approximately 4.44 acres, and then there is a zone 33 change request to FC Flood Control for 0.79 acres. The .79 acres is 34 identified on your packet on the zone change map as well as a copy of the 35 preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is currently under Staff review and 36 will be forwarded to a public hearing at a future date. But the tract A on 37 that proposed preliminary plat, which is located here in the rear of the 38 property, is proposed rezoned Flood Control because it is going to serve 39 as the retention pond, drainage facility for the proposed subdivision. What 40 Staff is currently looking at is you have .79 acres, the applicant is working 41 with Public Works Staff at the moment to propose to dedicate that tract A 42 to the City of Las Cruces for a regional pond because at the adjacent 43 subdivision of Mesa Manor you have their regional pond located just 44 adjacent to this proposed regional pond. So for City of Las Cruces 45 maintenance purposes it would make sense for them to dedicate that, 46 hence the reason Staff is recommending that that portion be rezoned to 16 I flood control. The remainder of the subject property is proposed to be 2 rezoned to R-1 a Single-Family Medium Density. R-1 a allows for density 3 of eight dwelling units to the acre. The applicant is proposing 4 approximately 22 residential lots, so that gives you an average density of 5 approximately four dwelling units to the acre. Currently, in the front of the 6 property adjacent to McCoy, in this general area where you see my 7 cursor, there is an existing single-family residential structure. It's a site 8 built home that is being incorporated into the conceptual lot layout of the 9 proposed development. That structure complies with the Development 10 Standards set forth for R-1 a, meaning that it does comply with all of the 11 setbacks for the R-1 a zoning district. In the rear of the property, you 12 currently have several. I believe there are five mobile homes. Those 13 mobile homes will be removed from this property to facilitate that single- 14 family residential development. Aerial view of the subject property: you 15 see the site built house located here. In this general area, you'll have the 16 internal road network into the proposed subdivision and therefore these 17 existing mobile home units will be removed. Recommendation of this 18 zone change is approval. The applicant is here to answer any questions 19 specifically to the zone change request. The preliminary plat is a separate 20 development application and will be discussed at a later date but they can 21 answer some general questions regarding density, lot layout, things of that 22 nature. If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer 23 them. That concludes my presentation, and like I said, Summit 24 Engineering is here and the property owner of record is also here to 25 answer any questions that you may have. 26 27 Scholz: Questions? 28 29 Shipley: Well, I had a question, the reason I pulled it. 30 31 Scholz: Mr. Shipley. 32 33 Shipley: The reason I asked this to be pulled is that I had concerns and shared 34 those earlier today with you about ingress and egress. Because this is 22 35 lots with one access point to the front, my concern for safety is that in the 36 event that, just say something happens to a house on the third or fourth lot 37 up and there happened to be a fire and you have two or three fire trucks 38 out there and somebody on lot 15 has a heart attack and can't get out. We 39 could actually have a problem, just design problem here. When I drove 40 this property a couple of days ago I went all the way around it and on the 41 road behind it. I believe this goes right up to the back. Is it possible that we 42 could have an emergency exit, you know? So you could put up something 43 that wouldn't be used normally but it could go through that area so that 44 they could get to a road or they could get in from that road if they had to 45 do that. Police could have a key to open either a gate or pillars or pylons 46 or whatever the case might be so that in the event that we have an 17 1 emergency of that situation, we wouldn't have a fatality. That's my 2 concern. 3 4 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley. As I stated, the preliminary plat is 5 currently under review. What we're looking at is Holliday Avenue is 6 identified just to the west of this. I'll be working with City Right-of-Way 7 Staff to determine if this is actual City right-of-way and whether or not it is 8 proposed to be vacated. In terms for secondary access, the Fire 9 Department is here to answer any questions but I know that the 10 International Fire Code does require a secondary access if there is greater 11 of 30 lots in the subdivision. One of the things that we'll look at under 12 preliminary plat review is if this is dedicated right-of-way or if this is a 13 private access easement and whether or not those easements, I believe, 14 the next road to the north is Hatfield and whether or not if there's some 15 type of access can be granted to Hatfield. Portions of Hatfield in that area 16 are of a substandard condition. So that's something that will be closely 17 evaluated when we get the preliminary plat. We've only done one Staff 18 review of the preliminary plat at this time. 19 20 Shipley: Well, if it could go out either to the west or to the north that would be fine. 21 22 Scholz: Ms. Rodriguez, my question was: does this property back up on Holliday, 23 and will we ask the developer then to give a pro-rata share and develop 24 Holliday? 25 26 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, if it is determined that Holliday Avenue is a dedicated 27 street, it's an improved dedicated City right-of-way, then the Design 28 Standards are very clear. It's a Local Roadway and the applicant will be 29 required to build 100% of the Local Roadway. That will be addressed with 30 the preliminary plat. However, if it's determined to be like a private 31 easement, then they are not responsible for the adjacent road 32 improvements to Holliday and that's something that we'll be closely 33 evaluating here in the preliminary plat. 34 35 Scholz: Okay. 36 37 Rodriguez: But Summit Engineering is here and they can offer some preliminary 38 feedback to you at this time. 39 40 Scholz: Sure. Well, let's hear from the fireman. 41 42 Archuleta: Chairman Scholz, Commissioner Shipley. As Ms. Rodriguez stated 43 earlier, per our Fire Code which is adopted by the City, any subdivision 44 over 30 lots requires a secondary access. Anything under that, again per 45 Code does not require that so we can't require it. We can always look into 18 1 the possibility of having some type of emergency access, but it's not 2 anything that we can require. 3 4 Scholz: Thank you. Okay, let's hear from the applicant. 5 6 Byers: My name's Greg Byers. I'm with Summit Engineering. I had a PowerPoint 7 presentation but it didn't get loaded on here. As Ms. Rodriguez stated, 8 right now all we're doing is seeking the zone change. The preliminary plat: 9 we've gone through and put together as you've seen prior. As far as 10 Holliday goes, there is a ... the Holliday that's listed on this map right here 11 which shows coming up through here, in all of our preliminary research is 12 just a private easement. There's actually a second ... Holliday actually 13 occurs down here and this is mislabeled on the GIS mapping from all of 14 the information that we've currently acquired. 15 16 Scholz: Okay. 17 18 Byers: The plats for this property as well as the adjacent property only indicate a 19 private access coming up through that property. As far as the question 20 about additional access to the back of the property, back here, right now 21 we have a drainage area that's planned for this northern property that's 22 approximately five-feet deep. We also have sewer access that's coming 23 down through here. There's a sewer line that parallels that north property 24 line that we're going to be hooking into. If we kind of reconfigure some 25 things we might be able to get some access, but we would have to get 26 permission from the adjacent property owners to have that access 27 because we would be opening up onto an adjacent lot, not to an open 28 right-of-way or an existing easement. So there'd be issues as far as that 29 goes. But we could certainly look into doing something like that. We'd 30 deal with the Staff on that with the preliminary plat. As far as anything 31 else goes, the existing zoning on this for this portion, as Ms. Rodriguez 32 stated, is REM. This portion up here is in Hold and the reason it is in 33 Holding is when this annexation was taken into the City there was a large 34 portion of Holding in here. This is just a remnant of that original zoning. 35 As far as access onto McCoy, McCoy was actually upgraded along in front 36 of this property when the adjacent subdivision was build and there's 37 existing curb and gutter and asphalt on that roadway. It's also utilized as a 38 drainage way that comes down from the eastern properties and heads 39 down into the Sandhill Arroyo, which we're trying to protect and keep that 40 water from coming into the existing property, and we'll be doing that as 41 part of the design process. If you have any other questions, I'd be more 42 than happy to answer. 43 44 Scholz: Yes, Mr. Shipley. 45 19 I Shipley: Thank you for your presentation. So, just to make sure the one that I 2 drove down which is right adjacent to this is an easement. Who owns 3 that? 4 5 Byers: That's a private easement you drove down. You probably entered right 6 here,-came down in front of the existing ... 7 8 Shipley: Correct. 9 10 Byers: Right now that's just a 20-foot road easement that's listed on the plat and 11 this property. 12 13 Shipley: That's on your property? 14 15 Byers: Yes it is. 16 17 Shipley: But it goes all the way back to, is the road Hatfield? Is that correct? To the 18 north? 19 20 Byers: Yes, there's an access way back here and an additional road that's not 21 indicated on this map. 22 23 Shipley: Well, I turned to the right and went out and right along the back of the 24 property there. 25 26 Byers: Right across, right through here. 27 28 Shipley: Correct. 29 30 Byers: Kept on coming up through here. 31 32 Shipley: Yes. 33 34 Byers: Yeah, right now, as far as I've seen, and the preliminary stages that we've 35 done, that is not a dedicated roadway. That's just an open road that's kind 36 of coming up through there that's used for the local. 37 38 Shipley: But that's got some paving on it. 39 40 Byers: As it gets further up, yes. 41 42 Shipley: Yeah, okay. 43 44 Scholz: I have one question, Mr. Byers. There was a concern by a neighbor about 45 the property line. Is there some dispute about the property line on the 46 east side of the property? 20 1 2 Byers: There's a rock wall that was constructed as part of this subdivision along 3 the east property line of the proposed subdivision. Right now as it stands 4 there's a dispute on where that rock wall was originally constructed, 5 whether it was constructed on the east side of the property line or right on 6 the property line with some of the wall extending over the property line. 7 We haven't finished up our survey of the property yet. We will do that as 8 part of the final on our preliminary plat, so that hasn't been determined by 9 us yet. We're still looking into that. But from what we've seen so far, there 10 are a couple of little jogs in that wall where it kind of looks like it's jumping 11 back and forth on the property line. 12 13 Scholz: Okay. Any other questions, Commissioners? Okay. Anyone else in the 14 audience who'd like to comment on this? Okay. I'm going to close it to 15 audience participation then. Commissioners? 16 17 Crane: No questions. 18 19 Scholz: No questions. 20 21 Shipley: Mr. Chairman, my concern again was the safety issue. And you know 22 driving around there I couldn't tell from what I got in my packet whether 23 those were actual roads or future roads or whatever. But I think the point 24 is with the number of people that you have going into this area eventually 25 those roads are probably going to be finished out. It would be good if they 26 could do that, to design that so that there was a secondary access, and I 27 would be willing to condition approval for a secondary access. 28 29 Scholz: Well, I would want to get Staffs opinion on that. Staff? 30 31 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman. I would recommend that in terms for secondary access 32 that we look at that at the preliminary plat stage, when we can actually, 33 Staff can finish their review of the preliminary plat and present it. Because 34 it's one of the things that we'll be looking at, is the connectivity and we're 35 only on review one, so we're not there yet. We'll be looking at 36 connectivity. As the Fire Department said, the IFC doesn't require the 37 secondary access but one of the things if we can get vehicular or 38 pedestrian connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods, that's something that 39 we will examine and we'll bring back to you at the preliminary plat stage, 40 and then you can look at the layout and adjacent developments and how 41 its integrated. That would be my recommendation. 42 43 Shipley: Okay. 44 45 Scholz: Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez. Okay, I'll entertain a motion to accept Case 46 Z2745. 21 1 2 Crane: So moved. 3 4 Scholz: It's been moved. Do I hear a second? 5 6 Beard: Second. 7 8 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner Crane? 9 10 Crane: Vote aye for discussion, findings. 11 12 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley? 13 14 Shipley: Aye for discussion, findings, and a site visit. 15 16 Scholz: Commissioner Beard? 17 18 Beard: Aye, based on findings and discussions. 19 20 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye. So it passes 4-0. Thank you. 21 22 3. Case Z2746: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 23 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 1.25 +/- acres located at 24 4820 Mesa Grande Drive. The zone change will bring the property into 25 compliance with the 2001 Zoning Code, as amended. This action is required 26 primarily based on the property exceeding the one (1) acre maximum 27 threshold for properties having a zoning designation of C-2 (Commercial 28 Medium Intensity). Submitted by O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. 29 30 Scholz: Okay. Next. This is Case Z2746, a request for a zone change from C-2 31 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 32 1.25 +/- acres located at 4820 Mesa Grande Drive. The zone change will 33 bring this property into compliance with the 2001 Zoning Code, as 34 amended. This action is required primarily based on the property 35 exceeding the one-acre maximum threshold for properties having a zoning 36 designation of C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity). Submitted by O'Reilly 37 Automotive, Inc. And Mr. White, you're up. 38 39 White: Again for the record, James White, Community Development Department. 40 The next case this evening is Case Z2746, a request for a zone change 41 from C-2 which is Commercial Medium Intensity to C-3, Commercial High 42 Intensity for roughly 1.25 acres located at 4820 Mesa Grande Drive. The 43 zone change will bring the property in compliance with the 2001 Zoning 44 Code. Predominantly what transpires is that any tract of land currently 45 zoned C-2 has a minimum threshold of one acre in size. So prior to 46 development of any property in a C-2 zoning district that exceeds one acre 22 Ask I in size, there is a zoning conversion process that you're seeing this 2 evening to C-3. Here's a vicinity map showing the subject property in 3 question. Here is Mesa Grande Drive. There's currently a 120-feet of 4 right-of-way. It is classified as a Principal Arterial Roadway. Access is off 5 of Bataan Memorial West, which is located here. You also have the 6 underpass here for Mesa Grande, which is located in this area here. 7 Current zoning: you notice that you're going to have a very similar kind of 8 issues with this property here since it exceeds one acre in size. The 9 applicant has two different options: one is to subdivide the property 10 accordingly into one-acre commercial lots and/or seek a C-3 zoning 11 designation prior to development. Case specifics: I won't go into the first 12 two since we already discussed that, but the third item is Mesa Grande is 13 classified as a Principal Arterial Roadway. The proposal is for 7,200 14 square foot retail commercial building. It is proposed to be an auto retail 15 establishment, auto parts retail establishment. Zoning compliance is 16 based on the acreage standards. MPO Thoroughfare, as stated earlier, 17 property here is directly located east of Mesa Grande. Mesa Grande's 18 located here. Subject property's located here. The actual thoroughfare is 19 located here, Bataan Memorial East and West, collectively, are actually 20 classified as Collector Status Roadways. Site plan as submitted to Staff 21 showing the subject tract of land is 7,200 square foot location, is located 22 here. Showing ingress and egress from Mesa Grande Drive, which is 23 located here. Point of access here and a point of access off of Bataan 24 Memorial as well. Parking thresholds based upon the parking matrix for 25 the type of land use proposed for the property. Aerial view of the subject 26 property in question this evening. Staff recommendation is for approval of 27 this case with the standard City Council condition. That condition being: 28 all newly constructed utilities will be placed underground and the P&Z 29 recommendation for the City Council for final consideration on this case. 30 Because it is a zone change it requires an Ordinance. That will end Staff 31 presentation. I'll be glad to stand for any questions this Board may have 32 this evening. 33 34 Scholz: Questions for Staff? Okay. Can we hear from the applicant? 35 36 Santiana: My name is Diego Santiana with the O'Reilly Auto Parts. I'm a 37 representative. I'm the local district manager. I'm representing the stores 38 that we opened up here in EI Paso. Unfortunately, I don't have too much 39 to say about the building or parking, any of that nature. That is mainly 40 handled by our construction companies that we deal with, as well as our 41 corporate office. What I can tell you is about our company, where we 42 come from and a little bit of our history. We've been in business for over 43 50 years, since 1957. We started in Springfield, Missouri, which we've 44 grown to be the company that we are. O'Reilly Automotive is a family- 45 operated and run company so have stayed very close to the community 46 and different things and in different natures. We've already opened up 23 Aft 1 some stores in EI Paso where we've done some major improvements to 2 the community as far as the appearance of the buildings and things that 3 we've done. We look forward to coming out here to Las Cruces and being 4 successful out here. 5 6 Scholz: Questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. 