Loading...
05-27-2008 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA The following agenda will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Las Cruces, New Mexico, at a public hearing held on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 beginning at 6:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 200 North Church Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. The City of Las Cruces does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, color, ancestry, serious medical condition, national origin, age, or disability in the provision of services. The City of Las Cruces will make reasonable accommodation for a qualified individual who wishes to attend this meeting. Please notify the City Community Development Department at least 48 hours before the meeting by calling 528-3043 (voice) or 528-3016 (TTY) if accommodation is necessary. This document can be made available in alternative formats by calling the same numbers list above. I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —April 22, 2008 III. POSTPONEMENTS IV. WITHDRAWALS V. CONSENT AGENDA "Those items on the consent agenda will be voted by one motion with the acceptance of the agenda. Any Planning and Zoning Commissioner, Staff, or member of the public may remove an item from the consent agenda for discussion by the commission. 1. Case Z2752: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 8.763 +/- acres located at 4200 Bataan Memorial East. Submitted by Scanlon White, Inc for Coronado Holding II. 2. Case Z2753: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 1.627 +/- acres located at 900 Telshor Boulevard. Submitted by Scanlon White, Inc TLC Real Estate. 0 VI. OLD BUSINESS 1. Case S-08-006: A request for final plat approval for a replat known as Payan Replat No. 1. The subject property contains 4.20 ± acres. The final plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for Payan Drive and replat 3 single-family residential lots. The subject property is zoned R-1 aM (Single-Family Residential Mobile). Submitted by the City of Las Cruces. VII. NEW BUSINESS 1. Case A1662: A request for a variance from the required twenty (20) foot rear yard setback for the construction of a porch ten (10) feet from the rear yard property line. The subject property is located at 2929 San Lorenzo Court zoned R-1 a (Single-Family Medium Density). Submitted by Roy A. Soriano, property owner. 2. IDP 33: A request for an infill development proposal (IDPPZ) for three distinct lots located at the northeastern intersection of Wendale and Cottonwood Street. The subject properties are zoned R-1a (Single-Family Medium Density) encompassing 0.284 +/- acres. The R-1 a (Single-Family Medium Density) zoning designation allows for a maximum of one single-family dwelling per platted parcel. The applicant is requesting to construct three apartments after replatting the properties into a single parcel of land. The apartments will follow the development criteria for the R-2 (Multi- Dwelling Low Density) zoning district. Submitted by Baldemar & Socorro Parra, property owners. 3. IDP 34: A request for an infill development proposal (IDPPZ) for three distinct properties located at 630 S. Espanola Street. The subject properties are currently zoned C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) encompassing 0.20 +/- acres. The C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) zoning designation requires a minimum of ten (10) dwelling units per acre. Based on the properties combined size of 0.20 +/- acres a minimum of two (2) dwelling units would be required to be constructed on the properties. The applicant is requesting for the construction of one single-family residence adhering to the development criteria for the R-1a (Single-Family Medium Density) zoning designation. Submitted by Adan Sanchez, property owner. 4. Case S-08-033: A request annexation plat approval of 10.153 ± acres of land into the Corporate Limits of the City of Las Cruces, otherwise known as Las Cruces Center, generally located within Section 29, Township 23 South, Range 2 East, NMPM of the USRS Surveys part of USRS Tract 11 D-54, within the lands of New Mexico State University, located south of Las Cruces, Dona Ana County, New Mexico. The subject property is located south of University Avenue, west of Union Avenue, north of College Avenue, and east of the Las Cruces Lateral. The property is currently within the lands of New Mexico State University. Submitted by The Regents of New Mexico State University. 