Loading...
02-26-2008 I MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 FOR THE 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 City Council Chambers 5 February 26, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. 6 7 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 8 Charles Scholz, Chair 9 Shawn Evans, Vice Chair 10 Donald Bustos, Secretary 11 Charles Beard, Member 12 Ray Shipley, Member 13 14 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: 17 Vincent Banegas, Development Services & MPO Administrator 18 Cheryl Rodriguez, Senior Planner 19 Helen Revels, CLC 20 James White, Planner 21 Jared Abrams, CLC Legal 22 Lt. Steve Archuleta, Fire Department 23 Becky Eich, Recording Secretary 24 25 I. CALL TO ORDER 26 27 Scholz: Good evening. Welcome to the February 26th meeting of the Planning 28 and Zoning Commission. I'd like to introduce the members of Commission 29 and tell you what districts they represent. For those of you at home, you 30 can follow along on the signs. On my far right is our newest member, Ray 31 Shipley, who is joining us for the first time today. Ray is the Mayor's 32 appointment so he is an at-large person on the Board. Next to him is 33 Donald Bustos. Don represents District 3 and he is also our Secretary of 34 the Commission. Next to him is Shawn Evans. Shawn is our Vice Chair 35 and Shawn represents Council District 5. On my immediate right is 36 Charles Beard. Charles is representing District 2. And I'm Charlie Scholz 37 and I'm representing District 6. 38 39 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 22, 2008 40 41 Scholz: Are there any corrections or additions to the minutes? I'm just looking at 42 my own and I don't see any. I'll entertain a motion to accept the minutes. 43 44 Beard: I'll make a motion to the accept minutes. 45 46 Scholz: Okay, Commissioner Beard. And a second for that? 1 I Bustos: I second. 2 3 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded to accept the minutes. All in favor say aye. 4 5 ALL COMMISSIONERS -AYE. 6 7 Scholz: Those opposed, say nay. 8 9 Shipley: One abstention. 10 11 Scholz: One abstention. 12 13 Shipley: Because I wasn't there for the meeting. 14 15 Scholz: Thank you, Mr. Shipley. 16 17 III. POSTPONEMENTS 18 19 1. Case Z2738: A request for a zone change from R-1a (Single-Family Medium 20 Density) to R-2 (Multi-Dwelling Low Density) for 1.905 ± acres located at 21 5604 Mesa Drive. Submitted by Aurelio Alvarez, property owner. 22 POSTPONED INDEFINITELY. 23 24 Scholz: Okay. The agenda, for those people watching at home, you can pick up 25 the agenda on the web site, the Community Development web site, at the 26 City's web site. The agenda is relatively straightforward. We have 27 approval of the minutes that we've already done. Then we have 28 postponements, and I see we have one postponement, and that is Case 29 Z2738, a request for zone change from R-1 a (Single-Family Medium 30 Density) to R-2 for 1.9 acres located at 5604 Mesa Drive. Submitted by 31 Aurelio Alvarez. This is postponed indefinitely. So if you were here for 32 that particular thing we're not going to hear that tonight. I don't see any 33 withdrawals. Staff, are there any additional withdrawals? 34 35 Rodriguez: No, Mr. Chairman. 36 37 IV. WITHDRAWALS 38 39 V. CONSENT AGENDA 40 41 1. Case Z2738: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 42 Intensity) to C-3C (Commercial High Intensity-Conditional) for 2.23 ± acres 43 located at 389 Montana Avenue. The zone change request is being initiated 44 to bring the property into compliance with the 2001 Zoning Code, as 45 amended. Submitted by Robert Matulich, property owner. 46 2 0 J 1 Scholz: Thank you. Okay, then we're on our consent agenda. This is how the 2 consent agenda works: the consent agenda is voted on by one motion to 3 accept the agenda and anyone from the Planning and Zoning 4 Commission, the Staff, or member of the public may ask to have that 5 removed from the consent agenda and then we would make that number 6 one on our new business agenda. So it's Case Z2740, a request for a 7 zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3C 8 (Commercial High Intensity-Conditional) for 2.23 acres located at 389 9 Montana Avenue. The zone change request is being initiated to bring the 10 property into compliance with the 2001 Zoning Code, as amended. 11 Submitted by Robert Matulich, property owner. Commissioners, any 12 comments on this? Staff? Anyone from the public? Okay. Then I'll 13 entertain a motion to accept the agenda. 14 15 Evans: I move that we accept the case ... 16 17 Scholz: No, just accept the agenda. 18 19 Evans: Oh, accept the agenda. 20 21 Scholz: Okay, is there a second? 22 23 Bustos: Second. 24 25 Beard: Second. 26 27 Scholz: All those in favor say aye. 28 29 ALL COMMISSIONERS -AYE. 30 31 Scholz: Those opposed, same sign. 32 33 VI. OLD BUSINESS 34 35 1. Case A1652: A request for a four ± foot variance from the required five (5) 36 foot side yard setback for a property zoned R-1a (Single-Family Medium 37 Density) located at 3346 Neptune. The applicant has constructed an 38 attached recreational vehicle port approximately one (1) foot and three (3) 39 inches from the southern side yard property boundary. Submitted by 40 Francisco Lazarin, property owner. 41 42 Scholz: Okay, now we're onto old business. Now, the way it works, for those of 43 you who haven't been here before, we have three opportunities for 44 presentation. The first one is from the Staff. The Staff will give their 45 presentation. Then the applicant who's asking for a zoning variance will 46 give his or her presentation. Then we leave it open to the public. Then 3 I when we close public discussion then the Commissioners talk among 2 themselves and vote. Okay. The first case in old business is Case 3 A1652, A request for a four-foot variance from the required five-foot yard 4 setback for a property zoned R-1a (Single-Family Medium Density). The 5 applicant has constructed an attached recreational vehicle port 6 approximately one-foot and three-inches from the southern side of the 7 property boundary. Submitted by Francisco Lazarin, property owner. 8 Staff. 9 10 White: For the record, James White, Community Development Department. The 11 first case this evening is Case A1652, a request for a four-foot variance 12 from the required five-foot minimum side yard setback for property zoned 13 R-1a. The subject property encompasses roughly 0.18 acres and is 14 located at 3346 Neptune Drive. Here's a vicinity map in relation to the 15 area showing the subject tract of land here shaded in blue. Property is 16 zoned R-1a which is single-family residential medium density, minimum 17 5,000 square foot lot size. Case specifics: very briefly, the lot is actually 18 0.18 acres in size. The southern side yard RV port is approximately one- 19 foot three-inches from the property line. The RV sunport is attached to the 20 primary structure which subsequently requires a five-foot side yard 21 setback. The RV sunport was constructed without a valid building permit. 22 Included in your packet this evening are letters supporting and letters 23 protesting the variance request. Here's a site plan. I'll blow it up in a 24 second showing the actual setback infringement. The construction of the 25 RV sunport is located here with an approximate setback of one-foot three- 26 inches from the southern side yard property line. Site photos of the 27 general location. As you notice, here's the actual RV recreational vehicle 28 on site. Here's a front view of the Neptune Drive property and here's the 29 overall height of the RV sunport. What this actually means, the premise of 30 attachment, if you notice in this picture down here, you show that the 31 actual sunport is attached to the primary residence by these beams here. 32 There have also been some additional beams constructed further up on 33 the actual structure. So based upon this, it requires a five-foot side yard 34 setback and since it is a structural portion of the primary residence, the 35 maximum permitted height for the sunport is 35-feet, which is in 36 compliance. Aerial view of the subject property. Staff recommendation for 37 Case 1642 is for denial. Here are the options based on being attached to 38 the primary residence: option number one is to approve the variance 39 request allowing for one-foot three-inch side yard setback; option number 40 two is to approve the request with conditions deemed appropriate; number 41 three is to deny the request. P&Z Commission has final authority 42 regarding the variance request. I'll be glad to stand for any questions this 43 Board may have this evening. 44 45 Scholz: Yes, Commissioner Beard. 46 4 1 Beard: If the structure wasn't attached to the house, would you still have the same 2 setback requirement? 3 4 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Beard, no. What actually transpires if it's 5 assumed to be a detached structure becomes a lot more complicated. 