7 8 Santiana: Thank you. 9 10 Scholz: And there was a person who wanted to speak to this from the public. 11 Well, one at a time is probably the best. 12 13 Squire: My name is Andy Squire. I live directly across from the property. 14 Currently there is drainage that comes from Highway 70 into this area right 15 here, runs into a sort of ponding area, then runs down a ditch down the 16 backside of my property. Our concern, this is one of our concerns, is the 17 ponding area or drainage for this property. Where's the water runoff from 18 this property going to go? Another concern of ours is the lighting for the 19 property and height of the building. That's going to be the same concern 20 for, those are my neighbors that live on either side of me. 21 22 Scholz: Okay. 23 24 Squire: Those are some of the questions we have. 25 26 Scholz: Okay. Could we have the applicant back up, or rather perhaps Staff would 27 be better equipped to answer this? 28 29 Santiana: I could say one thing, that we do not build, you know, two story buildings. 30 It would be a one-story building within the 7,200 square footage that we 31 are planning to encompass on there. I am sure that if there is a ponding 32 area that needs to be built into the back of the building or any of that 33 nature, that would occur as well. 34 35 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. 36 37 White: In respect to the C-3 zoning district, the maximum permissible height is 38 60-feet. Regarding the actual drainage capacity or regional ponding for it, 39 it's actually done through the actual construction design and 40 implementation of the project. What actually transpires is that actually it's 41 a commercial tract of land zoned accordingly, that you will submit a 42 commercial building permit application. It will be evaluated in respect to 43 impervious service area and ponding location. So that's a portion of the 44 actual blueprinting or the actual construction drawings portion of the 45 application. 46 24 I Scholz: Okay. Thank you. Yes, you have some additional information to add? 2 3 Northrup: Yes, sir. My name's Steve Northrup. I live across the street from the 4 proposed site right here. Other than Andy, I think Andy expressed our 5 main concerns. My only other question in regards to the zoning change 6 for this and I guess it would be for Mr. White. Is there any requirement to 7 the width of the road surface that accesses this property? Currently the 8 area right in front of this property is two lanes and here it moves back to 9 four lanes. Here it's four lanes at the corner here. It loses that lane right 10 here when it turns into McDonald's and this ends up as two lanes here. 11 12 Scholz: It's my understanding that the roadway has to be dedicated to the right-of- 13 way that's needed for that road. That's Mesa Grande and that's an 14 Arterial, isn't it, Mr. White? You can speak to the technical details. 15 16 White: Chair Scholz. To illustrate, let's first look at the site plan. The actual 17 specified right-of-way is 120-feet from Mesa Grande. The right-of-way has 18 already been procured. The issue pertaining to the transition of two and 19 four lanes; usually what transpires, this is a little bit more complicated 20 because it's a zone change, not a subdivision. What transpires here is 21 that they did submit technical drawings. You may have an acceleration 22 lane/deceleration lane to the property off of Mesa Grande for additional 23 roadway improvements. Usually we defer that to the Public Works 24 Department or a Traffic Engineer. The Traffic Engineer has seen the site 25 plan and has approved the site plan based upon what has been 26 submitted. But, of course, through the extensive review process through 27 the construction drawings if there are any deficiencies in the roadway etc, 28 it'll be evaluated at that period of time. 29 30 Scholz: So, is it going to be four lanes in front of that building? 31 32 White: To be honest, I highly doubt it'll be four lanes. It may be an acceleration or 33 deceleration lane attached to it, but of course, I don't want to speak on 34 behalf of the Public Works Department what's going to transpire there. It's 35 a little complicated because we didn't actually get comments back from 36 Public Works stipulating that they were seeking additional roadway 37 improvements for that section of Mesa Grande. They did comment on it 38 but there was no specific wording of what the actual widening of the Mesa 39 Grande at that juncture. 40 41 Scholz: Okay. And when would that transpire? When would we get the 42 information from Public Works? 43 44 White: That would be upon the submittal of the actual construction and building 45 permit for the project. 46 25 Aft 1 Scholz: Okay. Thank you, Mr. White. Any other public comment on this? Yes, 2 ma'am, do you have some additional information to add here? Certainly. 3 Would you identify yourself please? 4 5 Camacho: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Rose Camacho. I live on 5715 Real Del Norte, right 6 next to the Esquires. Do I understand you correctly, Mr. White, to say that 7 they will build a holding pond on the far side, which would be the north 8 side? Because as it is we get enough water. We've already had two years 9 of damage on our property. On the Esquire's, they've had damage from 10 that overflow from Mesa Grande. So are you going to require them to 11 have a holding pond on the far side? 12 13 White: Chair Scholz. For the record again, James White. To answer that 14 question, is on the site plan we're not actually showing specified ponding 15 location. That'll actually be reviewed and approved through the actual 16 construction drawing. So this is just, what you're seeing here is the actual 17 site plan, not an improvement schedule of how the property will be 18 improved. 19 20 Scholz: What he's saying is, we don't know at this point. So we have to wait until 21 we see the construction drawings. 22 23 Camacho: Thank you. 24 25 Scholz: Thank you. Any other public input on this? All right, I'm going to close it to 26 public input. Commissioners, your comments? Commissioner Shipley. 27 28 Shipley: The only comment that I had was with regards to the trash enclosure. It's 29 a straight-in shot from the road and it's also visible from the road. I have 30 experience with those before that they could either put closer to the back 31 of the building so that the vehicle could turn around without backing out 32 into parked cars. Because the way it is right now, it pulls straight in and 33 hopefully backs straight out until it gets far enough out that it can turn 34 around, or there maybe where the doors are there, could turn around. In 35 my discussion earlier today on this, I was under the impression that there 36 would be a ponding area to the east of the building along the back there. 1 37 also think that the way they're showing this area with the deceleration lane 38 1 guess go into two lanes, every thing's laid out so that it would be at the 39 final width of the 120-foot street and I would just think that they would want 40 to build that deceleration lane north of there if they're going to ... because 41 that property's not developed yet, as opposed to ... and do theirs as final 42 because that's the way that street ought to be. You wouldn't have to build 43 it twice. 44 45 Scholz: Thank you. Well, I actually closed it to public comment already, so unless 46 you had a specific question. Okay. Well, obviously Public Works is going 26 Aft Auk I to have to work this out and I assume we'll see this in the final design 2 drawings. Okay. Any other comments by Commissioners? Okay. I'll 3 entertain a motion to ... 4 5 Beard: I move to accept Case Z2746. 6 7 Scholz: Okay. With the standard ... 8 9 Beard: With the standard City Council condition for zone change. 10 11 Scholz: Which is? It's right on the screen. 12 13 Beard: Case Z2746? 14 15 Scholz: Yes. On the screen, all newly constructed utilities ... You have to read 16 that portion. That's the condition. The second line. All newly 17 constructed... 18 19 Beard: All newly constructed utilities will be placed underground. 20 21 Scholz: Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? 22 23 Shipley: I'll second that motion. 24 25 Scholz: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner 26 Crane? 27 28 Crane: Vote aye, discussion and findings. 29 30 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley? 31 32 Shipley: Vote aye, discussion, findings, and site visit. 33 34 Scholz: Commissioner Beard? 35 36 Beard: Aye, findings and discussions. 37 38 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion, and site visit. 39 40 4. Case S-08-006: A request for a final plat approval for a replat known as 41 Payan Replat No. 1. The subject property contains 4.20 +/- acres. The final 42 plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for Payan Drive and replat three 43 single-family residential lots. The subject property is zoned R-1aM (Single- 44 Family Residential Mobile). Submitted by the City of Las Cruces. 45 27 0 1 Scholz: Okay. We're up to Case S-08-006. The Payan replat. A request for a 2 final plat approval. 3 4 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Presented before you is a request for a 5 final plat approval for development located just east of Porter and 6 northeast of Payan and Wilt. The subject property comprises 7 approximately 4.2 acres. It's currently zoned R-1 aM. Essentially what has 8 transpired here, just some historical background, is you had a few years 9 ago a City of Las Cruces Public Works project for road improvements to 10 both Payan and Wilt. It was a project that was funded with some state 11 funds, Federal funds, and it was listed on the City's Capital Improvement 12 Project list. When they were doing the improvements to Payan and Wilt, 13 they went in to secure additional right-of-way needed for Payan and Wilt 14 because their existing right-of-way varied. Currently on Payan you have 15 right now 32-feet of right-of-way is what they were able to secure and then 16 ultimately design a local roadway system. When they were designing that 17 work, what they did is they came in, you had properties back here that 18 needed access to Payan, so City of Las Cruces Staff at that time worked 19 with them to secure a cul-de-sac here at the end of Payan. By doing that, 20 what we needed to do was actually dedicate that cul-de-sac to the City of 21 Las Cruces as right-of-way. Right now in the records it exists as a parcel 22 of land owned by the City that looks like a road but isn't officially a 23 dedicated right-of-way. So we've worked with City Public Works Staff to 24 clean up these three properties and actually replat those parcels to get 25 that right-of-way dedicated to Payan, and essentially, we've dedicated 26 .2506 acres for right-of-way and then cleaned up some existing lot lines on 27 those three parcels. So that is basically the historical background that has 28 brought us to this final plat today for your consideration. 29 30 Scholz: Okay. Questions for Ms. Rodriguez? No. I don't have any questions. 31 Let's see, and since the City is the applicant, you've already spoken for 32 the applicant. And there was a gentleman in the back who wanted to 33 speak to this. Would you come up and identify yourself please sir. 34 35 Denman: My name's Richard Denman. I own the southwest acre of these three lots. 36 I've been on that lot since prior to the City annexation so I know the whole 37 history of what's going on there. This will be the third or fourth time I have 38 gone through a process of dedicating right-of-way. Each time the City has 39 provided me documentation. I've signed off on it, sent it back and then it's 40 not quite right. It comes back five, six, ten years later. In this particular 41 case, I have several problems with the plat itself. The first one is that I 42 was never actually ... got a chance to review or clear up the fact that there 43 are several errors on this particular plat. They've moved some of the 44 angle lines. They've changed some of the feet dimension and one of the 45 problems is they've taken 10-feet of right-of-way without any agreement or 46 coordination between me and them. What's happened is, on the west side 28 Aft Aqk 1 where they had this right-of-way request, when the City did this project, 2 they made a mistake and they put the water line partly under my property. 3 1 have some pictures. I'm not sure I can show them but I'd probably have 4 to point specifically on them where. But basically at the curve there on the 5 plat the waterline valve in the ground you can see is actually east of that 6 corner intersection, about somewhere between seven and eight feet inside 7 the line. So the water line actually starts off inside my west line there, but 8 then when it goes to the roadway, it actually recenters itself, eventually 9 ending up back in. The City's asking me to give up 10-feet all the way 10 down which basically reduces the size or the ability for me to do anything, 11 but they never coordinated any compensation, change, variation, no 12 coordination at all. It was actually myself that brought it to the City's 13 attention. This platting process became an issue because of the property 14 on the north side there changed hands and if you look at the plat you'll find 15 that the original owner is listed on this plat. But the new owner, which 16 currently has purchased the property, is not listed on the plat, so I have a 17 lot of problems with the plat. I could go into more details but at this time, 18 I'm just saying it's not valid. It's not correct. The lines are different. 19 Essentially I'm losing property by just a platting process and I want to 20 make sure I go on record saying, "Whoa, stop." Let's fix the plat and get it 21 right and I've tried to do this each time and it worked with the City on 22 numerous occasions, brought these issues to their attention as far as the 23 staffing. But the survey that I had done as part of a financial appraisal 24 process on my house and the survey the City came up with do not agree 25 and so I have significant concerns. The City put in an iron rod down there 26 you see on the south end there. They put one in. They said they found 27 one but they actually put one in because there's a mesquite bush growing 28 in that area that is now about three-foot high above the ground and the 29 original rod is buried somewhere very low down. But in doing that, they're 30 basically moving my property line around. They didn't just keep the 31 original designations that were there as far as the angles and the 32 proximate measures. They essentially resurveyed and moved the line and 33 then put that as the new property lines. So I've got some very serious 34 issues. I'm not sure if this is the right venue to resolve all the little details 35 to get it straight, but since it's the first time I've had an opportunity to say, 36 "Hey, wait, stop." I just realized this last week when I saw the sign on the 37 property. I didn't get a mailing notice. I didn't get a phone call. I didn't get 38 a plat map. This map here was something I received last November and 39 December as part of being involved with the property owner doing the sale 40 on the north side. I've not really been able to complete this process. I 41 have some significant objections and I can answer any questions. 42 43 Scholz: Questions, Commissioners? 44 45 Crane: It seems that this really does need to get resolved before we proceed. 46 Can we hear from the City? 29 I Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, this is the first I've heard of these concerns this evening. 2 Public notification did go out but I was working with Public Works 3 Department. The City Surveyor was preparing those plats. I was under 4 the impression that everything had been resolved. So 1 will request that 5 you please table this so I can go back and work with the City Surveying 6 Staff and with the property owner to see what issues are outstanding 7 because these are the first I've heard of them this evening and I'm not 8 prepared to respond to the property owner. 9 10 Scholz: Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez. Yes, that sounds sensible. I would certainly 11 like to see a comparison between the survey that you had conducted and 12 what the City has platted to see if there are differences in fact or there are 13 things that we could resolve. I don't want you to feel like the City is 14 stealing things from you. On the other hand, if it's simply a 15 misunderstanding about existing property lines or the survey, I certainly 16 would like to see that cleared up. Our next meeting in April is what day? 17 18 Rodriguez: April 22nd. 19 20 Scholz: Twenty-second. I would accept a motion to table this until April 22nd. Do 21 you think that would give you enough time to resolve these things? 22 23 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I would hope it does. So, if not, we'll just request further 24 postponement. 25 26 Shipley: So moved. 27 28 Scholz: Is there a second? 29 30 Beard: Second. 31 32 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of tabling this until April 22nd, 33 say aye. 34 35 ALL COMMISSIONERS -AYE. 36 37 Scholz: Those opposed say nay? And abstentions? All right, it's tabled until April 38 22nd. That is the P&Z meeting April 22nd. 39 40 5. Case A1657: A request for a zero (0) foot rear yard setback for an existing 41 open-air porch attached to the primary residence. The subject property is 42 zoned R-1a (Single-Family Medium Density) and is located at 2823 Lake 43 Valley Drive. The specified zoning designation of R-1a (Single-Family 44 Medium Density) requires a minimum rear yard setback of twenty (20) feet for 45 structures attached to the primary residence. Submitted by Andres Alvarado, 46 property owner. 30 1 2 cholz: Okay. That brings us to Case A1657. This is a James White performance 3 here. Lay it on us, Mr. White. 