5. Case No. PA-08-02: A request to amend the University Avenue Corridor Plan to add areas six (6) and seven (7) to the University Avenue Corridor, to allow for and govern the development of the Las Cruces Center and NMSU full service hotel. Submitted by the City of Las Cruces, Community Development Department. 6. Case No. ZCA-08-02: A request to amend Chapter 38, Section 38-44 of the Municipal Code, to add area six (6) and seven (7) to the University Avenue Corridor, to allow for and govern the development of the Las Cruces Center (6) and the NMSU Hotel (7). Submitted by the City of Las Cruces, Community Development Department. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION X. STAFF COMMENT XI. ADJOURNMENT 1 MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 FOR THE 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 City Council Chambers 5 May 27, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. 6 7 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 8 Charles Scholz, Chairman 9 Shawn Evans, Vice Chair 10 Donald Bustos, Secretary 11 Charles Beard, Member 12 Ray Shipley, Member 13 Godfrey Crane, Member 14 15 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 16 17 STAFF PRESENT: 18 Cheryl Rodriguez, Development Services Administrator 19 James White, Planner 20 Helen Revels, Associate Planner 21 Gary Hembree, Planner 22 Tom Schuster, Senior Planner 23 Susan Lowell, Planner 24 Harry (Pete) Connelly, Deputy City Attorney 25 Lt. Steve Archuleta, Fire Department 26 Becky Eich, Recording Secretary 27 28 I. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 P.M. 29 30 Scholz: Good evening. Welcome to the May 27th meeting of the Planning and 31 Zoning Commission. I'm Charlie Scholz, the Chair of the Commission. I'd 32 like to introduce the other members. On my far right is Commissioner 33 Shipley. He is the mayor's appointment to the Commission. Next to him is 34 Commissioner Crane. Commissioner Crane represents District 4. Next to 35 him is Commissioner Evans who represents District 5. The empty chair 36 will be filled in a few minutes by Commissioner Bustos, who represents 37 District 3. On my right, immediately right, is Commissioner Beard, who 38 represents District 2, and I represent Council District 6. 39 40 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 25, 2008 41 42 Scholz: The first order of business is the approval of the minutes. Are there any 43 additions or corrections to the minutes, Gentlemen? Hearing none, I'll 44 entertain a motion to accept the minutes. 45 46 Shipley: I so move to accept the minutes. 1 1 Scholz: Is there a second? 2 3 Evans: [ second. 4 5 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, say aye. 6 7 ALL COMMISSIONERS -AYE. 8 9 Scholz: Those opposed, say nay. Any abstentions? Okay, the minutes are 10 approved. Thank you, Gentlemen. By the way, I thought the minutes 11 were beautifully done. I didn't note any corrections and I get very picky on 12 that. 13 14 III. POSTPONEMENTS 15 16 Scholz: All right, the agenda works this way, if you're here, our agenda is posted 17 on the screens. Are we going to turn the lights down a little so we can see 18 the screens better? That's better. Yes. Wonderful! Thank you. If you're 19 watching at home, it's posted on the City of Las Cruces web site on the 20 Community Development Page. Are there any postponements, Staff? No 21 postponements. 22 23 IV. WITHDRAWALS 24 25 Scholz: And no withdrawals either? 26 27 Rodriguez: No, sir. 28 29 Scholz: Good, thank you. 30 31 V. CONSENT AGENDA 32 33 Scholz: Okay, our next is what we call the consent agenda and here's how it 34 works. If anybody wants to comment on any items on the consent 35 agenda, I think there are only two today. I just lost my consent agenda. 36 Thank you. Yes, there are only two. If there is anyone who wants to 37 comment on that, from the audience, from the Staff, or from the 38 Commissioners, please let me know and then we'll move that to the first 39 item of new business. 40 41 1. Case Z2752: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 42 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 8.763 +/- acres located at 43 4200 Bataan Memorial East. Submitted by Scanlon White, Inc. for Coronado 44 Holding Il. 45 MOVED TO NEW BUSINESS. 46 2 Q a 1 Scholz: Okay, the first item on the consent agenda is Case Z2752, a request for a 2 zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial 3 High Intensity) for 8.763 +/- acres located at 4200 Bataan Memorial East. 4 Submitted by Scanlon White, Inc. for Coronado Holding II. Does anybody 5 want to speak to that? You do, ma'am? Okay. I'll, no, I'm going to put 6 this as the first item under new business, okay. So you'll be up in a few 7 minutes. Okay, so we'll move that to number one on new business. 