6 You are allowed a three-foot side yard setback but the maximum 7 permitted height for the RV sun port would be the same as the primary 8 residence. There is also information in the Code to require a one-foot 9 separation wall. If the detached structure is less than 10 feet from the 10 primary residence, it requires a fire separation wall as well. 11 12 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 13 14 Evans: Just to make that clear, even if it wasn't attached, there's still quite a few 15 hurdles to overcome, I mean, the three-foot setback, it still would be in 16 compliance. There's no way you would be able to do it unless you went 17 through and got another variance. 18 19 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Evans, if the structure was detached, and 20 that was the interpretation, you'd be looking at a minimum of two 21 variances; one would be for the side yard setback, and the second would 22 be in relation to the overall height of the structure. 23 24 Scholz: Any other questions for Mr. White? Thank you, Mr. White. Is the 25 applicant here? Would you come up and join us please? 26 27 Lazarin: Good evening, Commissioners. 28 29 Scholz: Please state your name. 30 31 Lazarin: My name is Francisco Lazarin. I reside at 3346 Neptune Drive. 32 33 Scholz: And you'll have to talk very close to the microphone. 34 35 Lazarin: Yes, sir. 36 37 Scholz: Thank you. 38 39 Lazarin: The reason I put in for this carport is because my neighbors' trees. I want 40 to protect my investment on my carport, or my trailer, because for seven 41 years I've been putting up with their trees, pine trees. They're all over my 42 side of the house, full of sap and pine needles, and all her trash is all over 43 on my side and I'm trying to protect my investment so when I retire, you 44 know, I have something for the weather and with the neighbor's trees, you 45 know. I'm asking for that variance because if I make it any narrower it 46 doesn't do me any good. I can't park my trailer in there. I invested a lot of 5 1 money in there, you know. I just want to protect my investment that I have 2 there. It's not an eyesore and all that. I built it very sturdy. I didn't know 1 3 needed a permit. You know, you have Codes out there all the time. 1 4 don't know why Codes didn't stop me, you know. The reason my neighbor 5 claims she doesn't want the carport there because it blocks her view. In 6 the first place, there's no view there. It's the side of my house and there 7 are no windows unless she wants to look in my house. The second thing 8 she claims there's so much rain going on our side. There's nothing on her 9 side except for rocks and dirt. I talked to Codes as she was just e-mailing 10 Codes and e-mailing them and they wanted rain gutters. I told them I 11 hadn't finished but I was going to put rain gutters. As soon as I start 12 putting rain gutters my neighbor came over and says, "Well you guys act 13 like it rains so much over here." I don't understand a thing. She knew if 14 she wanted a view she wouldn't be living in the City. She knows why she 15 complained to the Codes about it rains so much and then when I'm going 16 to put rain gutters, she complained to me, why am I putting rain gutters? 1 17 act like it rains so much here in New Mexico. I just don't understand the 18 problem here. I would just like for you people to approve my request here. 19 20 Scholz: Okay, Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Lazarin? 21 22 Lazarin: You can see right there on the wall; how her trees are way over my side 23 and I've had that problem for seven years. You can go on top of my 24 house, it's full of pine needles and pinecones. You know, the sap's all 25 over my house. My landscape's all full of all that trash there and I want to 26 know what can I do about it. You know, if she didn't have those trees 27 there I wouldn't have no problem. I wouldn't have to build nothing there. 28 But since she doesn't trim her trees and has all her trash along my side, 29 you know, I have to do something to protect my investment. That's all 1 30 got to say. 31 32 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Beard? 33 34 Beard: Can I ask the City a question? 35 36 Scholz: Sure. 37 38 Beard: Can he cut the trees that overlap into his yard, square with the property 39 line? 40 41 White: Commissioner Scholz, Commissioner Beard, the answer to that question, 42 if it's actually on his physical property boundary infringing upon his 43 physical property boundary he is able to cut the trees back or prune them 44 to the actual physical property boundary. 45 6 I Scholz: So if the trees are overhanging, he can actually cut them back to his 2 property line. 3 4 White: That is correct. 5 6 Scholz: Okay. So they won't be falling on his property. Well that makes sense. 1 7 thought that was the way trees were, or the ordinance was designed. All 8 right, is there anyone from the public who wants to speak to this matter? 9 10 Bridges: Good evening gentleman. I'm Wynette Bridges and I'm the neighbor to 11 the south. I want to tell you that I did not ask this gentleman why he was 12 putting gutters there because it rains so much, because I knew why. 13 Because you know when it rains in New Mexico, it doesn't drizzle and 14 twice I had a storm falling over on my property. I'm not here because of 15 that. I'm here because of the shed. I'm here because of the trailer. My 16 picture window looks at a trailer. I am living in a trailer park. My picture 17 window looks at a shed that's taller than his house and I'm very unhappy 18 about that. I've been living in this house since it was constructed and not 19 many people on my street can stay that. And prior to this gentleman 20 moving into the house my handyman raked the side yard of that house 21 and made sure he got all of the pinecones. But he's not a very friendly 22 person. Looks the other way whenever I look in his direction, so I didn't 23 feel welcome on his property. I'd like to ask you to deny this and if you for 24 some reason decide to approve it, then I'd like to have my taxes reduced 25 to living in a trailer park. 26 27 Scholz: Any questions for this lady, gentlemen? Thank you. Anyone else from the 28 public who'd like to speak to this issue? Okay, I'm going to close it to 29 public input then. Commissioners, what do you think? 30 31 Shipley: I have a question for Mr. White. 32 33 Scholz: Go ahead, Mr. Shipley. 34 35 Shipley: Part of the code, section 3858, article 6, states in here that 10-foot side ... 36 it says no parking or storage of recreational vehicles and motor vehicle 37 pertinencies shall be located within a 10-foot side property line by 20-feet 38 from the front property line and a clear sight triangle. So this doesn't 39 comply with any of that, does it? 40 41 White: Commissioner Scholz, Commissioner Shipley. The passage you're talking 42 about is pertaining to recreational vehicle parking. We evaluated as Staff 43 a couple of weeks ago in respect to the actual parking diagram, it's 44 actually a 10 by 20 window and also goes into Municipal Code section 45 with respect to clear site triangles. So in technicality there was no 46 provision in the actual zoning code that stipulates that there is a minimum 7 (W� j 1 distance of five or 10-feet from the actual recreational vehicle parking. So 2 it's more of a clear sighe triangle issue than actual location from a side 3 yard property boundary. 4 5 Scholz: Okay. Does that answer you question, Commissioner Shipley? 6 7 Shipley: Clear as mud. 8 9 Scholz: Clear as mud. 10 11 Shipley: I really didn't understand that either. If he were to tear down the shed, the 12 overhang, could he still leave his vehicle there? 13 14 White: Commissioner Scholz, Commissioner Beard, the answer is correct. The 15 real issue with that passageway and how it's read, I read it the first three 16 or four times and had the exact same interpretation that Commissioner 17 Shipley had. The real honesty, what you'll have to do is put into the 18 Parking Standards of the Zoning Code a minimum requirement that all 19 recreational vehicles must be five-feet from the property line and leave it 20 as that. When you intertwine it with the actual issue pertaining to clear 21 sight triangle, it becomes very cloudy. 22 23 Scholz: Commissioners, any other questions? 24 25 Evans: I have a question, Commissioner Scholz. Being that, you know, actually, 26 to be honest with you I have a very similar problem with the neighbors' 27 shrubs and pine trees in the same area that overlap onto my property, and 28 I, you know, have the same problems with a lot of pine needles and 29 pinecones. Whose responsibility is that to trim those trees back if they're 30 on his property, or over his property line? Is it the owner of the properties, 31 or the owner of the trees whose responsibility is it to keep that vegetation 32 on their property line? 33 34 White: Commissioner Scholz, Commissioner Evans, what I do know is that the 35 only responsible party sometime would be if there's shrubbery or trees that 36 are infringing upon, like power lines, EI Paso Electric will come out and 37 prune them. If it's not, then it's a private property rights issue between the 38 parties: party A and party B. So if the trees or shrubs are overhanging on 39 party B, party B has the responsibility, the right, to prune those trees back 40 to the property line, but it doesn't require party A to go over onto, trespass, 41 on property B and trim those trees or prune those shrubs. 