4 5 4Nhite: Case A1657 is a request for a 20-foot rear yard setback requirement for a 6 property zoned R-1 a. What actually is transpiring here is that the property 7 located at 2823 Lake Valley Drive, the applicant constructed a rear porch 8 attached to the primary residence. The rear porch actually extends to 9 almost the property boundary, so it actually ... what you're looking for is 10 zero-foot rear yard setback in relation to the property. The property, as 11 stipulated, is zoned R-1 a, Single-Family Medium Density. The required 12 rear yard setback is 20-feet for an attached porch and the actual structure 13 was built without a valid building permit. Here's a vicinity map showing the 14 subject tract of land. The property has ingress and egress off of Ancho or 15 Lake Valley Drive. Motel Boulevard is a major thoroughfare, Principal 16 Arterial, and all these properties have no direct access from Motel 17 Boulevard. Here's a site photo in depiction of the actual variance request 18 this evening. This is the actual porch that's actually attached to the 19 primary residence located in this area here. Just wanted to show you that 20 the actual porch boundary on the roofline actually extends to roughly, 21 direct relationship to the actual exterior rear wall of the property. This is 22 the actual vicinity site also. Here's Motel Boulevard, just showing you 23 some of the rear yards in the area, show the variation from this structure 24 here versus some of the actual home sites located on this segment of 25 Motel Boulevard in here. Aerial view. This was actually before the actual 26 homes were constructed. These are 2004 circa aerials. Here's the site 27 plan showing the actual construction onto the rear property boundary for 28 the actual porch located in this area here. Here's the actual physical 29 property boundary based upon the survey and it is showing that the roof 30 line is actually touching or very close to touching the actual rear wall 31 cinder block wall. The porch is roughly 12 by 16 feet. Here's a detailed up 32 view of the actual property. Here again is the porch: 16-foot in length, 12- 33 foot in width. Staff recommendation is for denial of this variance request. 34 You have three options this evening: you can either approve the variance 35 request; you can approve the variance request with conditions as 36 determined appropriate by the Planning and Zoning Commission; or you 37 can deny the variance request. The P&Z Commission has final authority 38 on variance requests unless it's appealed to City Council. That will end 39 Staff presentation. I'll be glad to stand for any questions this Board may 40 have this evening. 41 42 Scholz: Questions for Mr. White from the Commissioners? Okay. Can we hear 43 from the applicant please? 44 45 Alvarado: My name's Andres Alvarado. I built the porch. I'm a first time homebuyer 46 and I wasn't aware that I needed a permit for this so I just went ahead and 31 I built it. I went ahead and built it also where it does have a pitch on the 2 porch so the water, when it rains, it stays in my property area. I asked 3 some of my neighbors and I didn't obstruct any of them and there's no 4 obstruction from the Motel Boulevard there. Also, to note it's not attached 5 to the house. 6 7 Scholz: It's not attached to the house? 8 9 Alvarado: No, it's not. 10 11 Scholz: Oh, okay. I drove by, it looked like it was. 12 13 Alvarado: It's not. It's about four inches. 14 15 Scholz: Questions for the applicant? Anything gentlemen? Okay. Thank you very 16 much sir. 17 18 Alvarado: Thank you. 19 20 Scholz: Is there anyone from the audience who wants to comment on this? Okay, 21 I'm going to close it to audience participation. Commissioners, what is 22 your will? Commissioner Beard, you are looking very thoughtful here. 23 24 Beard: Well, I think it's a beautiful looking structure but it does violate the Code. 1 25 think if we leave it there it's going to set a precedent and possibly other 26 people are going to want to do the same thing. 27 28 White: Can I just interject very briefly, answer the applicant's question? Based 29 upon our assessment that is an attached unit, the rear porch. To be 30 honest if the applicant pursued the rear porch being unattached, he's 31 required to have a fire separation wall. There has to be a 10-foot minimum 32 separation distance between the primary structure and the porch line. So 33 to be honest, it's a worse scenario to have the porch being unattached 34 than being attached in this actual situation. So, just want to clarify, we did 35 evaluate it as an attached structure to the actual primary residence. 36 37 Scholz: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. White. Yes, Commissioner Crane. 38 39 Crane: I agree with Commissioner Beard. It is a fine looking structure and better 40 than anything I ever built. I don't like the thought of it coming down but 1 41 agree that it's impossible to force the Code on this kind of structure in the 42 future if this is permitted to stand. 43 44 Scholz: All right, anything else, Commissioners? 45 32 I Shipley: I also agree. It just doesn't fit the neighborhood. It's not ... it goes too far 2 out and it needs to be within the requirements. I think, and he also 3 mentioned in the Staff report that there was the possibility of putting an 4 awning, a retractable awning which would allow you to have some of the 5 same coverage. This goes so far out because it is on the east side of the 6 house, the east facing side, so you don't get the midday and evening sun 7 that's on the front of the house. So it would seem to be just way 8 oversized. It's way out of scale for the house. 9 10 Scholz: My observation is that part of the problem we have in some of these new 11 developments is that the builders are building to the limits of the lots, to 12 the limits of the setbacks both front, back, and side, which means that any 13 modification to the house, any extension of the footprint is going to require 14 a variance. I think that's a problem and that's probably the situation there 15 in Legends West. All right, I'll entertain a motion to accept Case A1657. 16 17 Crane: So moved. 18 19 Scholz: It's been moved. Do I hear a second? 20 21 Beard: Second. 22 23 Scholz: All right, it's been moved and seconded. We'll call the roll. Commissioner 24 Crane? 25 26 Crane: Point of order, information, the yea vote means denied, correct? 27 28 Scholz: No, a yea vote means that you're accepting the variance. That you're 29 supporting the variance. 30 31 Crane: Okay, then I vote nay. 32 33 Scholz: Okay, and your reasons, sir? 34 35 Crane: The discussion we've had and the findings and stuff. 36 37 Scholz: Thank you. Commissioner Shipley? 38 39 Shipley: I vote nay to deny for site visit, findings, and discussion. 40 41 Scholz: Commissioner Beard? 42 43 Beard: I vote no for discussions and findings. 44 45 Scholz: And the Chair votes no for discussion and findings. Okay. Thank you. 46 33 1 6. Case A1658: A request for zero (0) foot northern side yard setback for an 2 existing partially enclosed carport utilizing the northern cinder block property 3 fence as a supporting wall. The subject property is zoned R-2 (Multi-Dwelling 4 Low Density) and is located at 775 South Esperanza. The specified zoning 5 designation of R-2 (Multi-Dwelling Low Density) requires a minimum side 6 yard setback of five (5) feet for structures attached to the primary residence. 7 Submitted by Cecilia Cardon Cano, property owner 8 9 Scholz: Our next case is A1658, and, Mr. White, you're up again. 10 11 White: This is Case A1658, a request for a five-foot side yard setback 12 requirement for a property zoned R-2. The property is located at 775 S. 13 Esperanza. Submitted by Cecilia Cardon Cano, property owner. The 14 subject property is located at 775, which is located here in the shaded 15 area. Local residential streets, residential components zoned R-2 Multi- 16 Family Low Density. The actual variance is that the R-2 zoning district 17 requires a minimum of five-foot side yard setback on the northern property 18 boundary. What transpired on this actual property is that you actually 19 have an actual property boundary or actual cinder block wall that was 20 actually on the property for both of these tracts of land. The applicant 21 extended the actual physical roofline from this portion here back out and 22 enclosed the structure on three sides, as you can notice here. There was 23 a building permit issued for the property in 1989 for an addition onto the 24 existing home site. But based upon the building permit that we pulled, it 25 was showing that there was still a seven-foot required side yard setback. 26 Aerial view of the subject tract of land: subject home is located here. The 27 variance request is for the northern property boundary located in this 28 general area here. Staff recommendation is for denial of this variance 29 request and the P&Z Commission has final authority requests on 30 variances, barring they don't get appeal to City Council. That'll end Staff 31 presentation. I'll be glad to answer any questions this Board may have 32 this evening. 33 34 Scholz: Questions Commissioners? I have one, Mr. White. The applicant was 35 issued a building permit in 1989 for a 16 by 26 addition inclusive of a 36 seven-foot northern yard setback. What would that addition have been? 37 Would that have been a carport or was there an addition to the house? 38 39 White: 1 can give you more knowledge if I pull the actual building permit. 40 41 Scholz: Thank you. 42 43 White: Chair Scholz, based upon the 1989 building permit it doesn't have a 44 specified use. It shows that the construction cost was roughly $1,500, so 45 I'm assuming it's probably dealing with a carport versus any kind of 46 enclosed structure. 34 1 2 Scholz: Okay, well, we can probably ask the applicant. Okay. And here is the 3 applicant. 4 5 Cano: Mr. Chairman, I'm Teresa Cano, daughter of the applicant, Celia Cano. 6 From what the permit was for was actually the extension of the carport 7 without that additional wall that has the windows there. At this time, 8 whatever your decision is in making it, what we want to do basically is 9 keep the conflicts from happening in the neighborhood and hoping, we 10 have enough violence and problems in this community that we don't want 11 any more. So whatever it takes to make everybody happy, we're willing to 12 do it. If it means taking it down, then we're willing to do that. 13 14 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. Questions for the applicant Commissioners? Okay. 15 We'll close it to public discussion. Commissioners, what is your pleasure? 16 17 Shipley: On my site visit I thought the home was a nice looking home but it does go 18 to the property line. Do we have somebody else? 19 20 Scholz: I'm sorry, is there somebody else from the public that wants to speak to 21 this issue? Oh, I didn't mean to ignore you, sir. 22 23 Carrillo: I'm Orlando Carrillo. I am the owner of the property next to the applicant. 24 That's my dad. 25 26 Scholz: Excuse me. You're at number 765. Got you. Thank you, sir. 27 28 Carrillo: 765 S. Esperanza. That is on our side, facing our home. Its right next to 29 us, facing the home, the addition of the carport which is ... the closest of 30 the carport to our property is 21-inches, roof to roof and for us that's a fire 31 hazard and it looks ugly on our side of our home. It depreciates our home. 32 It takes away view from us and our privacy is gone. There's lighting that 33 stays on constantly all the time and it's hard for us to get to sleep at a 34 decent hour. Twenty-one inches is not even two feet. We can walk from 35 roof to roof and that's a fire hazard. This is unacceptable, I think. 36 37 Scholz: Okay. Anything else? 38 39 Carrillo: That should be okay right now. 40 41 Scholz: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else from the public who 42 wants to speak to this? Okay, then we will close it for public discussion. 43 Commissioners? I'll entertain a motion. 44 45 Beard: I've got a question. 46 35 I Scholz: Yes, please, Commissioner Beard. 2 3 'Beard: Isn't the house there on the left, doesn't it have a five-foot setback also? 4 5 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Beard, I'll defer that over to the actual 6 property owner on the northern property boundary. What 1 do know, that 7 these structures were actually built in the 1950's and that may be the 8 reason why the 1989 building permit you're seeing an offset of seven-feet 9 for the property on the southern property. This would be the southern 10 property. If they had a three-foot side yard setback, it would give a 10-foot 11 separation that's required for Fire Code. 12 13 Beard: So both houses are in violation? 14 15 Scholz: Well, I would assume it's because the zoning has been changed. 16 17 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Beard, I think the real issue is here you have 18 nonconforming structure based upon the Zoning Code now and since 19 these homes were platted almost 60 years ago, those issues have to be 20 evaluated as well. 21 22 Scholz: Thank you, Mr. Beard. 23 24 Carrillo: My name is Gloria Carrillo. 25 26 Scholz: Yes, you'll need the microphone closer to your mouth, please. 27 28 Carrillo: Gloria Carrillo. When they built that carport by my house, 765, they didn't 29 have a permit and Codes told me that they did not have a permit to build 30 that carport. 31 32 Scholz: Okay. 33 34 Carrillo: And it's a fire hazard because there's electric wire hanging on the carport. 35 My house is no longer value. Nobody's going to be wanting to live on a 36 fire hazard. 37 38 Scholz: Okay. 39 40 Carrillo: Well, they didn't have permit. They came here; it's because I talked to 41 Codes and Council Archuleta, Dolores. I talked to them and they told me 42 come with that. 43 44 Scholz: Okay, thank you. Okay. Commissioners? I'll entertain a motion to accept 45 Case A1658. 46 36 I Shipley: I move to accept Case A1658. 2 3 Scholz: Is there a second? 4 5 Beard: I second it. 6 7 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner Crane? 8 9 Crane: Vote no due to discussion and findings. 10 11 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley? 12 13 Shipley: No, for site visit, discussion, and findings. 14 15 Scholz: Commissioner Beard? 16 17 Beard: No, based on findings and discussions. 18 19 Scholz: And the Chair votes no for findings, discussion, and site visit. Thank you. 20 All right. 21 22 Shipley: Should we explain that that has to come down. 23 24 Scholz: Yes, and that's up to Codes to enforce that. 25 26 Crane: Could I add a point Mr. Chairman? 27 28 Scholz: Yes. 29 30 Crane: I was impressed with the applicant's willingness to put the benefits of the 31 neighborhood first rather than her own interests. 32 33 Scholz: Yes, I think it was very generous of them. Thanks, Commissioner Crane. 34 35 7. Case Z2743: A request for various zone changes along the Valley Drive 36 corridor between the intersections of West Amador and Hadley Avenue. The 37 zoning requests are as follows: 38 0 495 N. Valley Drive from M1/M2 (Industrial Standard to C-3 39 (Commercial High Intensity) for 2.94 +/- acres; 40 ■ 490 N. Valley Drive from M1/M2(lndustrial Standard to C-3 41 (Commercial High Intensity) and M1/M2 (Industrial Standard) 42 overlapping for 2.85 +/- acres; 43 ■ 395 N. Valley Drive from M1/M2(Industrial Standard to C-3 44 (Commercial High Intensity) for 1.3 +/- acres; 37 dAk I ■ 380 N. Valley Drive from M1/M2(Industrial Standard to C-3 2 (Commercial High Intensity) and M1/M2 (Industrial Standard) 3 overlapping for 1.41 +/- acres; 4 ■ 375 N. Valley Drive from M1/M2(lndustrial Standard to C-3 5 (Commercial High Intensity) and M1/M2 (Industrial Standard) 6 overlapping for 3.10 +/- acres; 7 ■ 350 N. Valley Drive from M1/M2(Industrial Standard to C-3 8 (Commercial High Intensity) and M1/M2 (Industrial Standard) 9 overlapping for 2.01 +/- acres; 10 ■ 340 N. Valley Drive from M1/M2(Industrial Standard to C-3 11 (Commercial High Intensity) and M1/M2 (Industrial Standard) 12 overlapping for 2.00 +/- acres; 13 ■ 325 S. Valley Drive from M1/M2(Industrial Standard to C-3 14 (Commercial High Intensity) and M1/M2 (Industrial Standard) 15 overlapping for 5.25 +/- acres; 16 • 335 S. Valley Drive from M1/M2(lndustrial Standard to C-3 17 (Commercial High Intensity) and M1/M2 (Industrial Standard) 18 overlapping for 2.56 +/- acres; 19 20 Scholz: Okay, our next case is Case Z2743. And Mr. White, you're doing triple 21 duty today, or is it quadruple? More than quadruple. 22 23 White: Yes. This is my fifth or sixth time. 24 25 Scholz: Well, it's a good workout I think. Keeps you fit. 26 27 White: This case is Case Z2743, is a request for various zone changes along the 28 Valley Drive corridor between the intersections of West Amador and 29 Hadley Avenue respectively. Submitted by Grady Oxford, the agent. 30 Here's a vicinity map showing the specified points. Here is Hadley 31 Avenue located on the northern periphery of the actual zoning corridor 32 we're speaking about. On the southern corridor, there's Amador which is 33 located here. The subject properties in question this evening are the ones 34 that are actually shaded in blue. I can actually give you some physical 35 landmarks. This is the Sav-Mart grocery store currently. This currently is 36 a retail strip mall located here. This tract of land right here is the All-Star 37 Mobile Homes and is also a bus terminal located on this tract here. This 38 tract has been excluded because it's actually owned by the City of Las 39 Cruces. This is the current ball field and also the substation for the Fire 40 department located on this tract here. This tract here was eliminated 41 because it's actually owned by the City of Las Cruces. It's the ponding 42 area. Then in respect to some of the other land uses, you have a 43 variation. This tract right here is actually currently vacant. Very similar for 44 the other two tracts of land located on the east side of Valley Drive as well, 45 this tract, this tract, and this tract. This tract is currently the Palm Harbor 46 Mobile Home site. You notice this is the one tract that actually has access 38 I both from Amador, respectively, and Valley Drive. This tract was 2 eliminated because actually it was a mini-convenience store location here 3 that was in zoning compliance with the M1/M2 zoning district, so we 4 decided to eliminate it from the actual consideration from the zone 5 change. In this area, here on Amador Avenue you have a recently 6 demolished adobe structure that was located on this tract here. This is 7 actually owned by the same owner who owns The Car Connection. The 8 Car Connection, now I'm assuming, is going to be this tract, this tract, and 9 this tract here. In respect to this tract here, you have Solitaire Mobile 10 Homes, which is currently a manufactured housing dealer. Adjacent to it 11 you have, I believe, Executive Auto Brokers, which recently went through 12 a zone change from the M1/M2 zoning district. They actually down-zoned 13 to C-3 to allow for the retail sales of cars on the property. Case specifics: 1 14 won't go into all of it but the entire corridor with the exception of the 15 Executive Auto Brokers is zoned M1/M2 which is Industrial Standard. The 16 one reason that you're seeing the majority of the properties are 17 nonconforming is that the M1/M2 is primarily a Manufacturing Industrial 18 District versus C-3 which is Commercial or Retail in nature. Some 19 properties have requested some overlapping zoning designation of M1/M2 20 and C-3. Predominantly what you're looking for the overlapping would be 21 for the actual manufactured home dealers and for the three vacant tracts 22 of land currently in the actual zoning corridor. Nonconforming properties 23 to date are: 495 N. Valley Drive, the Sav-Mart currently zoned M1/M2. 