8 9 2. Case Z2753: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 10 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 1.627 +/- acres located at 11 900 Telshor Boulevard. Submitted by Scanlon White, Inc. for TLC Real 12 Estate. 13 MOVED TO NEW BUSINESS. 14 15 Scholz: Our next item is Case Z2753, a request for a zone change from C-2 16 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 17 1.627 +/- acres located at 900 Telshor Boulevard. Submitted by Scanlon 18 White, Inc. for TLC Real Estate. Anybody want to speak to that one? 19 Commissioners? You do. 20 21 Shipley: Please. 22 23 Scholz: Okay. So that'll be the second item under new business. All right. Well, 24 that takes care of our consent agenda. 25 26 VI. OLD BUSINESS 27 28 1. Case S-08-006: A request for final plat approval for a replat known as Payan 29 Replat No. 1. The subject property contains 4.20 +/- acres. The final plat 30 proposes to dedicate right-of-way for Payan Drive and replat three single- 31 family residential lots. The subject property is zoned R-1 aM (Single-Family 32 Residential Mobile). Submitted by the City of Las Cruces. 33 34 Scholz: Then we have one piece of old business and this has been around for 35 quite a while, hasn't it? 36 37 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if you want me to go back through a 38 presentation for this case. It was a replat of the three properties on Payan. 39 This case was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission in 40 March. At the time an adjacent property owner who was affected by the 41 replat had some concerns about the surveying of the replats. 42 43 Scholz: Yes, I believe that his survey disagreed with your survey. 44 45 Rodriguez: Yes. 46 3 1 Scholz: Yes. 2 3 Rodriguez: And he has subsequently met with the surveying Staff and Public Works 4 and our Land Management Office and all issues have been addressed 5 and therefore the plat has been changed to reflect those issues that he 6 had. Those issues have been addressed, so I don't know if you want me 7 to go back through a presentation or ... 8 9 Scholz: Commissioners, do you need more information on this? You recall this 10 one? Commissioner Beard, were you waving at someone or did you have 11 a question? 12 13 Beard: Yes, I was. 14 15 Scholz: Oh, okay. No, I don't need any additional information on this. Is there 16 anyone from the audience who wants to comment on this? Okay, I'll close 17 it to public input. Commissioners, any comments? Okay, I'll entertain a 18 motion. Commissioner Beard? 19 20 Beard: Who was right and who was wrong? 21 22 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, it was just some disagreement about 23 distances on the surveying and all issues have been resolved. 24 25 Scholz: Nothing serious. Okay Commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to accept 26 Case S-08-006, a request for final plat approval for a replat known as 27 Payan Replat No. 1. 28 29 Crane: So moved. 30 31 Scholz: It's been moved. Is there a second? 32 33 Evans: Second. 34 35 Scholz: Been moved and seconded. Okay, I'll call the role. Commissioner 36 Shipley. 37 38 Shipley: Aye, findings, site visit. 39 40 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 41 42 Crane: Aye, findings and discussion. 43 44 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 45 46 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 4 ANPft 1 2 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 3 4 Beard: Aye, findings and discussion. 5 6 Scholz: And the chair votes aye. So that is passed 5-0. 7 8 VII. NEW BUSINESS 9 10 1. Case Z2752: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 11 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 8.763 +/- acres located at 12 4200 Bataan Memorial East. Submitted by Scanlon White, Inc. for Coronado 13 Holding II. 14 15 Scholz: All right. Now we'll go to the first new business which is Case Z2752, a 16 request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3 17 (Commercial High Intensity) for eight acres located at 4200 Bataan 18 Memorial East. Submitted by Scanlon White, Inc. for Coronado Holding IL 19 Mr. White, you're on. 20 21 White: Yes, for the record, James White, Community Development Department. 