42 43 Scholz: Any other questions, Commissioners? Okay, are you ready to vote then? 44 Okay, I'll entertain a motion to approve Case A1652. 45 46 Bustos: I make a motion that we approve Case A1652. 8 1 2 Scholz: Is there a second? 3 4 Evans: I second. 5 6 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded, I'll call the roll. Commissioner 7 Shipley? 8 9 Shipley: May I ask just one question before we vote? 10 11 Scholz: Yes? 12 13 Shipley: We approve this, we're denying and the structure has to come down, as 1 14 understand it. 15 16 Scholz: No, all the cases have to be put in the affirmative and then we can vote 17 yeah or nay. 18 19 Shipley: And I would vote nay for reasons from looking at the structure, I visited the 20 site, and I don't think it's appropriate. 21 22 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Bustos? 23 24 Bustos: No, discussion and findings. 25 26 Scholz: Commissioner Evans? 27 28 Evans: No, discussion and findings. 29 30 Scholz: Commissioner Beard? 31 32 Beard: No, based on discussions and findings. 33 34 Scholz: And the Chair votes no. So it is denied. 35 36 2. Case Z2741: A request for a zone change for the allowance of an 37 overlapping zoning designation of R-4 (Multi-Dwelling High Intensity) and C- 38 3C (Commercial High Intensity-Conditional) for 4.40 ± acres located west of 39 Del Rey Boulevard and north of Mars Road. The current zoning designation 40 of R-4 (Multi-Dwelling High Density) will remain on the property to facilitate 41 the potential construction of apartments, while the C-3C (Commercial High 42 Intensity-Conditional) may facilitate the future construction of mini-storage 43 units. Submitted by DVI for Shared Equity Holdings, LLC. 44 45 Scholz: Okay, our next case is Z2741, a request for a zone change for the 46 allowance of an overlapping zoning designation of R-4 (Multi-Dwelling 9 1 High Intensity) and C-3C (Commercial High Intensity-Conditional) for 4.40 2 acres located west of Del Rey Boulevard and north of Mars Road. The 3 current zoning designation of R-4 (Multi-Dwelling High Density) will remain 4 on the property to facilitate the potential construction of apartments, while 5 the C-3C (Commercial High Intensity-Conditional) may facilitate the future 6 construction of mini-storage units. Submitted by DVI for Shared Equity 7 Holdings, LLC. Mr. White again. 8 9 White: Yes, again for the record, James White, Community Development 10 Department. I won't go ahead and read the blurb again. Subject property 11 is located west of Del Rey Boulevard which is classified as a Principal 12 Arterial roadway. Case synopsis, 4.4 ± acres. Property is currently zoned 13 R-4 which means Multi-Dwelling High Density. By right, apartments are 14 permitted in the range of between 10 to 40 dwelling units per acre. The 15 applicant is requesting for overlapping zoning, subsequently meaning the 16 property will be zoned R-4 and C-3C respectively. C-3C is Commercial 17 High-Intensity. The conditional issue is related to limitation to mini-storage 18 units only. One issue I'd like to allude to is that maximum height in R-4 19 and/or C-3, it's exactly the same at 60-feet. Here's an aerial view in 20 relation to the area, to the west you have this PUD area called Los 21 Contentos, Single-Family Residential component. Subject tract of land 22 this evening is here, which is zoned R-4, Multi-Family High Density. As 23 stipulated earlier, you have that the thoroughfare known as Del Rey 24 Boulevard. It parallels on the eastern property boundary. You had 25 additional R-4 to the east, and you have C-2C to the actual north. MPO 26 Thoroughfare Plan dictating one issue; that since this is a Major 27 Thoroughfare, it requires 120-foot of right-of-way. There may be an issue 28 pertaining to the issuance of the building permitting based upon the actual 29 right-of-way extraction for Del Rey Boulevard. Staff recommendation with 30 respect to this case: number one is for all newly constructed utilities to be 31 placed underground; number two is chain-link fencing adjacent to Del Rey 32 Boulevard would only be permitted in conjunction with mini-storage units. 33 If chain-link fencing is utilized, a broken landscape buffer should be 34 established along the entire property boundary adjacent to Del Rey 35 Boulevard. That's more of a landscaping provision. And number three, the 36 only permissible use allowed from the C-3 zoning designation will be mini- 37 storage units. That concludes Staff presentation. I'll be glad to stand for 38 any questions this Board may have. 39 40 Scholz: Gentleman, questions? Commissioner Shipley. 41 42 Shipley: Mr. White, I asked earlier how many mini-storage units we have in the City 43 and Mr. Banegas told me that there are 26 or 27 storage units there. 1 44 don't have an idea of how many units we have in the City and how much 45 of that's RV or whatever, but we seem to see them everywhere we turn. 10 0 j 1 There are also units already up in that area as I recall off, a little further to 2 the north. Is that correct? 3 4 White: I'll defer that question over to Mr. Banegas. 5 6 Banegas: Vincent Banegas, Community Development, for the record. Mr. 7 Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, the database that was used to compile 8 those numbers was from the business registration database and so those 9 are taking a look at all active licensed businesses and the numbers kind of 10 deviated. We did have some anomalies in there, cold storage as an 11 example, came up and so we had to remove those. But all told the total 12 number of businesses that came up were in the range of 26, 27 separate 13 locations. That number could be further modified. I'm sure there are some 14 other anomalies that go into that but generally speaking, that's what we're 15 looking at. In context to the number of actual physical units within each 16 establishment, that number could not be ascertained in that they don't 17 report that at the business registration level, so we can only look at 18 properties or businesses. 19 20 Shipley: There's no way to go back into ... I mean if you did design review for each 21 of the lots, there's no way to go back and check that? 22 23 Banegas: Unfortunately, Commissioner, the building permit process would probably 24 be the only means by which we could do that and we do not retain a lot of 25 those site plans and/or floor plans beyond the designated retention period. 26 So a lot of those older properties etc., we simply wouldn't be able to get a 27 number from that process. What we could do is ultimately contact the 28 individual businesses and ask, but short of that, it'd be rather difficult. 29 30 Shipley: Thank you. 31 32 Scholz: Mr. White, I did have a question and that was, why keep two kinds of 33 zoning on one piece of property? 34 35 White: Commissioner Scholz, I'm going to defer that question over to the 36 applicant. 37 38 Scholz: Okay. Excuse me, Commissioner Beard, go ahead. 39 40 Beard: I don't know where I missed it, but this is currently zoned as a residential? 41 42 Scholz: R-4. 43 44 Beard: R-4. 45 11 I White: Commissioner Scholz, Commissioner Beard, I think I can answer the 2 question. If the property was not seeking overlapping zoning, if the 3 property was just seeking C-3C zoning, in theory C-3 allows for apartment 4 complexes developed at the R-4 standard. So technically, C-3 would 5 allow for both uses on the property. 6 7 Scholz: Oh, okay. Well, that answers my question. Any other questions then for 8 the Staff? Well, let's hear from the applicant. 9 10 Denton: Commissioners, my name is Drew Denton, I'm with DVI, representing the 11 client here. As James mentioned most everything, this is going to be a 12 short presentation but, as he mentioned, this is a site off of Del Rey. As 13 you can see, pointed out the location. Move on here, this is 4.4 acres that 14 is currently zoned R-4, which is Multi Dwelling High-Density. I'll make time 15 here to try and answer the same question you just posed about why 16 wanting the overlapping zoning. The owner of the property is wanting to 17 retain all rights that fall under the R-4 zoning, but allow the flexibility of 18 also being able to put up mini-storage units on this site. So instead of 19 going to a C-3 zoning which entails a lot more uses that can be done here, 20 and without doing C-3C that only does apartments and mini-storage units, 21 we wanted to retain the flexibility of completely utilizing R-4 as it stands 22 now, but giving him also the flexibility to build mini-storage units in this site 23 which seemed easier to just add a C-3 conditional to only mini-storage 24 units on top of the R-4 that exists on the site. 25 26 Scholz: Were you planning on a residence there as well? Seems to me that when 27 1 read that property description it looked like there would be a residence 28 for the person who operated the mini-storage. 