24 The proper zoning designation for a grocery store would the C-3 zoning 25 district. At 490 Valley Drive, the 2001 Zoning Code as amended requires 26 that manufacturer dealers or bus terminals both are required a C-3 zoning 27 designation. There were some conversations based upon the 1981 Land 28 Use Code that allowed for some of these uses in the actual manufacturing 29 zoning designation, but in the 2001 Zoning Code they were eliminated in 30 the place as commercial retail establishments. At 395 N. Valley Drive is a 31 commercial shopping center. Again, same issues, currently zoned 32 M1/M2. Based upon the zoning code it should require a zoning 33 designation of C-3. At 350 S. Valley Drive, the current Palm Harbor Home 34 site, again the same issue. At 325 S. Valley, the Solitaire Homes 35 manufacture dealer, and 355 S. Valley, and, I believe, there are a couple 36 of tracts in there and also one off of Amador which is The Car Connection 37 site. MPO Thoroughfare plan showing that Valley Drive is a Principal 38 Arterial Roadway. Subject tracts of land are located in this corridor here, 39 even though they're not shaded. You have on the actual northern 40 boundary actually Hadley, which is classified as a Collector Status 41 Roadway and on the southern part of the boundary you have Amador, 42 which is classified also as a Principal Arterial Roadway. The surrounding 43 zoning pattern in respect to the overall, seeing to the actual east you have 44 M1/M2 now, and to the actual west of Valley Drive in respect to Archuleta, 45 you have another Local Roadway here. You have a mixture of M1, R-3 46 which is Multi-Family Medium Density, and C-2C. Aerial photography 39 I showing that you have a mobile home park located here in the C-2C. You 2 have some manufacturing-related uses here, west of Archuleta Drive. As 3 discussed earlier, you have three vacant tracts of land currently in the 4 zoning corridor, one, two, and three, that are requesting overlapping 5 zoning of M1/M2 /C-3. The remainder of the tracts in the actual corridor in 6 the zone change have been developed and are not conforming in nature. 7 Staff recommendation is for conditional approval for the properties located 8 at 380, 375, and 350 N. Valley Drive because they're vacant and the 9 condition is that all newly installed utilities would be placed underground. 10 That will end Staff presentation. I'll be glad to stand for any questions this 11 Board may have this evening. 12 13 Scholz: Gentlemen, questions? I guess I only have one question, Mr. White. What 14 triggered this rezoning and why wasn't it done before? 15 16 White: Chair Scholz, there are a couple of issues that occurred. The agent, Grady 17 Oxford, has ownership of this tract of land here. When he came in to see 18 and discuss with staff he was saying there were many nonconforming land 19 uses between the corridor of Hadley and Amador respectively, so with one 20 application we may actually pursue since there is a zone change coming 21 in, is try to rezone the corridor appropriately. Another issue, when it was 22 brought forth to the actual City government we evaluated the 23 nonconforming issues as well and decided if Mr. Oxford is going to pursue 24 a zone change for this property. Let's try to uniform the areas between 25 Hadley and Amador respectively. 26 27 Scholz: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here? 28 29 Oxford: Good evening, I'm Grady Oxford, the applicant. Initially you asked what 30 initially triggered it. We have one of the vacant pieces. Other people have 31 the other vacant pieces across the street. As you are aware, the Zoning 32 Code took a major change a couple of years ago which not only affected 33 this area but pretty much everything and when you say one of your 34 questions to him was, why wasn't this addressed before, none of these 35 issues were addressed necessarily on any property unless somebody 36 actually just came in. There were some applied zoning change. 37 38 Scholz: You'll have to be a little closer to the microphone, Mr. Oxford. 39 40 Oxford: There was a complicated zoning change and it has had some major 41 impact on pretty much the whole town. I'm sure you've seen other issues 42 come here before. When we started to develop this particular property, it 43 became clear with the new Zoning Codes the actual zoning for the 44 property never changed. It was established before. Everything that you 45 see built on here was all allowed before and everything was developed 46 along those lines. When they changed the Code it had an impact where 40 I all of a sudden certain things could be developed just in that "zone." So to 2 correct that or to apply that to this property and others that we wanted to 3 develop, I approached them about the zoning change for this property. 1 4 actually called Christine Logan first because she was one of the ones who 5 was very instrumental in developing the Zoning Code at the time, 6 implementing through the public and all that. She set up a meeting with 7 David Weir, the Community Development Director, and we went down and 8 met and it went very well. Coincidentally, we've been looking at some of 9 these issues down here because we do have other problems up and down 10 the street. As we talked, they said, "Would you mind maybe kind of 11 cleaning up this whole corridor? Would you maybe get everybody else 12 involved in, let's take care of this whole setup at one time." I said I 13 couldn't speak for anybody else but I would certainly try because there are 14 not that many properties in there and I already knew a few of them. I 15 approached every single one of them over the next few weeks and 16 explained over and over to each one from ground one what was going on, 17 and they all essentially got on board and said it's a great idea, so we'll 18 take care of it. James White was brought in because he's the one that 19 would handle this particular zoning thing and all that. We worked around 20 several issues on certain properties and got it set up to what you see now, 21 worked on a couple of the peripheral zones, and now we have it where, 22 and we reached an agreement and the City said this looks good. So that's 23 kind of where we are today. 24 25 Scholz: Okay, good. I did have one other question or comment. Yes, we have 26 been presented with the C-2 to C-3 change and, as a matter of fact, I think 27 it was Mr. Binns who was here in the fall probably, October or November, 28 commented that if the Staff had time they probably should look at other 29 properties which need this kind of adjustment because of the 2001 Zoning 30 Code change. So I'm glad we're taking care of this. Thank you. Is there 31 anyone from the public who wants to comment on this? Okay. I'll close it 32 from public discussion. Commissioners? 33 34 Shipley: I have one question I'd like to ask the applicant. 35 36 Scholz: Certainly. Sorry, didn't mean to cut you off. 37 38 Shipley: That's quite all right. The question I have is: why the three lots with the 39 dual zone? In other words, you're holding the Industrial zoning and it's 40 Commercial. This is a perfect example of a place that ought to be 41 Commercial all the way down that street. The land value goes up more if 42 it's Commercial versus Industrial, so I was just surprised to see the three 43 lots that wanted to remain Industrial. 44 45 Oxford: It's actually more than three lots. There are several of them there. What 46 we worked on was the peripheral lots. Mr. White and some of the Staff felt 41 I like just some of the possible implications to the areas on the borders for 2 zoning down for a possibility of some other M1 use and I think if you 3 looked at the Code the differences are not that extreme. Originally, I was 4 surprised that they even delineated some of these things, but I can 5 understand in a brand new zoning perfect world, you know, those type 6 issues, M1 way out somewhere else, C-3, whatever. So it's not just these 7 three uses. The reason they identified those three is because of any new 8 development, putting all of our utilities underground. That was the issue 9 for those three specifications, is all that was. It's just ... it's all of the ones 10 except for the ones, the Sav-Mart, and the shopping center on the end 11 were requested to go straight to C-3, and the smaller units because of 12 their sizes on this end and because they're on the border were requested 13 to go straight to C-3. All the rest of them are the combination of M1 and 14 C-3. If you go both ways on each side, you'll find that they're all the 15 M1/M2 also. 16 17 Shipley: And so that's basically to avoid having to underground the utilities? Is that 18 the reason? 19 20 Oxford: No. It's not just those three. The only reason you saw those three 21 specified up there is because they're the ones that are not developed. 22 They just want to make sure any development on those three utilizes the 23 underground utilities. That's the only reason those three were specified 24 differently. All the rest of them are being zoned the same with the 25 exception of the end units, the Sav-Mart, and the strip center, which are 26 already developed and built with actual solid structures that will remain the 27 C-3. The smaller units on the end, which I don't think meet the size 28 requirements for a C-3 type of use, so those are going to C-2. All the rest 29 of them are actually the same, all going to the same except zone. 30 31 Shipley: Thank you. 32 33 Oxford: Sure. 34 35 Scholz: Okay. Commissioners, what is your pleasure? I'll entertain a motion to 36 accept case Z2743 if there's no additional discussion. 37 38 Shipley: Again, maybe I don't understand. I just would like to be sure I'm clear. 39 The ones ... there are only three that are requesting dual zoning, or are 40 there more than three? 41 42 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Shipley, currently you have All Star Mobile 43 Homes here. The request here is for M1/M2 / overlapping C-3. The tracts 44 of land, predominantly what you're seeing is the larger tracts of land in this 45 corridor that have the manufacturing dealers: this tract here, this tract 46 here, and then also for the Auto Executive Brokers as well. They're all 42 1 seeking overlapping zoning from M1/M2 / C-3. That's also in conjunction 2 with three vacant lots. So a very brief tally without actually going into it is 3 seven lots that are seeking overlapping zoning. The one you're seeing 4 very specifically is this tract here that seeking C-3 for the Sav-Mart, the 5 strip mall, which is located here is seeking C-3 zoning; the tracts of land 6 down here based upon the size are seeking C-2; and then the actual 7 larger tract of Car Connection which I think already exceeds one acre in 8 size, is also seeking I believe C-3 /M1/M2. 9 10 Shipley: Thank you. 11 12 White: Okay. 13 14 Scholz: Is that clear as mud for you? 15 16 Shipley: Certainly. Yes. It just seems to be counter productive to be doing that. 1 17 mean, if we've got a code that says that this kind of use ought to be C-3 or 18 C-2, let's go to C-2 and C-3 so it's consistent and then we don't have 19 people coming in saying, "Well, I thought I could do this but I can't," 20 because it's not that. 21 22 Oxford: All right. One of the situations that's probably confusing here, keep in 23 mind that all these properties for the last maybe, go back about 30 years 24 had all of these rights, and before that also I don't know exactly what the 25 code, but it was that way. These were just recently taken away. This is a 26 very unique situation. If you realize, this is not an area that you see a 27 brand new construction, new subdivision where you see housing around 28 or whatever. This thing is completely surrounded by M2 properties and 29 the M1/M2 now has been changed from what used to be the scary M1/M2, 30 they created another zone that we don't even have: an M3 for the harder 31 stuff, which I don't believe we even have any of that kind of zoning here. 32 What you find in an area like this and the reason it developed this way on 33 both sides is because they made the new Zoning Code where we decided 34 okay, we're going to put this into M1/M2, this in C-3. There are areas 35 where you have that multiple overlay in the uses. When they first started 36 making the change we did bring in several properties because the existing 37 properties very clearly had multiple type uses, 17th Street, Cooper Loop, a 38 lot of those, where you'll have an M1/M2, a manufacture, somebody doing 39 something else, fabricating cabinets, fabricating whatever, and then you 40 have related offices and stuff next to it which all of a sudden wouldn't 41 necessarily have been in the M1/M2. A lot of these things we worked with 42 them and incorporated a lot of those. Those changes that you see the 43 way M1/M2 and C-3 now was kind of a joint effort between the Staff and a 44 lot of input from public. Doesn't mean it's perfect. This is a very unique 45 area where you actually have uses that'll overlay. You're totally 46 surrounded by M1/M2 which we have that now, which I consider, what a 43 AN JOWA I lot of people think, "Oh, that's a harsher zone." Well, we're actually 2 bringing in, we're down zoning a portion to C-3 to bring in what, in a lot of 3 cases, most of the properties that are actually C-3 uses. It doesn't mean 4 there won't be an M1 or M2 use that is very compliant with this area. It's 5 on all the properties, not just ours, because if the car lot goes away you 6 might see a cabinet shop or something else go in there. It's just a very 7 unique situation. 8 9 Shipley: I understand that, but I'm just saying, you know we have an opportunity 10 now to change, the City's changing. 11 12 Oxford: May I say one more thing that'll ... actually in the new, the PUD's that you 13 see brought before you. It's not uncommon to see a combination of 14 M1/M2 / C-3 zoning now. It's not just one or the other. When they bring 15 those, they are designated that way. If you look at a lot of those, you will 16 see those particular zones incorporated in there. There are other areas 17 that actually have this combination of zoning. It's not quite as black as 18 white as what you're saying, that it has to be this way or that way. There 19 was a lot of effort that went into Code to try to make it right, to try to make 20 it good. There were just areas in reality the way the City is set up, that 21 requires both those things or where it actually fits. I cannot think of a 22 better area that it would fit like that as this. So it's not like I'm creating a 23 new wheel here with M1/M2 / C-3. It does already exist in many areas 24 already and it comes, everyday they'll bring new subdivision with PUDs 25 that have that combination. It just sounds strange because ... 1 26 understand exactly what you're thinking, I know why you're thinking. 1 27 hope I made that clear. 28 29 Shipley: Yes. I understand and I also understand the fact that if somebody came 30 at a later time and wanted to change the zoning they can come back and 31 change it. Then it's straightforward and everybody around them that's 32 affected by that can have their say and their day in court, so to speak. So 33 when I looked at this and read it and it took from Friday until today to try to 34 figure it out, I thought I had it pretty figured out. But my initial reaction was 35 that if we're cleaning something up that was done in 2001, we're seven 36 years down the pike, or six years down the pike, it's time to get it all 37 straightened out so it's consistent and it's clear. Then people who have to 38 move into that area, if they do manufacturing in that area, we can allow 39 manufacturing in that area, we can change the zoning, do a variance, or 40 whatever the case might be. But they know that when they buy that price 41 of property, that it's a C-3 piece of property because of the size of it. If it's 42 split down it can go to C-2 or whatever the case might be. 43 44 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley, it seems to me what we're looking for is flexibility 45 here. And I think that's what you're trying to accomplish. 46 44 I Oxford: Correct. 2 3 Scholz: Right. So ... 4 5 Shipley: And I understand that. But I also understand that when you're looking at 6 parcels this size, you know, three and four acre parcels, you can't satisfy 7 every use in the zoning, we could have four or five different zones. 8 9 Scholz: Well, but we don't. But in this case, I think the overlapping is the ... at 10 least it seems to me the overlapping is the best compromise. Thank you 11 for your answering questions. Okay. I'll accept a motion to accept Case 12 Z2743. 13 14 Crane: So moved. 15 16 Scholz: It's been moved. Is there a second? 17 18 Beard: I'll second. 19 20 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner 21 Crane? 22 23 Crane: Findings and discussion cause me to vote aye. 24 25 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley? 26 27 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussions, and site visit, and it was a tough one. 28 29 Scholz: Commissioner Beard? 30 31 Beard: Aye, based on findings and discussions. 32 33 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye on findings, discussions, and site visit. Okay. 34 Thank you, gentleman. Thank you again, Mr. Oxford. 35 36 Scholz: Okay, we have two more pieces before us and I'm going to ask that we 37 take a short break here. I need to stretch my legs, get a drink of water, 38 actually. So can we have about let's say seven minutes, until 20 minutes 39 after. 40 41 BREAK - SEVEN MINUTES. 