22 The second case this evening is Case 2752, a request for a zone change 23 from C2, which stands for Commercial Medium Intensity to C3, which is 24 Commercial High Intensity, for 8.763 acres of land located at 4200 Bataan 25 Memorial East. Submitted by Scanlon White, Inc. for Coronado Holding II. 26 Here's a vicinity map showing the actual subject tract of land. The 27 property's located roughly in this area here. It is roughly a little bit over 28 eight acres in size. It actually has direct frontage off of Bataan Memorial 29 East. Here's Bataan Memorial system and U.S. 70. The subject property 30 is a zoning conversion. 31 What actually transpired is since this tract of land is commercially 32 zoned but exceeds the one-acre maximum threshold for commercially 33 zoned properties zoned C-2, the applicant has requested for a zoning 34 conversion. The zoning conversion is for C-3 zoning. If the property is not 35 rezoned, the applicant will be required to subdivide this tract roughly into 36 eight different tracts of land to actually conform to the underlying zoning of 37 C-2. One question that an audience member gave to me just prior to the 38 meeting was: what is the difference between C-2 and C-3 Zoning? And 39 the basic difference is that C-2 has a maximum building height of 45-feet 40 versus C-3 zoning has a maximum building height of 60-feet. Most of the 41 uses are very interchangeable. Both C-2 and C-3 allow for apartments, 42 allow for grocery stores, allow for convenience stores. The two notable 43 exceptions that I saw for C-3 that is not permissible in C-2 is it does allow 44 for either cab or bus terminals and it allows for auto paint and body yards 45 to be located in the C-3. 5 1 Case specifics again: roughly 8.7 acres of land; will allow property 2 to be in compliance with the acreage requirements for commercially zoned 3 property; as stipulated earlier, has direct access from Bataan Memorial 4 East; and the rear parcel is not a portion of said zone change. Let me just 5 go back and allude to this. The tract back here's roughly about 5.5 acres 6 and when the applicant first came in for the actual zone change he was 7 actually trying to rezone this as well. The problem with this tract of land is 8 that it's currently, if you noticed, it's land-locked. It has no physical access 9 to either Bataan or either to this residential area here. The other issue 10 was, since it's zoned A-2, which is an agricultural district from the 1981 11 Zoning Code, we discussed with the applicant to actually, to proceed only 12 with the front portion here that's actually really a true zoning conversion. 13 And when they come ahead and have a definitive plan for the rear portion 14 such as a site plan we'll reconfigure this tract to have direct access from 15 Bataan Memorial East. At that time that zone change will be brought forth 16 to P&Z for consideration. 17 So this evening, as stipulated earlier, the subject property is 18 identified here in blue. MPO Thoroughfare Plans, all frontage roads on 19 the U.S. 70 system, are classified as Collectors, that both for Bataan 20 Memorial East and West, respectively. Here is showing the zoning 21 pattern: property up, the 8.7 acres, is currently zoned C-2. As alluded to 22 earlier, the property at the rear is zoned A-2. To the actual east you have 23 the R-1 a zoning designation located here; and the properties actually front 24 the actual Bataan Memorial System. You have C-2C located here, M-2C 25 located here, on the northern periphery of the highway system M-1 located 26 here; M-2 located here; and C-2 located east of McGuffey, respectively. 27 Aerial view of the subject property. Staff recommendation is 28 approval with the standard City Council condition, which is all newly 29 installed utilities will be placed underground. Of course, as this is a zone 30 change, this will be forwarded on to City Council for final consideration. 31 That will end Staff presentation. I'll be glad to stand for any questions this 32 Board may have this evening. 33 34 Scholz: Okay, Commissioners, questions of Mr. White? All right. We'll hear from 35 the public. Ma'am, you had a question or a comment. Step right up to the 36 microphone. You might pull that microphone right down to your mouth 37 there. Okay, there we go. 38 39 Coal: Can you hear me now? 40 41 Scholz: I think so. You'll have to speak a little louder. 