29 30 Denton: That has not been worked out at this time. It would allow for the flexibility 31 to combine the uses but until we know whether a zone change is feasible 32 and passed or not, it takes some time to design that. That will wait until 33 we figure out which direction this goes. 34 35 Scholz: Okay. Questions for the applicant? 36 37 Denton: I have a few more slides here if you don't ... 38 39 Scholz: No, why not. 40 41 Denton: Again, this is the zoning map that James showed. As you can see, it is R- 42 4 around a lot of the property and then C-2C and C-3 on each of the 43 adjacent sides of the property. So I think with the R-4 zoning that we have 44 here currently and the request for a C-3C for only mini-storage units it's 45 not out of character for the surrounding neighborhood and I think it fits in 46 rather nicely with what is currently around there. Again, we're just wanting 12 I to rezone to an R-4/C-3C zoning, keeping the existing R-4 zone and only 2 allowing the mini-storage units that fall under the C-3 zone. Are there any 3 questions? 4 5 Scholz: Mr. Beard. 6 7 Beard: Are there housing right now, on that aerial view? I forgot to look. Are there 8 any housing in the Ben Boldt Place? 9 10 Denton: There are, and go back and show you here. I believe it shows them on 11 the zoning map. I did forget to mention, to say that we did have 12 neighborhood meeting with the residences around there, and had several 13 people show up and the consensus at that neighborhood meeting seemed 14 to be for this zoning change because they would much rather see, or at 15 least allow the opportunity for mini-storage units to come in than 16 apartment units that might get as many as 40 dwelling units per acre on 17 there. I'm trying to go back here so you can see the houses. Currently 18 right here in the Ben Boldt Place you do have houses here. There is 19 construction going on in the PUD zoning down below that. I do not know 20 how many of those have been sold and how many currently have people 21 residing in them. Letters were sent out and a meeting was held open for 22 the complete surrounding neighborhood, and again the consensus was to 23 approve; well, they would like to see an approval of the zoning change to 24 allow this. 25 26 Beard: There's nothing north of that? 27 28 Denton: In this tract of land? 29 30 Beard: Yeah. 31 32 Denton: No. At this time, no. 33 34 Scholz: Any other questions for the applicant? 35 36 Shipley: Mr. Chairman. 37 38 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley. 39 40 Shipley: The Ben Boldt Place is just lots? It hasn't been developed at all? 41 42 Denton: No, the Ben Boldt Place is houses and those were the, from my 43 understanding, the majority of the residents that we met with at the 44 neighborhood meeting. 45 46 Shipley: Did you meet with anybody in the PUD? 13 1 2 Denton: I can't be certain who was from where. We sent out letters to. I believe it 3 was a 500-foot radius around this site and to every address on there. We 4 sent letters out and invited everybody that would like to come to that 5 neighborhood meeting. 6 7 Shipley: When was your meeting held? 8 9 Denton: I do have the slide here. I just forgot to go to it. It was held January 17th. 10 11 Scholz: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. 12 13 Denton: Thank you. 14 15 Scholz: Comments from the public? 16 17 Fleming: Good evening, Commissioner Scholz. Dr. Nick Fleming from Socorro. My 18 apologizes for being late. I drove down. This meeting that we had back 19 on January 17th with Mr. Denton and his colleagues was very informative. 20 We did appreciate the fact that if they were going to be developed, the 21 mini-storage would be the ones that we would rather prefer instead of 22 apartments. We were concerned about the access route that came off of 23 Mars because they had it planned to be on the west exposure of this new 24 development. We asked if it could be closer to the Del Rey side of the 25 new development for mini-storage, keeping it away from the back lots of 26 the existing homes. Otherwise, I had nothing else at this time. 27 28 Scholz: Okay. Questions for this gentleman? Thank you very much. Would you 29 give me your name again? 30 31 Fleming: That's Dr. Nick Fleming, property is on Ben Boldt, 2716. 32 33 Scholz: Thank you very much, Mr. Fleming. 34 35 Fleming: Thank you. 36 37 Scholz: Any one else from the public to comment on this issue? All right, we'll 38 close it to public input then. Commissioners, what is your will? 39 Commissioner Beard. 40 41 Beard: I really don't know. If the neighborhood likes it, I can't really object to it as 42 long as they're meeting all the codes and nobody seems to be objecting to 43 having storage units there. 44 45 Scholz: That's the impression I'm getting. Commissioner Shipley. 46 14 1 Shipley: Mr. Chairman, Mr. White, I have one other question. Are there any 2 restrictions on entryways off of Del Rey since that's a Major Arterial 1 3 believe, as opposed to Mars? 4 5 White: Commissioner Beard, Commissioner Shipley, there are spacing 6 requirements that the Traffic Engineering Department looked upon issuing 7 the building permit. I believe they probably only get one curb cut off of Del 8 Rey. Mars is a Local road so that's a little bit different scenario. But there 9 are spacing requirements in respect as to where the location of the drive 10 pad will be. 11 12 Shipley: Thank you. 13 14 Beard: I have a concern about that corner right there, Mars and Del Rey, because 15 I've driven down here on occasion and I know of two major accidents right 16 there at that corner. If there was access from Del Rey I think that would 17 just compound the problem. I'd really like to see an access from Mars. 18 19 Scholz: Yes, Commissioner Evans. 20 21 Evans: You know that ties in to previous discussions that we've had on the 22 development of Del Rey, bringing it up to a full four-lanes all the way 23 down. Once those improvements have been made, I don't see how or 24 why we would put any more restrictions on this development than we 25 would any other once the improvements have been made and they're 26 within Traffic Engineering codes. 27 28 Scholz: Okay. Any other discussion, Commissioners? Okay, I'll entertain a 29 motion to accept Case Z2741, a request for a zone change for overlapping 30 designation. 31 32 Beard: I'll make a motion to accept case Z2741. 33 34 Bustos: I'll second. 35 36 Beard: With the three recommendations that are attached. 37 38 Scholz: Okay, and you'll have to read the recommendations, Commissioner Beard. 39 40 Beard: All newly constructed utilities will be placed underground. 2) Chain-link 41 fencing adjacent to Del Rey Boulevard will only be permitted in 42 conjunction with mini-storage units. If chain-link fencing is utilized, a 43 broken landscape buffer should be established along the entire property 44 boundary adjacent to Del Rey Boulevard. 3) The only permissible use 45 allowed from C-3 Commercial High Intensity zoning designation will be 46 mini-storage units. 15 1 2 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved, is there a second to that? 3 4 Shipley: Yes, second. 5 6 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner Shipley? 7 8 Shipley: Aye. 9 10 Scholz: And you have to give your reasons. 11 12 Shipley: Based upon site visit, findings. 13 14 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos? 15 16 Bustos: Aye, discussion. 17 18 Scholz: Commissioner Evans? 19 20 Evans: Aye, discussion and findings. 21 22 Scholz: Commissioner Beard? 23 24 Beard: Aye, based on findings and discussions. 25 26 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye, based on findings, discussion, and site visitation. 27 28 VII. NEW BUSINESS 29 30 1. Case A1656: A request for a variance from the minimum 15-foot setback for 31 a commercial sign located adjacent to a thoroughfare. The subject property 32 is located at 1250 EI Paseo Boulevard encompassing 1.54 ± acres zoned C- 33 3 (Commercial High Intensity). The applicant is proposing to construct a new 34 commercial sign with a zero (0) foot setback from EI Paseo Boulevard. 35 Submitted by Goatcher Family Limited. 36 37 Scholz: That brings us to new business and we have two pieces of new business. 38 The first is A1656, a request for a variance from the minimum 15-foot 39 setback for a commercial sign located adjacent to a thoroughfare. This is 40 on EI Paseo regarding the soon to be constructed Walgreen's I assume. 41 Mr. White, you're up a lot tonight. 42 43 White: I sure am. This is the third time this evening. 44 45 Scholz: I'm going to say it's all your show. 46 16 AVIN %d J I White: This'll be the final time as well. The request is for a variance for minimum 2 setback requirement of 15-feet for a commercial pylon sign adjacent to a 3 Designated Thoroughfare. The applicant is requesting a zero-foot front 4 yard setback in relation to EI Paseo. The subject property is zoned C-3, 5 Commercial High Intensity encompassing 1.54 acres, located at 1250 EI 6 Paseo. The vicinity map showing the subject property in question is going 7 to be a drug store and the grading work is actually being done as we 8 speak for this tract located here. Case specifics: located at 1250 EI Paseo 9 Road, 1.54 acres. The requirement is for 15-feet from EI Paseo and the 10 maximum height for the sign will be the same as the primary structure. 