42 43 8. Case PUD-08-01: A request for Concept Plan approval for a Planned Unit 44 Development (PUD) known as Metro Verde. The subject property 45 encompasses approximately 187 acres of land located south of the future 46 extension of Dragonfly Boulevard, north of Arroyo Road, and traversing the 45 1 future northern extension of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard. The Concept Plan 2 identifies 60.68 +/- acres of single-family residential, 50.54 +/- acres of multi- 3 dwelling development, 5.52 +/- acres of mixed use retail and/or residential, 4 and 12.99 +/- acres of open space inclusive of a two-acre open-air plaza. 5 Submitted by Denton Ventures, Inc. for Brightview Land Company 6 7 Scholz: All right, we're back in business. Next up is case PUD-08-01. A request 8 for a concept plan. Mr. White, you're doing yeoman's duty today. 9 10 White: Sure. Absolutely. My final presentation this evening is Case PUD-08-01. 11 It's a request for a concept plan approval for a Planned Unit Development 12 known as Metro Verde. The subject property encompasses 187 acres of 13 land located south of the future extension of Dragonfly Boulevard, north of 14 Arroyo Road, and traversing the future extension of Sonoma Ranch 15 Boulevard. Here's a vicinity map of the subject tract of land. Currently 16 through the Sierra Norte master plan, it has three different zoning 17 designations: on the northern periphery, it has C-3 which is Commercial 18 High Intensity. It also has a component of R-1 b which is Single-Family 19 High Density, R-1a which is Single-Family Medium Density. Here's the 20 actual notations of the different zoning districts here. Case specifics for 21 the general case: March 27th, 2006 it was annexed into the City limits by 22 the Sierra Norte Annexation. Initial zoning, we don't have to go into that 23 again. Property size we discussed that earlier. The request is for a 24 zoning designation of PUD, which is Planning Unit Development. The 25 rough composite on the property is 60 acres of single-family residential, 50 26 acres of multi-dwelling development, 5.52 acres of mixed use, and 12.99 27 acres of open space, inclusive of an open-air plaza which is actually two 28 acres in size, and a linear open space system. Case specifics: the 29 applicant is requesting on the concept plan a modified cross section for 30 Sonoma Ranch Boulevard. It's going to go down to two driving lanes and 31 a center median. Luna Vista will be the primary vehicular access to the 32 village plaza. Local roadways will have two 10-foot driving lanes, seven- 33 foot parking on both sides, sidewalks, but will exclude street lighting. 34 Phasing will begin from the southern to the northern property boundaries. 35 The first phase is roughly 52 acres in size. Sustainability concepts include 36 the promenade park, mixed use village center, pervious concrete to use in 37 parking areas and the village plaza. MPO Thoroughfare Plan, on the 38 northern boundary as specified earlier, here is Dragonfly Boulevard. It is 39 classified as a proposed Principal Arterial Roadway. Here's the general 40 location here. You also have in respect to the project you have Sonoma 41 Ranch Boulevard which will actually be the primary ingress and egress to 42 this development. Sonoma Ranch Boulevard will be constructed up to 43 Arroyo Road which is located here by a subsequent development party. 44 The MPO has actually asked for a transition from the standardized 45 Principal Arterial cross section of four driving lanes down to two, actually 46 at this location here of Arroyo Road. So you can actually have the actual 46 1 transition at an assumed thoroughfare location, major intersection located 2 here. Also, you have straddling, you have Luna Vista, which is located 3 here which actually will be the centralized center of the actual 4 development. Here's the concept plan as shown. On the northern 5 boundary, again you have Dragonfly Boulevard. Again, here you have 6 Luna Vista. In this centralized area here, you have the mixed-use village 7 concept located in this area here. The promenade park which is primarily 8 a linear open space area and pedestrian access is located in this general 9 area here. In this area down here that actually traverses the entire 10 development is Sonoma Ranch Boulevard as it goes in this area here. 11 You can also look at some of the residential and other development 12 components for the actual project here. As you notice, you have a 13 concept for some apartment complexes and multifamily in this area here. 14 And you have assumed and modified densities for either single-family 15 townhomes or patio homes in this area located here. You have a 16 commercial node located up in this periphery up here. This proposal here 17 is actually off-site. A portion of the Fountains subdivision and a preliminary 18 plat was approved by this Board roughly about six months ago, located in 19 this area here. There's been an updated phasing plan. The applicant is 20 pursuing two different financial methods, what's called a non-PID. PID 21 stands for Performance Improvement District. The applicant will be 22 discussing with executive Staff and various City personnel in respect to 23 creating a Performance Improvement District. If the Performance 24 Improvement District is not improved by various City personnel, they will 25 seek a non-PID approach. The actual case packet submitted this evening 26 is based upon the non-PID approach because it requires different 27 approvals and different processes outside the specs of the Planning and 28 Zoning Commission to do some of the improvements as scheduled 29 through the PID Process. So inclusive in your packet is also this which is 30 the phasing plan that was submitted on 03/13/08 to City Staff depicting 31 various phases and different kind of respective build out ranges for 32 different types of land uses. Aerial view in respect to the actual Metro 33 Verde PUD. This is actually the northern most periphery of the Sierra 34 Norte Annexation. Roughly 187 acres. Staff recommendation is for 35 conditional approval for PUD-08-01. The conditions are: number one, the 36 applicant will be required to landscape the center median for Sonoma 37 Ranch Boulevard off site starting from Arroyo Road to the southern 38 boundary of Metro Verde. The landscape median will be similar in nature 39 to the portion of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard traversing the Metro Verde 40 Development. Number two: multi-dwelling residential and/or commercial 41 properties within Metro Verde will not be developed until proper 42 improvements have been made for Sonoma Ranch Boulevard, and that's 43 pretty much based upon the coordinated effort between a couple of 44 developers off site and also having an extension for Sonoma Ranch from 45 the current location in the US-70 vicinity. Number three: all newly installed 46 utilities will be placed underground. Since this is a PUD concept, you're 47 1 actually looking at a few components here. At the actual zoning 2 component of it, you're looking at the actual design components of it, such 3 as internal and external roadways where some of the modified cross 4 sections for the thoroughfares, also the internal roadways, land use 5 distribution, and of course, what you're really looking at is a master plan 6 on steroids. It has many of the concepts in respect to not only the master 7 planning, but some of the various subdivision processes that you see 8 down the road. The P&Z recommendation will be forwarded to City 9 Council for final consideration at a date to be determined. That will end 10 Staff presentation. I'll be glad to stand for any questions this Board may 11 have this evening. 12 13 Scholz: Okay. Gentlemen, questions of Mr. White? Okay. I have a question about 14 the Sonoma Ranch Boulevard. I know we just dedicated a piece of 15 Sonoma Ranch Boulevard this evening up to Engler Road or Thurmond. 16 Why is it called two names, by the way? Is that we can't decide what it's 17 to be called? 18 19 White: Sonoma Ranch is a major thoroughfare, so it is a Boulevard. 20 21 Scholz: No, not Sonoma Ranch. I know it's a boulevard. No, I meant Thurmond 22 and Engler, why are they called by two names? 23 24 White: In theory what's transpired, predominantly when you look west of Las 25 Colinas in that area, Thurmond, this is off site, but what's actually 26 transpired in that area is that Thurmond Road was a County road 27 designation. When the City Thoroughfare Plan has the extension of 28 Engler Road, what you're going to see is as the City builds out and 29 actually Engler Road goes all the way back out to Del Rey, you're going to 30 see a name change for the entire corridor going from Thurmond to Engler 31 respectively. 32 33 Scholz: Okay, so that's why it's called by two names. Okay, my question about 34 Sonoma Ranch though, don't go away. You say, excuse me, properties 35 within Metro Verde will not be developed until improved connection from 36 Sonoma Ranch Boulevard has been established. What's the problem? 37 38 White: The issue with this is that you have different parties and different 39 developers. Sonoma Ranch Boulevard through the Sierra Norte 40 Annexation that occurred circa 2006 and through the Fountains 41 subdivision; this is where the new golf club house is going. So the 42 developer in respect to the Fountains at Sierra Norte to be proper, is 43 actually developing and improving the road from just a little bit north of the 44 Sonoma Ranch area up to the Arroyo Thoroughfare, which is located in 45 this area here. So the component we're evaluating as Staff is we don't 46 want to see development of the Metro Verde occur until you have proper 48 1 connection, improved surfacing from the specified point that the developer 2 for the Fountains at Sierra Norte is constructing, then off site 3 improvements that the applicant will be required to connect into this 4 central area here. So it's more of a fail-safe to be certain that prior to 5 development the roads are built. 6 7 Scholz: Okay. Someone mentioned to me that part of land is BLM land. Is that 8 right? Or is it state land? 9 10 White: There are some state sections in Sierra Norte. 11 12 Scholz: No, I was thinking of the land that Sonoma Ranch would traverse south of 13 Arroyo between Arroyo and Thurmond. 14 15 White: That property's actually owned by the State of New Mexico. 16 17 Scholz: Okay. So do we have to have ... I assume we have to have permission or 18 dedicated right-of-way or something like that from the State of New 19 Mexico? 20 21 White: Correct. What you'll have to do in a process like that, you'll have to get 22 the consent from the State of New Mexico. They're required to do a 23 dedication plat. The dedication plat specified a 120-foot of right-of-way 24 going across that area. So if that area there north of Arroyo is not platted 25 and dedicated, the applicant will be required to do that as well. 26 27 Scholz: Okay. 28 29 Shipley: I have a question before he goes. 30 31 Scholz: Certainly. Yes, go ahead. 32 33 Shipley: Mr. White stated there were no streetlights in this area. Is Sonoma Ranch 34 Boulevard going to be the same from Lohman all the way out to this site? 35 Is it going to be built to the same set of specifications? 36 37 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Shipley, the answer is no. What the 38 applicant is requesting is for a modified cross section. Right now, 39 currently, since the Sonoma Ranch Boulevard is classified as a Principal 40 Arterial it requires four driving aisles and a center median. They're 41 requesting a modified cross section so the applicant, I would defer that as 42 to why they're seeking the modified cross section versus what's required 43 in the City Design Standards. 44 45 Shipley: So he said, excuse, two aisles and a median? 46 49 0 0 1 White: That is correct. That is what the request. 2 3 Shipley: And how many homes are going to be ... what's the total number of 4 residences, both multi-family and residential? 5 6 White: That number, what you'll actually have to do; it's kind of complicated. 7 You'll have to actually, I know you have to go through this table here and 8 each individual cell that you have in your packet identifies total dwelling 9 units. It also identifies a range. So I don't want to misquote the applicant, 10 I'll let the applicant explain, defer that question to him. The actual 11 specified number of dwelling units, you take the last column here and 12 calculate all the way down and it'll give you a specific maximum build out 13 for the entire project. 14 15 Scholz: The table is called land use tabulation. You've looked at it. 16 17 Shipley: But the point is, we're building x-number of units and we're going to have 18 x-number of people. You know if you take three people per single-family 19 residence or four people per single-family residence, two cars, three cars, 20 it just sounds like we're setting up something that's not going to be 21 workable in the future. This is a development that we're going to live with 22 for the next 50-100 years. And if we don't do it right now, we're wasting a 23 lot of money and time and ... 24 25 White: Commissioner Scholz, Commissioner Shipley, I'm not a traffic engineer, 26 but out of the ITE, what they actually look at is based upon, they use 27 roughly about 10 vehicular trips per day per residential structure. They 28 don't go based upon population or number of actual cars in a driveway. 29 The applicant does have a professional engineer here on Staff to discuss 30 the traffic issues and why they requested a modified cross section of 31 Sonoma Ranch Boulevard. 32 33 Shipley: Thank you. 34 35 Scholz: Okay, well let's hear from the applicant. 36 37 Kenney: Good evening. My name's Matt Kenney. I'm with Denton Ventures. 38 We're here to discuss Metro Verde, a Planned Unit Development. As 39 James discussed, it's located at the north end of Sierra Norte. The one 40 condition about the access is that the access has to be constructed out to 41 the project. It was apparently not existing at the time. So obviously, we 42 are agreeable with that condition that there will not be any permits in the 43 project until that is constructed out there. And then the one condition, 44 though, we did have an issue with and we'd like to just simply rephrase it.- 45 t:45 from Arroyo Road to the project site will be developed by the developer 46 downstream and we would simply like to say that the landscaping will be 50 AARk I coordinated with that developer, because they're going to be building that 2 section and whatever agreement in terms of transitioning the road section. 3 They would be building this section of that. S o we'd like to consider 4 rephrasing that condition and we can discuss that towards the end. It is 5 part of the approved Sierra Norte master plan and the master plan allowed 6 for new urbanism ideas and Planned Unit Developments. So we're 7 consistent with the master plan in terms of what we're proposing today. 8 We have a mixed-use sustainable development that includes a village 9 center build around a village plaza. As James said, there are multi-family 10 areas that are within walkable distance of the village center, and then 11 single-family residences that are on the outer portion of the development 12 as you transition to other landowners, we went back to single-family. We 13 are creating a walkable community where we are encouraging mixes of 14 land uses to try to get people to not use their vehicles. When we went to 15 the MPO and talked about this concept and we looked at the MPO 16 Thoroughfare Plan and the fact that Sonoma Ranch Boulevard ends at 17 Dragonfly. We are at the end of the line, so to speak, and the fact that 18 Luna Vista also ends at Sonoma Ranch, based on its location, based on 19 the pedestrian friendly concept; we discussed a three lane road with 20 roundabouts. The idea of roundabouts is that they're able to convey more 21 traffic than a standard intersection because the traffic is constantly 22 moving. The traffic engineer of the City of Las Cruces and the Public 23 Works Department had the same concerns that you all have about 24 transitioning from a five-lane road to a three lane road, and we did a traffic 25 analysis. The traffic engineer asked me to analyze the difference between 26 the two sections. And what we found was that, well, to begin with, I want 27 to be clear that we are dedicating the full 120-foot of right-of-way so the 28 public will have the right-of-way. The second point is that when you look 29 at the capacity of the roundabouts in this section, you have about 19,000 30 trips per day that that road can carry. We did an estimated trip generation 31 and said that there would be about 8,000 trips on Sonoma Ranch 32 Boulevard from Metro Verde which left a capacity of 11,000 trips for other 33 things that might happen over the next 20 to 50 years in the area. So, 34 based on a series of investigations that we did, the traffic engineer was 35 comfortable with leaving the three lane cross section. A pavement section 36 lasts about 20 years, and then they have to tear it out completely and 37 rebuild it, and so it was very clear to the traffic engineer that by the time 38 you have to tear it out anyway, that the right-of-way would be there and 39 the City would have the opportunity to reevaluate whether or not they 40 wanted to continue using the round-a-bout system that we're planning. So 41 that gave them the comfort level to go ahead and accept the three lane 42 section. It is a sustainable development and we are in the process of 43 applying with the Green Build New Mexico Program. Based on the point 44 system that they have it will be an exceptional sustainable development. 45 When you talk about having builders go green, if you are in a sustainable 46 development, you start with a bunch of points and it makes it much easier 51 1 for builders to go green and get the highest level certification as a Green 2 Builder. The mixed use concept is sustainable but we spent a lot of time 3 looking at things that we could and we dedicated an entire sheet of the 4 PUD concept plan to it. We looked at things from energy, transportation, 5 water conservation, waste reduction, and recycling, urban design, and 6 then of course green building. These are some of the basic points. We 7 have a 20-acre village center with retail office, hotel, restaurant, and 8 residential uses. Another important element of sustainability is having a 9 diversity in your housing product. They want to entice economic brackets 10 to buy into the community so you get a diverse community and we do 11 have that. The village center has a two-acre village plaza, some mixed 12 use buildings, and several out parcels that will allow free standing 13 restaurants and the like. Here's a blow up of that area. We anticipate that 14 these eight pad sites here will be built as two to four story structures with 15 retail on the bottom. The idea of the retail on the bottom again is to get 16 people walking from stores and restaurants and shops and getting out and 17 about. This is the two-acre plaza in the middle. Then there are some free 18 standing locations where a restaurant like P.F. Chang's or something 19 might like to have their own site and that is available within the mixed use 20 center as well. What we're proposing is not new. It's actually the way we 21 always used to live, shopkeepers used to live, and down stairs was their 22 shop. We're not proposing something that's new. In fact, it was part of 23 the way Las Cruces was built as well. This is old Las Cruces with the 24 shops down below and varied uses up above. In terms of the village 25 plaza, what we're talking about is primarily a hardscaped commons. 