42 43 Coal: Okay, my name is Joan Coal. I live at 4250 Real Del Sur, which is right 44 behind and to the east of the property in question. We're trying to figure 45 out whether there's going to be a ... we don't want to see a whole lot of 46 lights at night. We don't want to see a whole lot of traffic, and I know this 6 1 is commercial, but this is close to our homes and we're, you know, 2 concerned about what's going to be in there. I'm wondering if the larger 3 the property to be considered will have a bigger store. It won't be a small 4 convenience store. It will be a, something that we've got on the downtown 5 mall or something up at, along Telshor. I guess there's some things you 6 can't tell me now, but I'm giving you my problem with it. 7 8 Scholz: Your concern. 9 10 Coal: Right. 11 12 Scholz: Thank you. 13 14 Coal: Thank you. 15 16 Scholz: Is the applicant here? Could we hear from the applicant then? 17 18 Whatley: Tom Whatley, Steinborn Real Estate. I represent the owners. At this time 19 we have no plans whatsoever for any development. What we we're trying 20 to do was the C-2 designation, when the applicant bought the property 21 was the old C-2 and is now considered C-3. All we were trying to do is 22 bring it into compliance. We have no plans for development at this point. 23 24 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments from the audience? Yes, sir. 25 26 Coal: I am Albert Coal, husband of Joan. My question is, then no plans, why do 27 they need any rezoning now? 28 29 Scholz: Well, as the gentleman said and as Mr. White pointed out, in order to 30 make this piece of land conform to the current Code, it has to be rezoned. 31 32 Coal: Why can't that be done when they have specific plans for the 33 development? 34 35 Scholz: Well, because it's my understanding, and you can correct on this 36 applicant, it's easier to sell a piece of land when it's correctly zoned than it 37 is to sell a piece of land that's not correctly zoned. We've had this 38 problem with residential properties as well. Okay. 39 40 Whatley: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Yes, the property is currently for sale and 41 we've had request to bring it into compliance with the current Zone Code. 42 At this point, I have no offers on the table but we figured we would go 43 through the process. When we talked to Mr. White, we actually asked for 44 the whole parcel to be C-3. In conversations with Mr. White, probably the 45 back portion if we do anything, might be designated 0-2. It wouldn't be a 46 C-3 designation because of access and the original plans or the ideas was 7 1 to build maybe offices in the back and then retail pad sites in the front. 2 But at this point, we have nothing. We're just trying to bring it into 3 compliance with the current Zone Codes. 4 5 Scholz: Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else from the audience that wants 6 to comment on this? Okay, I'm going to close it to public comment. 7 Commissioners, comments, questions? All right. I'll entertain a motion to 8 accept case Z2752. 9 10 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept Case S-08-06. 11 12 Scholz: Excuse me, aren't we on, yes, aren't we on Z2752? Turn the page. 13 14 Evans: Yes. Sorry. Case number is Z2752. 15 16 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved. Is there a second? 17 18 Beard; Second. 19 20 Crane: Second. 21 22 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. I'll call the role. Commissioner Shipley. 23 24 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 25 26 White: Can I interject really quickly? Do you want to actually incorporate the Staff 27 recommendation? 28 29 Evans: Yeah, with recommendation. 30 31 Scholz: Okay, it will be Case Z2752, a request for zone change from C-2 32 commercial to C-3 High Intensity including all newly installed utilities will 33 be placed underground. Right. We're in agreement on that. Thank you. 34 Commissioner Shipley. 35 36 Shipley: Aye, discussion, findings, and site visit. 37 38 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 39 40 Crane: Aye, discussion and findings. 41 42 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 43 44 Evans: Aye, discussion and findings. 45 46 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 8 AVON 1 2 Beard: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 3 4 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion, and site visit. 5 6 2. Case Z2753: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 7 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 1.627 +/- acres located at 8 900 Telshor Boulevard. Submitted by Scanlon White, Inc. for TLC Real 9 Estate. 10 11 Scholz: All right, our next new business is Case Z2753. This is a request for a 12 zone change from C-2 Commercial to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity). 