11 What I submitted here is an appendix, one of the actual Sign Code, the 12 City of Las Cruces Sign Code. EI Paseo is classified as a Principal 13 Arterial. If you notice this yellow area here, it stipulates for the property 14 zoned C-3, maximum height for signage is the same as the building 15 height. The second table here, minimum setback by street, it requires that 16 any sign adjacent to a Principal Arterial is required to be 15-feet from the 17 property line and five-feet from the side property line. In respect to the site 18 plans submitted this evening, the proposed location for the actual 19 commercial sign is right here. If you actually blow it up, it does actually 20 have a five-foot side yard setback but does not conform to the 15-foot 21 setback from EI Paseo. This is actually a pretty interesting photo because 22 it actually shows all the signage up and down EI Paseo Road. If you 23 notice, most of the signage actually conforms to the 15-foot requirement, 24 such as the Bradley sign, the Wendy's sign across the street, the Style 25 America, and also the existing Walgreen's sign located back here in the 26 horizon. Just a general rule of thumb; we're actually looking at the actual 27 location since, if this is the actual property line, this would also identify the 28 location of where the sign would be in relation to the other signs on EI 29 Paseo. We'd be looking somewhere here in relation to this chain-link 30 fence, going up. Staff recommendation based upon a zero-foot setback 31 from EI Paseo Road: you have the option of approving the variance 32 request, allowing for a zero-foot setback from EI Paseo. You have the 33 option of approving the request with conditions as deemed appropriate, or 34 deny the request. Staff recommendation in respect to this case is for 35 denial of the subject sign code variance. P&Z Commission has final 36 authority regarding this variance request. I'd be glad to stand for any 37 question or comments this Board may have this evening. 38 39 Scholz: Are there questions for Mr. White from the Commissioners? Okay, may 40 we hear from the applicant please? 41 42 Stern: Jonathan Stern. I'm with George Rainhart Architects in Albuquerque. 43 Walgreen's has asked us to pursue this variance because they consider 44 the setback requirement to make it more difficult to see their sign. People 45 traveling are trying to find the store. But I understand the points that the 46 planner brought up. I just want to offer a few more comments here that 17 1 may or may not influence your decision. The sign as proposed has a 2 read-a-board and it can be conditioned, or you can condition it, to tie it into 3 the Amber Alert System, or as additional to that, it can be offered for 4 community announcements. So there's a potential that this variance 5 actually would assist the City in meeting its goals. That's all I have to say. 6 7 Scholz: Okay, questions for the applicant? Commissioner Beard. 8 9 Beard: Is this replacing the one just down the street? 10 11 Stern: Replacing the Walgreen's store? 12 13 Beard: Yes. 14 15 Stern: Yes, it is. 16 17 Beard: What's the setback on that sign there? 18 19 Stern: I'm not aware of that, actually, and that photo, that's a great analysis. I'm 20 not sure if that's consistent with the signage across the street, seems to be 21 quite a variety of setbacks on the other side of the street. Again, that's 22 neither here nor there. I think the issue is whether or not this is a detriment 23 to the sign's visibility for people trying to locate the store because it is kind 24 of a traveler's destination to find it for people needing pharmaceuticals. 25 Again, there's a possibility that it could be conditioned to have an Amber 26 Alert System on it and community announcements that's desired. 27 28 Scholz: Other questions? Okay, input from the public? Thank you, Mr. Stern. 29 Anyone from the public to speak to this issue? All right, we'll close it to 30 public discission. Commissioners, what is your will? 31 32 Bustos: I have something to say. 33 34 Scholz: Yes, Commissioner Bustos. 35 36 Bustos: I think we had a similar case like this, I don't even know how long ago it 37 was. I think it was Furr's Cafeteria. 38 39 Scholz: Yes, that was probably about a year and three months ago. 40 41 Bustos: Yeah. And I think that we kind of decreed on that with Furr's that I think 42 most people didn't need a sign to know where Furr's was and I'm going to 43 side with that on Walgreen's. I think that that Walgreen's store has been 44 there for quite a while and by moving it over a block, half a block, 45 whatever, I don't think a sign's going to either give it more exposure or 18 1 less exposure. I think people know that Walgreen's is there already and 2 it's moving. I probably really don't see a need for a variance. 3 4 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Beard. 5 6 Beard: I think that because everybody else seems to be in compliance with the 7 Code that I don't think that we should be giving out variances. It'll just 8 allow the other people that come in and say, "Well I want to put up a new 9 sign and I want that zero setback also." The Code's there for a reason 10 and I like the idea of an Amber Alert and whatever, but I don't really see 11 that there's justification to have that zero setback. 12 13 Scholz: Okay, thank you Commissioner. Commissioner Shipley. 14 15 Shipley: Mr. Chairmain, I would also say that I do not favor zero setback. I think 16 that the sign, I think it's wonderful that you've volunteered to use that for 17 public purposes and that's well and good, but we really need to look at the 18 neighborhood and how it's going to affect the neighborhood overall. I think 19 a deviation says that we're going to be open to all kinds of precedent 20 setting and we don't want to really ... I don't think that's a good idea. 21 22 Scholz: Okay, thank you. Anything else, Commissioners? You ready for a vote 23 then? I'll entertain a motion to accept A1656, a request for a variance for 24 the minimum setback requirement for a commercial pylon sign. 25 26 Bustos: I make a motion that we approve case A1656. 27 28 Scholz: Is there a second? 29 30 Evans: I second. 31 32 Scholz: Mr. Evans has seconded. Okay, I'll call the roll. Commissioner Shipley? 33 34 Shipley: I vote for denial. 35 36 Scholz: And your reasons? 37 38 Shipley: On the site visit and also the proceedings and the discussion. 39 40 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos? 41 42 Bustos: No, findings and discussion. 43 44 Scholz: Commissioner Evans? 45 46 Evans: No, findings and discussion. 19 1 2 Scholz: Commissioner Beard? 3 4 Beard: No, based on findings and discussions and site visit. 5 6 Scholz: And the Chair votes no, based on findings and discussion. Thank you 7 gentlemen. 8 9 2. Case S-07-112: A request for a final plat approval for a commercial 10 development known as Valley & Hoagland Business Park. The subject 11 property comprises 4.72 ± acres, proposes four commercial lots, and is 12 zoned C-3 (Commercial High Intensity). The subject property is located 13 south of Hoagland Road and east of Valley Drive. Submitted by Ideals, Inc., 14 for Eddie Binns. 15 16 Scholz: Okay, our last new business is Case S-07-112, a request for a final plat 17 approval for a commercial development known as Valley & Hoagland 18 Business Park. And we have a new face. Ms. Rodriguez. 19 20 Rodriguez: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. 21 22 Scholz: Actually, it's your original face, I assume. 23 24 Rodriguez: Yes. 25 26 Scholz: Okay. 27 28 Rodriguez: The last item before you this evening is a request for final plat approval for 29 a commercial development known as the Valley and Hoagland Business 30 Park. The property is located just east of Valley and south of Hoagland. 31 Valley Drive is identified on the MPO Thoroughfare Plan as a Principal 32 Arterial and Hoagland is identified on the Thoroughfare Plan as a 33 Collector, but also identified in the Transportation Plan as a Collector 34 having constrained right-of-way. The parcel size is approximately 4.7 35 acres. This map is showing three parcels but it is truly one parcel. They 36 have parceled it out for tax purposes. You have one parcel proposing four 37 commercial lots. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council 38 recently entertained a zone change for this property a few months ago. It 39 is zoned C-3, Commercial High Intensity with conditions attached to it, 40 none of which are subject for final plat. The issue at hand this evening is 41 you are having a parcel of land that is being subdivided. Through the 42 subdivision process you're required to comply with the City's Design 43 Standards for both dedication of right-of-way and road improvements. In 44 this case, the City of Las Cruces, in working with the New Mexico 45 Department of Transportation has identified Valley Drive as a capital 46 improvement project for improving widening Valley Drive. So the issue of 20 I road improvements to Valley Drive or Hoagland are not germane to this 2 topic this evening. But what is at hand, and part of this final plat, is the 3 dedication of right-of-way. Typically, when you have the dedication of the 4 right-of-way for a Principal Arterial it requires 120-feet of right-of-way, and 5 on Valley Drive the existing right-of-way varies up and down Valley Drive. 