26 We're trying to be water wise and not have a lot of landscaping. There will 27 be some, of course. Within it, we'll have shade structures that will be 28 perfect for farmer's markets or kiosks for events. There'll be a stage for 29 concerts and a dual purpose tower that will give fantastic views and we're 30 also proposing to use it for water harvesting to irrigate some of the 31 landscaping. Here's a conceptual plan of what that might look like with the 32 stage on the one end and area for the people to enjoy the concert, with 33 the tower in the middle, places to rest and read a book and other shade 34 structures that might be used for a farmer's market. I'd also like to point 35 out that we're having angle parking on the street. Parking on the street in 36 a commercial district actually lends itself to a pedestrian friendly 37 environment and then we have elevated crosswalks where the promenade 38 park crosses a roadway. We're giving the pedestrian the right-of-way over 39 the cars so that pedestrians feel safe to mingle around. Again, the plaza 40 concept is something that's historic to New Mexico and we've got a more 41 modern take on it, but it really is something that's just part of New Mexico 42 history. Here's a conceptual elevation of what that might look like with the 43 buildings with the shops down below and people walking from shop to 44 shop and then mixed uses up above, and a conceptual elevation of a 45 tower with a view deck on the top, and then a water harvesting tank 46 underneath that would collect water from the buildings and bring it down 52 Aft 1 and have a place to pump it out and irrigate with. We have a multi-modal 2 design. You want to have lots of different modes of transportation. We 3 have vehicular transportation, walking, biking, and ultimately, we'd like to 4 get public transportation. These are the things that we're doing. We have 5 a promenade park which I'll show you in a second. We do have sidewalks 6 in the single-family areas and then 15-foot shared use paths on the 7 arterials. Wider sidewalks within the village center, around the retail 8 areas. Bike lanes within the cross section of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard 9 and Dragonfly. Serious bicyclists want to be a vehicle in the street section 10 and we will have that. Again, elevated crosswalks and round-a-bouts and 11 we will provide for bus stops so that ultimately transit can be extended out 12 there. The promenade park is a 40-foot wide pedestrian bike corridor but 13 it's also an activity center where there will be play structures constructed 14 for kids to play on. There'll be park benches and picnic tables and shade. 15 So it'll be a place to play and interact and be a community, and its part of a 16 two acre trail system. Everything in color on here is the open space trail 17 system. The promenade park is the linear park that is through the middle 18 of the project and occasionally will have a bump out for a park or some 19 other use, and then it ties the multi-family areas to the village center and 20 give pedestrians and bicyclists a way to get to the village center without 21 really having conflicts with vehicles. All of the trails make a two or three 22 mile loop depending on which choice you make. This line out here 23 represents the shared use paths, and then this is the trail that follows the 24 golf course, and then the promenade park down the middle and sidewalks 25 on Luna Vista so there are a lot of options for bicyclists and pedestrians in 26 there. That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any 27 questions you may have. 28 29 Scholz: Mr. Shipley. 30 31 Shipley: I have several. When I got this and again we got it short notice, I got a 32 small copy and I wasn't able to read everything. Mr. White was able to 33 give me a copy today and I looked over it for about 45 minutes to an hour 34 before I came here. The first thing that I noticed was there are no parks 35 so people have to get in their cars if they want to go play baseball, softball, 36 tennis, they have to go somewhere else. So how are you planning on 37 addressing that? That's one. Okay. Two: where are the schools? How 38 do people get to school? Where's the nearest school from this place? 39 Number three: I didn't see anything that had to do with affordable housing. 40 Are there affordable housing units set aside in this area? In your 41 description you talk about pervious road systems and pervious concrete 42 and I'm not sure that I understand that. I'd like for you to clarify that. How 43 does that work so that I've got an idea of what we're talking about? The 44 other thing that up along the northern portion there you've got single-family 45 homes on the opposite side of the fairways, like number 15 right there. 1 46 know that this is not part of your development on the other side, but you've 53 ON I got estate-sized lots over there then two fairways over you've got really 2 small scale lots along the golf course. To me that's not a good density 3 transition plan. You should have something with larger lots. The reason 4 you should have that is because there will be conflicts with golfers and golf 5 balls, stray golf balls, and there are going to be people. You're going to 6 have opportunity for a lot more people to be affected by it as opposed to 7 having larger lots with say estate-sized lots where you have fewer people 8 to contend with. I just, I mean, it seems like you've got too much density 9 too close to a recreation area there. And the people are going to tend to 10 want to flow over onto the outside, go in the golf course, and that's going 11 to preclude you know a lot of problems. The golf course solution will be to 12 come back and put a fence up or something to keep the people out, and I 13 don't know if you've even thought about that. 14 15 Kenney: Shall I begin? Okay. There's about 12 to 13 acres of parks within this 16 project and that's what I was trying to describe with the promenade park is 17 that it will have play structures. It will be park and there are open space 18 areas and places to relax and enjoy the outdoors throughout the entire 19 subdivision. So I'm not sure ... 20 21 Shipley: But no tennis, no basketball, no ... where are they? 22 23 Kenney: Well, they could be provided there as well. This is just a master plan at 24 this level. We haven't finalized the design of the parks but the park 25 system is in fact there. 26 27 Shipley: Okay. But it's not there from what I'm seeing and this is what we're 28 approving. Conceptual plan, is that correct? 29 30 Kenney: Right, it is a master plan which is an idea and the idea is in fact to have 31 the parks as part of the system and they are shown on the concept plan 32 right through the middle of the project. In terms of schools, I believe that 1 33 may have to just refer to Staff because I don't know the Sierra Norte 34 master plan as well as someone else may. But I believe that there are 35 municipal sites within the Sierra Norte master plan that includes fire 36 stations, police stations, and schools. There are sites set aside within the 37 Sierra Master plan and we are part of that master plan area, so there are 38 sites set aside for those municipal uses. In terms of affordable units, we 39 have multi-family sites and single-family sites that all could lend 40 themselves to affordable housing. In terms of the land uses that are set 41 there, they certainly could be put into the development. The land use with 42 the master plan allows for those uses and it is in the concept that those 43 could be built with the project. In terms of pervious concrete, pervious 44 concrete is concrete that doesn't have sand and so you get little holes in it. 45 It actually lets the water through. We won't be using it in any of the streets 46 because when you have utilities under concrete the City doesn't like that, 54 I but we are proposing to use it in parking lots of the commercial, of the 2 mixed use center and the multi-family areas, to reduce runoff and erosion 3 that's associated with pervious concrete. So as we go to the preliminary 4 plat stage and we do a Master Drainage Report. You'll have more detailed 5 information about our drainage plan and the runoff calculations, will be 6 submitted to Staff as we move forward with the preliminary plat. 7 8 Shipley: How long do the parking lots and the streets and that, not streets, but the 9 parking areas, how long do they last with that versus normal asphalt, 10 normal concrete? 11 12 Kenney: It's comparable. No. It lasts as long. Actually, concrete lasts much longer 13 than asphalt. If you have an asphalt parking lot, you have to maintain it on 14 a continual basis and seal cracks and those kinds of things. When you 15 have concrete, whether it's pervious or another, usually the life cycle cost 16 is usually less because it lasts so much better. The final thought I wanted 17 to talk about: the golf course lots. All the lots that you're seeing on here 18 are conceptual. I just wanted to point that out; that the size of the lots and 19 the lot lines and everything are subject to final design. 20 21 Scholz: I had one question and that was about the roundabout. I understand that 22 for better traffic flow but I lived in the east where we had roundabouts. I'm 23 not sure we really had better traffic flow. And they certainly were 24 confusing to people from out of town. I'm wondering how New Mexican's 25 are going to respond to roundabouts. 26 27 Kenney: If I'm correct, in many cases in some of the roundabouts in the east, 28 they're a little bit larger and they have several lanes coming into them. 29 30 Scholz: Yes. 31 32 Kenney: And that's one of the reasons that we wanted to go to the one lane in each 33 direction, was to simplify the roundabout so that you only have one lane 34 entering and exiting. The more lanes you throw in there the more ... 35 36 Scholz: Right, the more confusion there is. Yes. 37 38 Kenney: And more confusion there is and so that was one of the primary things is 39 we do need to have an educational period to get people used to these and 40 we need to start with the simple model and we found that the cross 41 section would in fact carry the amount of traffic that we needed. 42 43 Scholz: Okay. And of course, you're going to have a Major Arterial across the 44 northern end of this, right? Dragonfly. 45 55 1 Kenney: That is correct. You'll have a five lane road across the top. Half of it is on 2 the subject property so you'll have two lanes initially, but ultimately 3 Dragonfly is a full five lane, proposed to be a five lane. I did want to talk 4 about lights. The only place that we're asking for no lights is in the single- 5 family areas. The arterials and the village center and so forth will be lit 6 and the promenade park will be lit. So it was not completely variance from 7 lights if that makes sense. 8 9 Shipley: Why? 10 11 Kenney: We've actually had a lot of residents when we've done other projects ask 12 not to put in lights because they want the night sky and the City lights 13 views and so, there's kind of a love/hate thing there with lights. Either you 14 love them or you hate them. Some people complain that they have a light 15 right next to their bedroom and they don't like it. And then other people 16 say ... so we're proposing just in the single-family areas not to have lights. 17 18 Scholz: Okay, any other questions for this gentleman? Yes, Commissioner Beard. 19 20 Beard: I agree with Mr. Shipley in that I see your park areas but I don't see where 21 an area would be dedicated either in there or around there where you 22 could play basketball or tennis. People know that when you put in a tennis 23 court or a basketball court next to a housing unit it really causes problems 24 because there's noise there. I'm just wondering if there is a location. 25 Those little parkways wouldn't accommodate that, would they? Those 26 narrow ones. Where your arrow is ... 27 28 Kenney: This bump out here would in fact accommodate a half-court basketball or 29 a full play structure of some kind. And then you do have a two-acre park 30 that is the plaza itself which is an open space element so we're going to 31 have not only open space community spaces, but also play structures 32 through the promenade park. 33 34 Shipley: But I guess the total number of residents that you're going to have here, 35 not going to suffice with a half-court one basketball. That's ... you get 20 36 kids and they're going to be sitting there for an hour and a half waiting to 37 play, you know, three on three or whatever the case may be. That's just 38 part of what I see is that, you know, usually if you're having x-number of 39 homes there ought to be some; I mean, I think the Parks Department 40 should look at this very closely, but there ought to be some, you know, 41 measure, is there a five-acre park needed? Are there baseball fields 42 needed or do they have to travel from this area to the Field of Dreams on 43 the other side of town to go play baseball? 44 45 Kenney: The Facilities Director was involved in this planning process from the 46 beginning. The rule of thumb is that you have about an acre and a half for 56 AAft I every 400 units. We have a maximum of 2,400 units which would mean 2 you'd need about nine acres of open space. We have 12 to 13 acres of 3 open space. 4 5 Shipley: It's not the numbers that I'm concerned about. What I'm concerned about 6 is that there's no area for people to go play sports and to do the things that 7 they need to do. If you, and like I said, it needs to be planned so that it 8 doesn't interfere with, you know, people that live near by. It can't work in a 9 linear park because it's going to be on one side or the other side. Needs 10 to be something that people can get to easily and yet there's got to be 11 some kind of facility there, whether it's tennis courts or basketball courts or 12 a place to skate board, or whatever. Otherwise you'll end up with the 13 problems of the kids putting their basketball goal in the middle of the street 14 and the neighbors complaining about it as you go up and down the street. 15 We see that throughout the City. That's one of the things that as I drive 16 around and look at the City, people will take the easiest way to get so their 17 kids can recreate. 18 19 Kenney: You do also have the Las Cruces County Club, which is not that far away. 20 Our experience has been that in multi-family areas that you put the 21 basketball court and the other amenities right in the middle of the site 22 development. If you look at Casa Banderas Apartments on El Paseo and 23 University all of the open space is integrated into the site plan and that's 24 really what we were getting after here was providing the amenity right from 25 the start and then it becomes an amenity to the people who choose to 26 develop the multi-family sites. 27 28 Shipley: At EI Paseo, though, that's a big park there, really big. 29 30 Kenney: At the apartments on El Paseo and ... 31 32 Shipley: If I'm thinking of the right one. 33 34 Kenney: You are within walking distance of Frenger park, you're right. 35 36 Crane: I agree that it may very well be that your aggregate amount of open space 37 is adequate but no part is big enough for recreation. The promenade park 38 is a great idea but I agree with these gentlemen that there doesn't seem to 39 be one large area where you can play ball or stroll around. Also, I agree 40 with our chairman that ... I was brought up in the country which probably 41 invented roundabouts. T hey're indeed a challenge. They might be a 42 blessing to people who are challenged by traffic lights but I think that it'll 43 be interesting to see how people handle them. It's nice to see the traffic 44 flowing. Fewer traffic lights in a development like that, I think, are better, 45 but, well, we'll have to see. 46 57 Aft I Scholz: Okay, thank you, Mr. Crane. Commissioner Shipley, you had another 2 comment? 3 4 Shipley: I was going to say one other thing about the roundabouts. I've been in a 5 City where we put in roundabouts before and the problem that we had is 6 that every time that you bring a moving van down there to off load 7 furniture, that it runs over the center portion. We had nice flowers and 8 nice decorations and they were destroyed and the City was back there 9 once or twice, sometimes three times a month replanting the plants and 10 doing that kind of stuff. They eventually went in and kind of paved them 11 over with some rock, or not rock but some blocks, inter-lockable blocks. It 12 didn't look very nice but it served the purpose of having to go back and 13 spend money over and over again. They've got to be friendly to large 14 trucks, moving vans, and those kinds of things or they won't work. 15 16 Scholz: Commissioner Beard, did you have another comment? 17 18 Beard: Yes, I did. 19 20 Scholz: Go ahead. 21 22 Beard: A question: I hadn't thought about the ... the country club is down there at 23 the southern part of that, right? 24 25 Denton: Harold Denton with DVI. Could I add just a couple of comments on parks, 26 cause we're talking about them? There are large neighborhood parks that 27 were approved as part of Sierra Norte. So the kind of big game park 28 where every thing's grouped together is in that plan already, so it's not a 29 piece of this little plan. But yes, the County Club will have, I think, initially 30 two tennis courts with room for four or six. It has swimming pools. It has 31 all that kind of thing. We do also have, and that's located in this area right 32 here. Right here, right in there. And it is planned for that to be accessible 33 by trail, through a trail, that would run under this power line easement 34 through here, would then connect into our trail system back into here, and 35 we'd hope that it would come, well, you could also just get off and walk 36 down the sidewalks. Because there are sidewalks in all the streets, too. 37 But between those big parks, smaller neighborhood kind of pocket parks 38 that we're providing and the promenade, County Club, golf course, there's 39 a lot of recreation out here in this area. I just wanted to throw that in. 40 41 Beard: We just didn't see where those parks were. 42 43 Denton: Right. 