6 In working with the Public Works Department, the Public Works 7 Department has identified that there is a variation of right-of-way that will 8 be needed, but the right-of-way that is needed for this subdivision 9 proposal tonight is not in context with what is typically required with an 10 Arterial. It's of a lesser standard. At the northern portion of the property, 11 you're going to see a need for a greater right-of-way and it will diminish as 12 you head to the southern portion. I'm going to go ahead and show you the 13 final plat of what is being proposed. You have Hoagland Road here 14 identified at the top of the screen with Valley Drive. They're proposing to 15 subdivide this parcel into four lots: lot one, two, three, and four. You have 16 existing businesses on lots one and two, and lot three and four are 17 currently vacant. Here on the plat, what is required is you have an 18 existing 10-foot EI Paso Electric easement, but you need additional right- 19 of-way for Valley Drive. Located here at the northern top of the proposed 20 site, you need a maximum of 13-feet of right-of-way and that will diminish 21 as you head to the southern boundary of the plat where you'll need a 22 minimum of five-feet. That is what the Public Works Department has 23 identified as needing for additional right-of-way for the capital 24 improvement project. And because you are subdividing the property, this 25 is when we secure dedication of right-of-way. This is an aerial of the 26 property, photo of the property. The DRC recommendation is denial. The 27 DRC did review this and we did notify the applicant during the review 28 process of the subdivision proposal that right-of-way is needed and is 29 required, and that it is of a lesser standard than what would be typically 30 required for a Principal Arterial. However, the applicant has chosen not to 31 comply with the Design Standards and has informed Staff that they will not 32 provide the required right-of-way. Therefore, when we took this case to 33 DRC, we looked at several options: either taking this plat forward as is 34 with no dedication and denying or seeking a waiver request and it was 35 best just to take the plat as currently presented. So consequently, the 36 DRC has recommended denial and the purpose of the denial is because 37 the plat does not comply with Article 2, the Standards for Public Rights-of- 38 Way of the City Design Standards, where developing real parcels of land 39 shall include the minimum 50% of the necessary additional right-of-way; 40 and in this case it's of a lesser standard where Public Works has identified 41 that range of 13-feet to five-feet. So presented before you is a 42 recommendation of denial of the final plat. The applicant is here to 43 answer any questions that the Commission may have and I would be 44 happy to answer any questions that the Commissioners may have as well. 45 That concludes my presentation. 46 21 1 Scholz: Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez. Commissioners, questions for her? 2 Commissioner Shipley, go ahead. 3 4 Shipley: Mr. Chairman. The car wash that's in the center, how is that affected as 5 well and have they been contacted? 6 7 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, are you referring to where my 8 pointer is: this property? 9 10 Shipley: Yes. 11 12 Rodriguez: This property is not part of the surrounding property. It is a separate piece 13 of property and because they are not subdividing the parcel of land, 14 typically what you would see then through the widening project with 15 NMDOT and the City of Las Cruces; if additional right-of-way is needed on 16 this parcel of land then the NMDOT or City of Las Cruces, whatever 17 venue, would purchase that right-of-way because they are not a 18 developing piece of property going through the subdivision process. 19 20 Scholz: So what you're saying is the subdivision process is triggering this? 21 22 Rodriguez: Subdivision process triggers the dedication of appropriate right-of-way as 23 you would see typically in all plats regardless of the final plat, and that is 24 set forth with what you typically see as a preliminary plat. We start that 25 framework and process that. We've identified a road. W e need the 26 dedication of right-of-way and then we secure that with a final plat. 27 28 Shipley: Thank you. 29 30 Scholz: Yes, Commissioner Beard. 31 32 Beard: All roads are owned by the City, right? 33 34 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, not necessarily. This is a road that is 35 owned by NMDOT. 36 37 Scholz: A state road. 38 39 Beard: Okay. When the requirement for the ... what is it, 120-foot, was 40 established, was he an owner prior to that being established or did he get 41 grandfathered in to a new requirement? 42 43 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, the owner of the property, I'm not 44 sure how long he's been an owner of the property, the fact is that he's 45 developing this property today and, therefore, must comply with today's 46 Codes and requirements. 22 1 2 Scholz: Other questions? Okay, may we hear from the applicant? Mr. Binns, 3 you're on. 4 5 Binns: Commissioners, good evening. My name is Eddie Binns, for your record. 6 Cheryl did a good job of identifying what the procedure is, what the 7 situation is, but I was hoping that maybe a little more common sense 8 might prevail rather than hard and tried rules and regulations. With me 9 here is a copy of the road improvement proposals from the Highway 10 Department to be built from Picacho to the north City limits. In this is 11 identified the right-of-way that the Highway Department needs to acquire 12 to accomplish this. It was scheduled for construction this year but 13 because of funding it has gotten moved to another year later. When 1 14 originally started this I assumed that the right-of-way acquisitions would be 15 complete by this time and we would not be having this discussion. How 16 do I get my map back? Sometimes if I point to something, it helps me 17 explain. The Highway Department owns Valley Drive. The Highway 18 Department would be building Valley Drive. The City identifies the real 19 estate to be acquired and turns those over to the Highway Department for 20 acquisition purposes so that the City does not negotiate with the property 21 owners for the acquisition of the land. They identify the needs. They 22 identify the ownership. But the actual Highway Department does the 23 negotiation and the acquisition. This particular situation, I have a tenant 24 who is operating the little daycare center back here in the back end. They 25 are tired of paying me rent and would like to acquire the property. We 26 negotiated a number and says, "Well, let's see if we can figure out how to 27 separate that little piece from the total so that I can sell it to her." 1 28 assumed, incorrectly, that once the zoning was there I could do a 29 summary plat so I could take that one little piece off of the total. But to do 30 that, I've got to master plan the whole thing. Then once I've got it master 31 planned, then I can do a summary plat and do a separation the way the 32 regulations are currently interpreted. Unfortunately, they were supposed 33 to simplify some of these things when we did them four or five years ago 34 but they didn't accomplish that, in my opinion. Anyway, I'm in a situation. 1 35 was trying to separate the little piece of land for the daycare so that I could 36 enter into a contract with the people and sell it to them. But in the 37 process, I've got to master plan the whole thing. If I master plan the whole 38 thing then it's identified I need to give about $50,000 worth of real estate 39 away to accomplish this and that's not the smartest way to do business as 40 the people buying it don't want to pay a premium because I've got to give 41 away land to accomplish this. So we come back to the situation where 1 42 say, "Sorry, you've got to keep paying me rent." Once the Highway 43 Department acquires the land and the City's off my back I don't have to 44 give anything away. We can go ahead and continue our transaction. But 45 that's a long process and who knows how long people live and such. 46 From the standpoint of ownership of this land, this was part of the Gillmore 23 0 j 1 Estate which I acquired about 40 or 50 years ago when I did the Camelot 2 Gardens subdivision. This is part of the residue of that, the last pieces of 3 it. We've owned the land for a long time and if the road needs widening, 4 why I figured I was grandfathered in. I've been sitting there for a long 5 time. On Hoagland Road when we did the Camelot Gardens I did not only 6 dedicate it, open it up, pave it and pay for it from Valley Drive all the way 7 to the railroad, 100%. So that we did a favor to the City at that point in 8 time because the high school was totally bottlenecked at that early stage 9 and Hoagland Road served a good purpose as a result of that. But I'm 10 caught in a dilemma now and I was hoping I could have some more 11 reasonable approaches to look at what I'm up against. I certainly 12 recognize the Staffs position that they've got a letter of the law that they 13 feel they've got to adhere to. But I was hoping some horse sense might 14 prevail and people could see that even though it says I'm trying to 15 separate one little piece; why I've got to do a lot of other things which is 16 kind of ridiculous, but that's kind of the way that things fall. You can 17 understand my predicament. You can understand what I'm trying to 18 accomplish. You can understand why I'm trying to take this approach and 19 request you evaluate it and look at it, let me move forward without a 20 dedication because you can betcha there's no one up and down Valley 21 Drive that's fixing to give the Highway Department their front 13-feet of 22 their property from one end to the other. They're going to wait until it's 23 negotiated and it's acquired. If that's what I have to do here, that's maybe 24 what I'll have to do. I don't know, but I was hoping that we had other tools 25 that could accomplish it. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to cry on 26 your shoulder a little more. 27 28 Scholz: Questions for Mr. Binns, Commissioners? I have one, the property you're 29 talking about selling, is not on Valley Drive though? 30 31 Binns: That is correct. 32 33 Scholz: It's on Hoagland Road. 34 35 Binns: It's on Hoagland. This property here. 36 37 Scholz: So that property wouldn't be affected by a setback or a dedication. 38 39 Binns: That is correct. 40 41 Scholz: Okay. Yes, Commissioner Beard. 42 43 Beard: I guess this is towards the Staff, but if he gives you the land, is whoever 44 owns that road, are they going to widen the road right now, or are we 45 going to wait four or five years? 46 24 %0011 J I Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, it is my understanding that the City of 2 Las Cruces is currently working with NMDOT on a widening project for 3 Valley Drive, and it's my understanding that ... excuse me ... and it's my 4 understanding that upon the completion of that then the City will take over 5 the further maintenance of Valley Drive. Currently it is a state owned 6 road. Upon the completion of the improvement project, it is my 7 understanding and I hope I'm not misspeaking on behalf of Public Works 8 Department, but that it will become a City-maintained road after that. But 9 right now it's a joint venture and that project is eminent. 10 11 Beard: Oh, it's eminent. 12 13 Scholz: All right, other questions? 14 15 Beard: It's eminent that they're going to widen it? 16 17 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, that is correct. 18 19 Scholz: Other questions for Mr. Binns? 20 21 Evans: Yes, I have a question. Just to make sure I get this right, if you subdivide it 22 then you'll be subject to donating the easement to that effort. If you don't 23 subdivide, it then eventually they'll come in and purchase that property 24 from you and then of course you'd be able to subdivide it and then sell it. 25 But it's a matter of either giving it to the Highway Department or waiting 26 until they develop it and then selling it. 27 28 Binns: This is my understanding. 29 30 Evans: Right. Okay. 31 32 Binns: The interpretation at this point by the City Staff is that if I want to separate 33 that lot out I'm required to dedicate, deed, that land that's needed. If 34 everything just sets still and this project moves forward within the next six 35 to eight months, the Highway Department will be in to negotiate the 36 acquisition of this land, write me a check, I can come back and see you 37 gentlemen, and say, "Okay, now I want to file a plat." That's kind of a 38 round about way and a long way to get there, but that's maybe what has to 39 take place. I don't know. I was hoping that we had ways to circumvent it. 40 41 Scholz: Okay. 42 43 Evans: That is a difficult dilemma. 44 45 Scholz: Thank you, Mr. Binns. Mr. Beard, go ahead. Jump in, Commissioner. 46 25 I Beard: So what we're being asked to do is to allow him to sell that piece of 2 property without donating the land? 3 4 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, what is presented before you is a 5 request to subdivide the parcel; to go from one parcel of land to four lots. 6 As part of the City Codes he is required to dedicate right-of-way, 7 regardless of whether or not that this a NMDOT/City of Las Cruces capital 8 improvement project. You still have the requirement of dedication of right- 9 of-way. In this case, because it is a capital improvement project, there is a 10 lesser standard of the amount of right-of-way that is needed. Typically, if 11 this was not a capital improvement project and this was as typical as it is 12 subdivision, he would have to dedicate a greater standard of right-of-way. 13 But the City of Las Cruces and NMDOT have recognized that there is a 14 variation of width. They are trying to regulate that width on Valley Drive so 15 it would be a constant width instead of a variation and get the appropriate 16 pavement improvements in there. In this case, that's why you see the 17 variation at a lesser standard. But typically, if this was not a capital 18 improvement project, we would be asking not only for the dedication of 19 right-of-way but for your pro-rata share of road improvements to a 20 Principal Arterial along the western property boundary. So right now, what 21 we're asking the applicant to do is comply with the Code, but at a lesser 22 standard. 23 24 Scholz: Okay, any other questions for the applicant? Anyone from the public who 25 wants to speak to this? 26 27 Carbajal: Good afternoon. My name is Raul Carbajal. 28 29 Scholz: Okay, speak directly to the microphone, please, sir. 30 31 Carbajal: My name is Raul Carbajal. I live on Valley Drive across the car wash. 32 Actually, my wife and I live right here where the pointer's at. We came to 33 this meeting to hear what he was actually going to do. Now we know it's 34 about the right-of-way issues and the improvements there. I'm all for the 35 improvements. I really am. Especially in that area. Especially for the high 36 school that's there, and then the fields that you guys have. Believe me, 37 we live there. We get frustrated with traffic and everything else. It is a 38 needed widening situation that needs to be there; turning lanes to make 39 safe for high school students and everything else. I don't see any problem 40 with him trying to subdivide that differently. There's not a problem. As we 41 understood just now, that the car wash is not, but does he own the storage 42 units that are back there? Well, I don't know if you've all been there to see 43 that area. The storage units aren't a very pretty sight. I'm trying to 44 upgrade my home. It is an older model home. It is from the 50's and stuff, 45 and we are trying to upgrade to get it to look nice for the area. But seeing 46 the storage units and everything else, I don't see why ... I understand the 26 I price of land and the price of money and everything else, not to give away, 2 not be taken away. I'm more than sure he can come within an 3 arrangement as far as Mr. Binns concerned. I've lived here all my life. 4 I've seen what he's developed. I work construction so I've done some of 5 his developments with the contractors. I am all for the widening. I think 6 the people that all live around there, I think we're all for it, especially for 7 the improvements. They are really needed. They really are. 8 9 Scholz: Thank you. Any questions for this gentleman? Thank you very much. 10 Okay, anyone else from the public want to speak to this issue? All right, 11 we're going to close it to public discussion. Oh, you want to ask Mr. Binns 12 a question. Yes, go ahead, Mr. Beard. 13 14 Beard: Mr. Binns, just because, if we allow you to subdivide, you're not planning 15 on doing anything right now, are you? 16 17 Binns: My name is Eddie Binns. The purpose of this is for the disposal of the 18 separation of the property for the daycare. There are no improvements. 19 There are no plans in there. At this time we are concentrating our 20 development efforts and investments into other portions of town. 21 22 Beard: Okay. 23 24 Scholz: And now we have another public who'd like to speak. 25 26 Carbajal: Hi. I'm Nudiana Carbajal. I live with my husband. In reference to ... yes, 27 we want the widening. We need that road improved. But I would still like 28 to see that area cleaned up. It's a very big eyesore and this picture is old 29 because those trailers are gone but there's a lot more cars just sitting 30 there. They have dogs tied to them. You know there are people living in 31 those storage units. So, you know we need to get that fixed as well. No 32 surprises. I don't want a McDonald's across the street. Thank you. 33 34 Scholz: Thank you. Okay, now we are closing it to public input. Commissioners? 