44 45 Beard: And are the people that live in this area? Will they have access to the 46 Country Club or do they have to have a membership? 58 1 2 Denton: You know, I don't have the answer to that, but I think that, it's not a public 3 club I don't believe. It's private. But it's ... the existing Las Cruces 4 Country Club has always been very open and accessible. You can get on 5 there anytime, anybody. 6 7 Scholz: Okay. Other questions for Mr. Denton? All right, we'll open it to public 8 discussion. Yes, sir? 9 10 Balderama: Chairman Scholz, my name is Ruben Balderama and I just wanted to 11 make a point about the roundabouts. My experience in New Jersey, 12 England, and Kuwait, when I first saw the roundabouts is truly right. It 13 takes a little education or an awkward experience when you come to a 14 roundabout. But it doesn't take long because the education portion is prior 15 to entering a roundabout; that they do have signs stating traffic inside 16 circle have the right-of-way so that right there alerts the people, as long as 17 they see the sign. There was concern as you said, about the trucks. The 18 one lane, it's going to be a concern because, you're right, having two 19 lanes would probably be more proper because you have some trucks that 20 do need a little bit more angle for steering. But I like the concept. It looks 21 very interesting. In fact, maybe some more in Las Cruces would make 22 Las Cruces unique in the whole state. But anyhow, but the roundabout 23 concept is just you know the sign that would alert people that traffic inside 24 have the right-of-way. 25 26 Shipley: Just remember, you have to plan for a 50-foot trailer. 27 28 Balderama: That's correct. 29 30 Scholz: Yes, Mr. Kenney? You were going to respond to that. 31 32 Kenney: Standing up to see if there were any further questions. 33 34 Scholz: Okay. Well, we're in public participation now and I was wondering if any 35 other members of the public wanted to speak to this? I guess not. Okay, 36 I'll close it to public participation. Gentlemen? What do you think? 37 38 Shipley: I really think it's a nice design. As long as there are parks, you know, that 39 are accessible to this subdivision. I think, I don't understand why the high 40 density housing is next to the fairway either. I would think that these other 41 ones that are not filled in, more estate type would be more, but I don't 42 know. I do like the concept. I do like the plan. As far as roundabouts, 1 43 think anybody can get used to those if they're done right. 44 45 Scholz: Okay. Any other comments? Yes, Commissioner Crane? 46 59 Aft Aft I Crane: I'm still concerned regarding the parks that, although the Las Cruces 2 Country Club may open to the public, it'll still be done at a fee, and also 3 they will be, if they're down where the gentleman showed us, they'll be 4 quite a distance from Metro Verde. Also, I'm thinking of the elementary 5 school children, even if there was a school right outside your development 6 on the east or north side, we don't know, do we, that there is going to be 7 one, that's still quite a schlep for elementary school children who typically 8 have a school of only, what 200 or 300 students? 9 10 Scholz: As many as 500, yes. 11 12 Crane: Pardon me? 13 14 Scholz: As many as 500. 15 16 Crane: Okay. I'm also wondering about the pervious concrete. Is it as strong? 1 17 don't mean durable in the sense of standing up to weather, but how many 18 big delivery trucks can you run over a four-inch slab made of regular 19 concrete? Is it as strong as regular? 20 21 Kenney: You need to add about 10% or 20% more thickness and they 22 recommended a minimum thickness of six-inches. So, you do have that 23 additional thickness there. 24 25 Crane: Thank you. 26 27 Scholz: All right, any other comments or questions, Commissioners? 28 29 Shipley: I guess just for the record I'd just like to say that I think that the lots along 30 the golf course, you need to look at that very seriously, because I live on a 31 golf course and I get golf balls from three sides and the homes along the 32 golf course where I live are a third of an acre sized lots and cut that in half 33 or a third and you're really have exposure yourself to a lot more risk. So, it 34 just makes it look nice. The other thing I would recommend that you do is 35 when you do your plans, make sure you finish the back side, because 36 more people are going to go see the backside of your homes than the 37 people that go up and down the streets in the front. I learned that. I'd 38 been on a planning Commission where we built two golf courses and that 39 includes decks and those kinds of things. Do them up front and you 40 control how they look and the houses, the value of the houses, stay higher 41 and things work a lot better. If you don't do that and you let the ... you 42 don't treat the back of the house as you would the front, then value in your 43 subdivision will decrease. But I think overall it's a great concept. I think 44 Planned Unit Development are good concepts. I was concerned about 45 lighting because when you put small lots of homes together with that, you 46 need security lighting, and I know people, the streets are in before the 60 I people move in, so they know where the lights are. If they are light 2 sleepers and can't see the light, you know that light pole on the corner. 1 3 kind of err on the side of security and safety. I think that's a lot of times 4 more important than ... you can drive out 10 minutes and be outside the 5 light. 6 7 Scholz: Thank you, Commissioner. All right, I'll entertain a motion to approve case 8 PUD-08-01. 9 10 Crane: So moved. 11 12 Scholz: It's been moved, and I need a second. 13 14 Beard: Second it. 15 16 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner Crane? 17 18 Kenney: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. We had requested that you change the wording 19 of the Staff condition about Arroyo Road to coordinate with the adjacent 20 developer. 21 22 Scholz: You're right and I clean forgot and I had it written down too. All right, do 23 you have some language for us Mr. White. 24 25 White: Let's first go into the condition briefly. 26 27 Scholz: Yeah, there you are. 28 29 White: Chair Scholz, I'm assuming we're speaking about the first condition. 30 When Staff was evaluating condition number one, the issue was since you 31 have off site improvements to Sonoma Ranch Boulevard, if you actually 32 start a transition of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard at Arroyo Road, we're not 33 going to have very similar landscaping pattern, regardless of who the 34 developer is or who actually builds the roadway. We don't want the road 35 to transition and then you have a different landscape pattern in Metro 36 Verde, but the actual cross section of the road, it's actually been changed 37 at the actual Arroyo intersection. So, from a Staff prospective, the issue is 38 not who the responsible party is, is that the off site improvements, 39 landscaping will be done very similar to what's in the Metro Verde Planned 40 Unit Development. So at the point of transition is what we're speaking 41 about. 42 43 Scholz: Mr. Kenney, you want to respond to that? 44 45 Kenney: The thought I had is that we're going to be back in front of you with the 46 final site plan. It may be in that amount of time we could work with the 61 1 other developer to get a letter that says they're agreeable to transitioning 2 at Arroyo Road and having a coordinated landscaping plan for that 3 section. Because you have two developers that have agreements about 4 who's putting in what and so the other developer is going to be building 5 that portion of road, so it's a simple matter of having a letter of 6 commitment about how it's going to look. Would that be agreeable to write 7 the condition in that manner, that by final site plan there be a letter of 8 understanding with the other developer as to who is going to do what 9 relative to Sonoma Ranch Boulevard from Arroyo Road to the project? 10 11 Scholz: I'll let Staff respond to that. 12 13 Shipley: Can I ask a question? Sonoma Ranch Boulevard is completed, say, from 14 Community College down to, currently, down to the district we live in, 15 completed down there? 16 17 Scholz: Right. Almost to Lohman. 18 19 Shipley: Not quite, but the landscaping is not in. I'm thinking about from when you 20 get to the top of the hill from Sonora Springs down to the Golf Club Road, 21 let's say, that's all completed. Could we just make it so that it's all done to 22 that same specifications? 23 24 Scholz: I don't know. Can we, Staff? 25 26 Kenney: Mr. Chairman, I think that the developer of this development would like the 27 opportunity to put their stamp on it and since it's a much, it's a totally 28 different section of road than that section you're referring to, I think we'd 29 like the opportunity to work with a landscaping plan within our project that 30 works with the plaza and the theme of what Metro Verde is ultimately 31 going to be. 32 33 Shipley: I think that's reasonable. 34 35 Scholz: Mr. White, the ball is in your court. 36 37 White: In respect to the condition, Chair Scholz, what's actually transpiring is; you 38 understand that a concept plan is a development plan for the application. 39 A final site plan is very similar to a preliminary plat. In this case, what 40 you're doing is you're setting up all your criteria for your internal and 41 external roadways to the concept plan. What Staff is actually requesting is 42 that wherever that transition may be, if it's at Arroyo Road, or actually 43 further north, that you have a solidified landscaping plan at that time and 44 it's actually followed. We don't want to see, let's say, that you have 45 developer A that actually builds a portion of Sonoma Ranch from Arroyo to 46 the southern property boundary of Metro Verde and then you have 62 1 developer B who comes in and builds it from the southern boundary of 2 Metro Verde up to Dragonfly, respectively, but you have different 3 landscaping plans, but you have the same exact cross section for the 4 actual Sonoma Ranch Boulevard. So, the issue that needs to be 5 hammered out here is, in respect, that you have a solidified landscaping 6 plan for the center median, wherever that transition point is. 7 8 Scholz: So, can we reword it to say the applicant will be required to coordinate the 9 landscape? 10 11 Shipley: He really doesn't have the power to tell the other guy what to do. You're 12 at boundary line A and boundary line B. That's the problem, as I see it. 13 14 White: Chair Scholz, you're actually correct. And what we're saying is, in a 15 nutshell, wherever the transition point occurs to the Dragonfly boundary 16 that you have a solidified landscape plan. So the issue could be is that, 17 yes, you could go to site design, you can go to landscape architect as the 18 project progresses, but the issue is before you, bring that final site plan or 19 preliminary plat for this development. You solidify the plan for off site 20 improvements and internal improvements as well. 21 22 Scholz: So what's the language we should use which will satisfy that, beside this 23 language, other than this language? 24 25 White: The language we have here actually isn't specific. It says the applicant 26 will be required to landscape the center median for Sonoma Ranch 27 Boulevard from Arroyo Road to the southern boundary of Metro Verde. 28 The landscape median will be similar in nature to the portion of Sonoma 29 Ranch Boulevard traversing the Metro Verde development. In there is no 30 specific language as to what the landscaping plan is, it's just saying that 31 you would have a solidified plan for the actual center turn median and for 32 the landscaping of that portion of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard. 33 34 Scholz: So what was your objection to it, sir? Mr. Kenney. 35 36 Kenney: The objection is that it appears that the developer of Metro Verde is being 37 required to actually pay for the construction of landscaping between 38 Arroyo Road and the project. We have absolutely no concern with 39 coordinating the type of landscaping that happens in that stretch of road, 40 and so, what you had said, Mr. Chair, about putting, the applicant will be 41 required to coordinate the landscaping of the center median and then the 42 second sentence is fine. It's just a matter of who's going to pay for what 43 portion. There isn't an issue with coordinating it at all. 44 45 Scholz: So, Mr. White, can we make that change. Can we say the applicant will 46 be required to coordinate the landscaping for Sonoma Ranch Road? 63 Aft 1 2 White: Chairman Scholz, I think the issue we're getting into here is, what the 3 City's trying to say is that you have a uniform approach. We're not 4 actually looking at who the responsible party is. The issue is that if 5 developer A does not want to do the improvements there is a potential that 6 there are no improvements made from Arroyo Road into the southern 7 boundary of Metro Verde. So that's the danger you have by changing the 8 language to be modified to what the applicant is requesting. Of course, 9 you know, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the ability to modify 10 the language as you see fit, but I would actually say based upon what's 11 transpired that the language that's specified in this condition protects the 12 City, that you have a unified plan and the developer will have to coordinate 13 with developer A and also coordinate the expenses that are required to do 14 the off site improvements. 15 16 Shipley: Is the median from the southern portion of this property? Is that the state 17 land now? 18 19 White: That is correct. 20 21 Shipley: So there's not an owner except the state? 22 23 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, from Arroyo Road, which is located here, the property 24 owner is right now Logos Development. Anything south of Arroyo Road is 25 currently, for about a mile, is under the ownership of the state. 26 27 Shipley: Okay. So that's what I thought. 28 29 Rodriguez: The transition would start from Arroyo Road north to the Metro Verde. 30 31 Crane: So who has that again? Who has the portion? 32 33 Rodriguez: The portion of Sonoma Ranch that they need to make the transition is 34 identified under the ownership of Logos Development and its part of the 35 Fountains at Sierra Norte preliminary plat. 36 37 Scholz: Well, it seems to me, Mr. White, you've left us with a dilemma and I don't 38 like to be left with dilemmas, particularly not at 19 minutes after 9:00 in the 39 evening. So you are saying that if we put the language of coordinate in 40 there then no one is going to be responsible for these developments? 1 41 don't think so. 42 43 White: No, Chair. Chairman Scholz, what I'm stipulating is that regardless, there 44 has to be a responsible party. It shouldn't be the City of Las Cruces doing 45 the off site improvements for the medians. That if they can coordinate 46 approach that's between developer A and developer B to do, but should 64 1 also be responsible for the actual financing of that actual landscaping in 2 that actual median from the off site improvements. And maybe that is the 3 condition here: that both developers would have to actually coordinate and 4 also find some kind of financing mechanism for the landscape off site of 5 the Metro Verde, on Sonoma Ranch Boulevard. 6 7 Scholz: So, in other words, if we said then the applicant will be required to 8 coordinate with the other developers to landscape the center median for 9 Sonoma Ranch Boulevard and pay for it. 10 11 Kenney: Mr. Chair, we're spending a lot of time on an issue that isn't even a 12 requirement of a subdivision approval. Median landscaping is not 13 something that anybody's actually required to do by the Code as far as 1 14 know. There's a lot of arterials that have unfinished medians. So I don't 15 know why we're spending so much time on something that's not even 16 required in the process. 17 18 Scholz: Well, part of it is because it's a condition of the approval right now. That's 19 why we're spending time on it and I want to get that either in or out. 20 21 White: Chair Scholz, there's another option that you have. One option that we 22 have since this has to go up to the City Council at a date to be 23 determined, you can either eliminate that condition now or leave it in and 24 allow City Council to evaluate it at a future date. 25 26 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley. 27 28 Shipley: Or could we table it until it gets worked out and we get the right language 29 and then bring it back next month? 30 31 Scholz: I personally don't want to see it tabled. I think we've had a good 32 explanation of what this project is about. I think we all understand its 33 strengths and limitations, and I think we'd be rehashing something or, as 34 Mr. Kenney points out, a rather minor detail. 35 36 White: I think Staff would recommend, Chair Scholz, that the Planning and 37 Zoning Commission evaluate if they want to keep that condition in or take 38 it out. I think that's what needs to be discussed. 39 40 Scholz: What is your will, Gentlemen? In or out? 41 42 Crane: Take it out. It's not worth making an issue of at the moment I think. 43 44 Shipley: If it were going to be addressed later on, I'd as soon take it out. 45 46 Scholz: Mr. White, we'll give you the last word. 65 ArIk 1 2 White: Chair Scholz, what actually occurs, if you take it out the recommendation 3 to City Council will eliminate that. So that condition would not be 4 submitted to City Council. It may be in the actual transcribed minutes. 5 The recommendation I would actually say, to be honest with you, is allow 6 the City Council to evaluate that condition on its merits. Leave it in, allow 7 City Council if they see fit to leave it in, or to eliminate it at the City 8 Council 9 10 Shipley: Because that gives the applicant the ability (inaudible). 11 12 Scholz: And he has to anyway. Okay, I'm going to ask for a motion to approve 13 Case PUD-08-01. 14 15 Shipley: I so move. 16 17 Scholz: And is there a second? 18 19 Beard: I second it. 20 21 Scholz: All right. And we'll call the roll. This is with the conditions, by the way, as 22 they're mentioned there and since, Commissioner Shipley, you moved 23 this, you're going to have to read the conditions. 