35 36 Beard: That's a hard one. 37 38 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley. 39 40 Shipley: If I can ask the Staff: there's nothing to preclude Mr. Binns from signing a 41 contract with his tenant with a rent to buy option in it so that once this is all 42 done he could, and after the land is acquired, that then he could complete 43 this process and sell that piece at some time in the future and all rents 44 could be applied to that? I'm asking the Staff because that's not a 45 question for Mr. Binns. I'm saying in a business sense that seems the 46 logical approach that solves his problem and yet allows this to go forward 27 C J I the way it is. But as I see it right now I guess my thinking out loud is that if 2 he's going to subdivide right now, he's going to have to play by the rules of 3 the game. That's what the rules are and that's the way it ought to be. 4 We're not here to change the rules. We're here basically to try, I mean 1 5 understand what common sense is and I try to use common sense, but 1 6 also understand that every time you start bending a rule around, then you 7 end up, you have no rule whatsoever, and there must be some logical way 8 you can go to find out what exactly you have to do and then do what 9 you're supposed to do. It's kind of like if you're a pilot, you file a flight 10 plan. You fly it or you crash and that's not the outcome you're looking for. 11 So I guess my question was not really a question. It's just, is that an option 12 that's available? 13 14 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, if I understand your question and 15 comment correctly, it's under a long-term lease right now, I'm assuming. 1 16 can't speak for the business practice that Mr. Binns has applied here, but 17 I'm going to assume it's under a long-term lease and he could continue it 18 as a long-term lease pending the conclusion of right-of-way acquisition 19 through the means of either NMDOT or City of Las Cruces using whatever 20 appropriated funds are set aside for that. He could do that and then come 21 back with a plat and therefore there would be no dedication requirement 22 because it's been already acquired. But, depending on what his business 23 plans are right now, he could subdivide the property and regardless of 24 whether or not the capital improvement project was on the books for this 25 area right now, he can comply with the standards and dedicate right-of- 26 way. In this case, it's a lesser standard at this time. Whereas, if this 27 wasn't a capital improvement project, a greater standard would be being 28 applied, dedication and road improvements. 29 30 Scholz: So, what is your will, Commissioners? Commissioner Evans. 31 32 Evans: I think I've heard enough. 33 34 Scholz: You ready for a vote? All right. I'll entertain a motion to accept Case S- 35 07-112, request for final plat approval for a commercial development 36 known as Valley and Hoagland Business Park. 37 38 Bustos: I make a motion we approve Case S-07-112. 39 40 Scholz: Is there a second? 41 42 Shipley: I'll second. 43 44 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner 45 Shipley? 46 28 I Shipley: I want to be sure, this is recommending ... 2 3 Beard: I'm a little confused, too. If we vote yes for this, we denying it. 4 5 Scholz: No, if we vote no for this, we're denying it. If we vote yes for this we're 6 supporting it. In other words, we're supporting the variance. In other 7 words, Mr. Binns is asking for a variance. If we vote yes, we have given 8 him the variance. If we vote no, we're denying him the variance. 9 10 Shipley: I just want to be positive. 11 12 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. If you vote in the affirmative, you're 13 approving a final plat as presented before you and that is a final plat 14 presented without dedication of right-of-way. 15 16 Scholz: Right. Okay. Again, Commissioner Shipley. 17 18 Shipley: I vote nay, for site visit and discussion and the findings. 19 20 Scholz: Thank you. Commissioner Bustos? 21 22 Bustos: No, discussion, site visit, and findings. 23 24 Scholz: Commissioner Evans? 25 26 Evans: No, findings and discussion. 27 28 Scholz: Commissioner Beard? 29 30 Beard: No, based on findings and discussions. 31 32 Scholz: And the Chair votes no based on findings, discussion, and site visitation. 33 That concludes our new business. 34 35 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS 36 37 Scholz: Do we have other business before the Commission tonight? 38 39 Rodriguez: No sir. 40 41 IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 42 43 Scholz: Is there any additional public participation? Hearing none. 44 45 X. STAFF COMMENT 46 29 I Scholz: Staff, would you care to comment? Mr. Banegas. 2 3 Banegas: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Jared Abrams also has something to 4 share with you. But what I wanted to share with you and with others who 5 might be viewing this meeting is to remind the public of the upcoming 6 public meetings regarding the Vision 2040 process. 7 8 Scholz: Oh, good. 9 10 Banegas: I thought it might be a good time to do that. There are a series of 11 meetings that will be heard in the first week of March. In fact, Monday, 12 Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of that week will be virtually filled 13 with meetings. There are two scheduled evening meetings on Monday, 14 Tuesday, and Thursday, with one afternoon meeting on Wednesday. If 15 folks out there are interested, if they go to the http:\\vision2040nmsu.edu 16 that site will give them the latest and greatest information on all those 17 venues, addresses, purpose, all that good stuff. So I just wanted to share 18 that with you. What Staff envisions doing with you all here, with the 19 Commission, is giving you updates on processes that we've undertaken at 20 this juncture throughout the process to kind of apprise you on issues that 21 we're seeing, issues that we're hearing about, and just keeping you 22 apprised. So I just wanted to convey that to you at this point. 23 24 Scholz: Thank you, Mr. Banegas. I'm glad you mentioned that. Those meetings 25 are very important. We had one a couple of weeks ago with Mr. Schuster 26 and you were also there as I recall, and I thought it was a good thing. 27 Some good ideas out there. Anything else, any other business? 28 29 Abrams: Jared Abrams, City Legal. I don't speak very much. 30 31 Scholz: You don't. No, you just kind of sit there and look, you know, like you're 32 soaking this all in. 33 34 Abrams: I figure if I speak, it'll only encourage you folks to ask me questions. 35 36 Scholz: Hadn't thought of that, yes. So you're going to risk it tonight. 37 38 Abrams: Yeah, I just wanted to be on TV. 39 40 Scholz: Well, I can understand, we all have that urge. 41 42 Abrams: My hair look okay? 43 44 Scholz: Yeah, you'll have your 15 minutes of fame now. 45 30 I Abrams: On the variances: I just wanted to point out that I think you're making the 2 right decisions, but sometimes not for the best of reasons. Every time the 3 variances come up I hear talk of fear of setting a precedent. I just wanted 4 to point out that essentially a variance is an applicant saying, "The law 5 shouldn't apply to me because of special circumstances." So, your 6 decision shouldn't have a precedent value. You shouldn't consider what 7 you've done in the past, nor should you worry about what will happen in 8 the future. So, for example, if somebody says, "My sign is a special sign, 9 it should be closer to the road." You don't have to worry that if you 10 approve it that his neighbor will say, "Wait a minute, I have a special sign 11 too," because each applicant has his own special circumstances you have 12 to consider. So, it's not a case where you should worry about future nor 13 look at the past. I just want to make sure that's clear. 14 15 Scholz: Thank you. I appreciate that thought. I'm recalling a sign issue we had 16 with I think it was the Hampton Inn. They wanted to locate a sign behind 17 their building on the Interstate; 1-25 was it, or 1-10. 1-10. And the code 18 wouldn't allow it because they were on what was a side street, even 19 though the sign was going to be in back. I believe we, no, we didn't 20 approve it. I can't remember now. 21 22 Evans: We deferred that to City Council, who approved it ultimately. 23 24 Scholz: So, yeah, I can understand that and I appreciate your telling us about the 25 variance. So we're not doing legal precedence here in effect. 26 27 Abrams: Right, which means you don't have to worry about what you do today will 28 affect what you do in the future because it shouldn't. 29 30 Scholz: Okay. 31 32 Abrams: In other words, another applicant will have a sign and his sign is 33 theoretically completely different even though he's asking for the same 34 thing. 35 36 Scholz: Okay. Thank you very much. 37 38 Abrams: Thank you. 39 40 XI. ADJOURNMENT 41 42 Scholz: Seeing no additional business, I'm going to say that we are adjourned at 43 7:35. 44 45 46 31 2 3 Chairperson 4 32