24 25 Shipley: So I move approval of PUD-08-01. The applicant will be required to 26 landscape the center median for Sonoma Ranch Road off site from Arroyo 27 Road to the southern boundary of Metro Verde. The landscape median 28 will be similar in nature to the portion of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard 29 traversing the Metro Verde Development. Multi-dwelling residential and/or 30 commercial properties within Metro Verde will not be developed until 31 approved connection Sonoma Ranch Boulevard has been established. All 32 newly installed utilities will be placed underground. 33 34 Scholz: Okay, I'll call the roll. Commissioner Crane? 35 36 Crane: Aye, based on the discussion and findings. 37 38 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley? 39 40 Shipley: Aye, based on discussion and findings. 41 42 Scholz: Commissioner Beard? 43 44 Beard: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 45 46 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye based on findings and discussions. Thank you. 66 1 2 9. Case S-07-111: A request for final plat approval for a replat known as EBLT 3 Company Subdivision "A" replat No. 22. The final plat proposes a replat of a 4 single parcel into two parcels. The applicant is seeking a waiver to the CLC 5 Subdivision Code and CLC Design Standards to not dedicate 2.81 +/- feet for 6 right-of-way to Kennedy Road. The subject property comprises 4.80 +/- 7 acres and is zoned H (Holding). The subject property is located west of Elks 8 Drive, north of Kennedy Road, and south of Moreno Road. Submitted by 9 Southwest Engineering of Armando Zertuche. 10 11 Scholz: Okay, we have one left. This is Case S-07-111, a request for final plat 12 approval and, Ms. Rodriguez, you're here. 13 14 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, for the final presentation this evening is a request for a final 15 plat of a replat of an existing parcel of land known as EBLT Company 16 Subdivision "A" replat No. 22. This subject property is located west of 17 Elks Drive, north of Kennedy Road, and south of Moreno. Elks is a 18 principal arterial and Kennedy Road is also classified as a Principal 19 Arterial on the MPO Thoroughfare Plan. Discussions earlier with previous 20 cases of questions regarding Thurmond and Engler, Kennedy Road will 21 actually become Engler Road. 22 23 Scholz: Oh, my God. 24 25 Rodriguez: So yes, you will actually ... 26 27 Scholz: Totally confused. 28 29 Rodriguez: A thoroughfare that starts at Mesa Grande and will actually, I think, will 30 terminate all the way out to Valley Drive. 31 32 Scholz: And change names three times. 33 34 Rodriguez: Exactly. So we're talking about the same Principal Arterial, just different 35 locations. The subject property is 4.8 acres in size and it is zoned H for 36 Holding. But the Zoning Code does permit development of the property to 37 put one dwelling unit per parcel granted that that parcel is not less than 38 one acre in size. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcels and 39 identify them as lot 4A and 4B. Lot 4A is located adjacent to Kennedy 40 Road. It will comprise approximately 1.2 acres in size and it has an 41 existing newly built single family residential structure. Lot 413 is located in 42 the rear of that and comprises 3.52 acres and it is currently vacant. And 43 that parcel of land will be adjacent to Moreno Road, which is a local 44 roadway. The applicant is identifying that he is providing the necessary 45 right-of-way for Moreno Road. Their pro-rata share of right-of-way for 46 Moreno Road is identified on the plat. In terms for Kennedy Road, the 67 I applicant has been seeking a waiver request to not dedicate 2 approximately 2.8-feet in size, and I'll get to that waiver here momentarily. 3 For Kennedy Road, it is as I stated, classified as a Principal Arterial, 4 therefore it requires 120-feet of right-of-way. Currently Kennedy Road has 5 40-feet of right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to provide 12.19-feet of 6 dedicated right-of-way and then provide an additional 25-feet in the form 7 of an easement. The purpose of this is because the existing single family 8 structure, if he was to dedicate the right-of-way it would go right up to the 9 structure itself. But the concern about Kennedy Road and the dedication 10 of that additional 25-feet of right-of-way is the design of the Arterial itself. 11 Right now the City is looking at securing right-of-way, but there is a lot of 12 things that will need to go into the design element and because of how the 13 intersection is offset here on Elks right in this area adjacent residential 14 structures. The City and engineers are going to have to figure out exactly 15 how that road is going to be built and we're not at the design phase. The 16 City is right now wanting to secure the additional right-of-way, so there is a 17 possibility when we actually build out Kennedy Road that the 25-foot 18 easement all of it maybe used as dedicated right-of-way and some of it 19 may not be used at dedicated right-of-way. But there is language on the 20 plat that states that if that 25-foot easement is needed as dedicated right- 21 of-way, the property owner will deed it over to the City of Las Cruces at no 22 cost. When you have the existing 40-feet of right-of-way, you take it from 23 the center line. You have the 20-feet plus the 12.19-feet and the additional 24 25-feet. They're still short of their mandate of the Design Standards of 25 providing the required 60-feet. So therefore, they are seeking a waiver to 26 not dedicate the 2.81-feet. DRC did consider this waiver and what they 27 stated about the design of the road, they did support the waiver request of 28 the 2.81-feet as it will not alter the design and build out of that road, 29 because you can take into consideration parkways and medians. Lot 4A, 30 however, will become a nonconforming parcel because you have a 25-foot 31 easement and setbacks are taken either from the easement line or the 32 property line. In this case there will be no, well, the easement. You'll have 33 no front yard or garage setback. The applicant is looking at rezoning the 34 property at a future date to facilitate future development in the back parcel 35 and so Staff has agreed that what we'll do is, we'll address the variance 36 for lot 4A when they go to rezone that property. We'll incorporate the 37 variance request and identify hardships for right-of-way constraints, things 38 of that nature. Here's the final plat of the subdivision: the lot 4A with the 39 existing structure. You have Kennedy Road here. They're providing, 40 where the cursor is there; they're providing the additional dedication of 41 12.19-feet and then in this area you have the additional 25-foot easement. 42 Lot 4B is vacant and the appropriate right-of-way will be provided. Here's 43 an aerial view of the subject property. It is a dated aerial, but you do have 44 the single-family residential structure here at the southern boundary of the 45 property. Here are some site photos showing the existing single-family 46 structure in relationship to the condition of Kennedy Road. And then the 68 I bottom photo shows the existing Moreno Road. What the applicant will be 2 required to do when they develop lot 413 will provide their 100% 3 improvements to Moreno Road. The applicant is also looking at providing 4 a true Minor Local Roadway back out from Moreno Road back out to Elks 5 Drive. DRC recommendation is approval of this. In your minutes for the 6 DRC you will see that they did conditionally approve it, that they 7 addressed the outstanding comments. It's just cleaning up some plat 8 language and we can resolve that. But for the content of this plat 9 everything has been resolved. So the recommendation is approval. The 10 applicant is here to address any questions that you may have and speak 11 to the design issue of Kennedy Drive and if you have any questions. 12 13 Scholz: Okay, any questions for Ms. Rodriguez? All right. Can we hear from the 14 applicant? 15 16 Pompeo: Good evening Mr. Chairman. My name is Paul Pompeo. I'm the 17 consulting engineer on this project. A brief PowerPoint presentation and 18 then I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Once again, 19 Staff has located the project here which is west of Elks Drive between 20 Moreno Road and Kennedy Road. Here's a copy of the final plat. Here's 21 a slightly newer aerial photo showing the location where the home was 22 constructed. Here's the same aerial, backing out. Here's the location here 23 where the cursor is where the home is. Here's Kennedy Road. You can 24 see that there's other sporadic homes and things built on that along with a 25 pecan orchard done on this end here. The northern end is Moreno Road. 26 Here's a blow up of the section of the plat indicating the structure itself. 27 Where the cursor is now was the existing right-of-way line for Kennedy 28 Road. Here's the existing home that was constructed. This home was 29 constructed prior to any thoughts of splitting the lot or subdividing so a 30 permit was properly issued for the home. It's only because of the 31 subdivision process that we came into this issue with the setback on the 32 road. To kind of explain where we got these odd numbers from, basically, 33 we looked at the corner of the house here where the cursor is now, offset 34 25-feet for the 25-foot road and utilities easement. That's where the 35 12.19-feet came up. So what we're proposing to now is we are going to 36 dedicate as much right-of-way as we can, which is the 12.19-feet, still 37 leaves us with this 25-foot strip that pursuant to some specific language 38 that's contained on the plat upon final roadway alignment, right-of-way 39 determination and construction drawings. All or a portion of that 25-feet 40 will be dedicated to the City at no cost. Once again, Staff had site photos 41 of Kennedy Road showing the location of the home here in reference to 42 the existing paved structure and then both looking east and west on 43 Kennedy. Once again, to summarize, 4.8 acre subdivision, two lots split. 44 We're requesting the waiver due to the location of the home. The 45 developer that's purchasing the northern tract of lot 4B is responsible for 46 all roadway improvements to Kennedy and Moreno Road at a date in the 69 I future that the project is either a building permit is pulled on lot 4B, or any 2 subdivision takes place on 4B. With that, that concludes my presentation. 3 I'd be happy to answer any question that you may have. 4 5 Scholz: Gentlemen, questions? 6 7 Shipley: When was the house constructed? 8 9 Pompeo: I don't know the exact date that it started but it was completed within the 10 last four months, four to six months, something like that. 11 12 Shipley: They didn't know that Kennedy had a 120-foot right-of-way? 13 14 Pompeo: At the time it was a single tract of land and the Elephant Butte Land and 15 Trust Company subdivisions. Those subdivisions are dated back to 1911 16 and even further. At that time they owned the parcel wholly. They went in 17 with a site plan, building permit, and pulled a building permit following all 18 the rules and regulations that were in place. The applicant at that time, 19 which is the homeowner, did not know that that road existed or that it was 20 on the MPO plan slated to be a major arterial. 21 22 Scholz: Thank you, sir. Any public comment? I don't think we have any public left, 23 do we? A couple of holdouts in the corner. All right. We'll close it to 24 public discussion. If you have no further questions. Gentlemen, any 25 comments? Okay, I'll entertain a motion to approve Case S-07-111. 26 27 Crane: So moved. 28 29 Beard: Second. 30 31 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner 32 Crane? 33 34 Crane: Vote aye based on findings and discussion. 35 36 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley? 37 38 Shipley: Aye, based on site visit, findings, and discussion. 39 40 Scholz: Commissioner Beard? 41 42 Beard: Aye, based on findings and discussions. 43 44 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye on findings, discussion, and site visitation. Thank 45 you very much for staying with us. 46 70 1 Pompeo: Thank you very much. 2 3 Rodriguez: When we get to Staff announcements I have ... 4 5 Scholz: Oh, Staff announcements. Oh goody. I have a question for the Staff, too. 6 7 8 9 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS 10 11 IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 12 13 X. STAFF COMMENT 14 15 Rodriguez: Okay, I have several announcements. First and foremost, I'd like to 16 introduce a new Staff member to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 17 Gary Hembree joins us from California. He's been on Staff now about two 18 weeks and he will primarily be handling ETZ subdivisions, but you may 19 see his face a time or two in handling some City subdivisions. So I'd like 20 to welcome him aboard. 21 22 Scholz: Should we give him a round of applause? 23 24 Rodriguez: And also, Helen Revels has been promoted to the associate planner and 25 she will be working with me on City subdivisions, so you will start seeing 26 her here shortly making some presentations to the Commission. 27 28 Scholz: Wonderful. Yes, I remember Helen told me she has been moved out of 29 that really awful office at the end there and into a position of responsibility. 30 That's great. 31 32 Rodriguez: I have two additional announcements. First, one has to do with the 33 affordable housing Ad Hoc Committee. David Dollahon with the 34 Neighborhood Services Section of Community Development has been 35 working on reestablishing Affordable Housing Ad Hoc Committee and he 36 stated that they are looking for one volunteer from the Planning and 37 Zoning Commission to sit on this Committee. If you are interested in 38 sitting in this Committee, please submit your name to me and then I will go 39 ahead and forward it to David. And ultimately, the Mayor will be making 40 all of the official appointments to the Ad Hoc Committee. In my 41 discussions with David, he stated that this Ad Hoc Committee will be most 42 likely meeting at least once a month for the next 12 months. And if you 43 have any other questions, please feel free to see me so that I can try to 44 coordinate something with David. That's the information I have about the 45 Affordable Housing Ad Hoc Committee. 46 71 I Scholz: Okay, would you send us an e-mail on that too? 2 3 Rodriguez: I will. 4 5 Scholz: I appreciate it. 6 7 Rodriguez: The next item, which I will also send an e-mail to you, but just to apprise 8 you of this is again the Neighborhood Services Section of Community 9 Development Department has a new initiative related to providing fair 10 housing training for City boards, City Council, and Staff that are in 11 customer service positions. The initiative is part of the Community 12 Development Department's commitment to the United States Department 13 of Housing and Urban Development to increase fair housing issues within 14 the City of Las Cruces as part of our mandated analysis of fair housing 15 choice that we have to comply with because we are a recipient of Federal 16 funds. This training is mandatory for the City Council and certain Boards. 17 Planning and Zoning is one of them. The Boards that are in a policy 18 making or policy recommending position and that can or has influence in 19 housing development issues. We are taking this approach to meet with 20 most committees and boards as part of their regular meetings, and they 21 will be implementing a new procedure for new Committee members that 22 are appointed each year. So we do have one vacancy and we'll bring them 23 up to speed when that person's on board. But the first training will start 24 April 14th at a City Council work session. So I encourage you to attend 25 that work session with the City Council to be part of that training. However, 26 if you cannot attend that training, please let me know so I can work with 27 David because they will be scheduling other trainings with the different 28 boards and then we'll work with quorum notice, things of that nature. So if 29 the Planning and Zoning Commission wants to attend the April 14th work 30 session, that would be great. If not, we can go ahead and schedule a 31 work session separately with the Commission, have everybody attend. It's 32 your choice. 33 34 Shipley: Where's it going to be held and what time? 35 36 Rodriguez: April 14th, that would be a Monday. That's a 1:00 work session meeting 37 here in the Chambers. 38 39 Scholz: Okay. 40 41 Crane: I have a problem with that date. I'll be out of town. 42 43 Rodriguez: Okay. 44 45 Scholz: Well, I'm sure we can work something out with a coordinated effort. 46 72 I Rodriguez: What I'll do is I will forward this e-mail to you and for the other 2 Commissioners that were absent this evening and we'll go ahead and 3 work that out. 4 5 Scholz: Thank you very much. Two questions and then a comment. What am I 6 supposed to sign here, Helen? The back page. Thank you very much. 7 Okay, I'll do that. Secondly, do we have a current map of Las Cruces? 8 You know the map I've been using to find these locations when I go do my 9 site visitations is old and out of date. In fact, most maps in Las Cruces are 10 out of date I discovered. Do we have a current map of Las Cruces? 11 12 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, yes, for a street map, is that what you're referring to? 13 14 Scholz: Yeah, I'm talking about a street map. 15 16 Rodriguez: Yes, I can have a street map printed out for the six members. 17 18 Scholz: Good, why don't you do that and put that in our packet for next time. 19 That'd be great. Or maybe sooner before April 14th. 20 21 Rodriguez: We will do that. 22 23 Scholz: My announcement is, or my information is that I think we have a seventh 24 member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I talked to Councilman 25 Silva the other day and he had someone in mind who I think has already 26 talked to either you or Mr. Banegas. 27 28 Rodriguez: Mr. Banegas, yes. 29 30 Scholz: Yeah, talked to Mr. Banegas. Okay. And I'm supposed to meet with that 31 person one of these days and see how he feels about it. But I think we'll 32 get somebody, a seventh person, so we'll have a full Commission. I'm 33 looking forward to that, because that means that I can take a vacation at 34 some point and somebody else will pick it up. Is that it? 35 36 Rodriguez: Yes, sir. 37 38 XI. ADJOURNMENT 39 40 Scholz: There's no public comment? I think we've heard enough. I will declare us 41 adjourned at 9:41. 42 43 44C&"e 45 46 Chairperson 73