13 Mr. White, you're up again. 14 15 White: Third case this evening is Case Z2753. 16 17 Scholz: You must be away from the microphone, Mr. White. 18 19 White: Let me see. Is that better? 20 21 Scholz: There we go. 22 23 White: Third case this evening is Case Z2753, a request for a zone change from 24 C-2 to C-3 for roughly 1.627 acres located at 900 North Telshor 25 Boulevard. Here's a vicinity map of the actual subject tract of land. It's 26 currently the Celebrate Liquor Store and Package Liquor Store on Telshor 27 Boulevard. Then there's also a restaurant located on the same tract, 28 located here. The one interesting thing about this property: it has no direct 29 access from Telshor Boulevard. The actual access is from a private 30 easement that runs parallel to the northern boundary located right here. 31 Then it has a second access point here off of Doral Court. What the 32 applicant is proceeding to do is actually going to aggregate the smaller 33 tract of land here with the larger tract so it would be roughly 1.6 acres +/- 34 in size into one distinct tract of land. As stipulated earlier, the issue really 35 is pertaining to the acreage requirement of the property to be in zoning 36 compliance. Direct access would be from a 30-foot easement and/or 37 Doral Court. 38 Here's the actual site plan for the proposed zone change. Tract of 39 land that's currently here is the one that actually has the Celebrate Liquor 40 Store and, I believe, it's called Aqua Reef Restaurant located here. Lot 2 41 is a smaller tract in here, which is roughly about a third of an acre. What's 42 going to transpire is this lot line's going to be vacated. It's going to be 43 shifted over this way here to be roughly 1.6 acres. The area in here, to be 44 honest, is actually already zoned C-3, respectively, so what you'd be 45 seeing is an incorporation of this and this to 1.67 acre tract of land. 9 AWN 1 Here's an aerial view of the property in question: building currently 2 on the property. You can actually notice here where the actual easement 3 is located for access to the property is located here. There are some 4 offices in this general area and, I believe, also a doctor's office located off 5 this easement here. Second ingress and egress point is Doral Court 6 located right here. Staff recommendation is with the standard City Council 7 condition that all newly installed utilities be placed underground. That will 8 end Staff presentation. 9 10 Scholz: Okay, questions for Staff? Commissioner Shipley. 11 12 Shipley: Mr. White, the reason I had this pulled was when I looked at your, at the 13 proposal information it says two lots at 10 trips per day equals 20 trips per 14 day. There currently are more trips than that just for the restaurant and 15 the liquor store, and if you add any more intensity or any other buildings or 16 any other businesses to this part, you're going to far exceed what you've 17 given me as far as 20 trips a day. I just wanted to know if there's 18 something going in there or not going in there or how we came up with the 19 20 trips per day. 20 21 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Shipley, that is actually on the applicant's 22 development statement, and to be honest with you, 10 vehicular trips per 23 day is usually for residential development not commercial development. 24 So I would actually defer that question over to the actual, either Scanlon 25 White or the representative for the property owner, to discuss why they did 26 10 vehicular trips per day. 27 28 Shipley: Thank you. 29 30 Scholz: Okay. Can we hear from the applicant? There's no applicant? 31 32 White: Well, based on since there is no applicant to actually answer that 33 question, we would recommend that this case be postponed until June 34 24th P&Z meeting. 35 36 Scholz: All right, will be postponed until June 24th. 37 38 3. Case A1662: A request for variance from the required 20-foot rear yard 39 setback for the construction of a porch 10-feet from the rear yard property 40 line. The subject property is located at 2929 Sanders: Lorenzo Court zoned 41 R-1a (Single-Family Medium Density). Submitted by Roy a Soriano, property 42 owner. 43 44 Scholz: All right, now we're to the next case for new business. This is Case 45 A1662, a request for variance from the required 20-foot rear yard setback 46 for the construction of a porch 10-feet from the rear yard property line. 10 1 The subject property is located at 2929 San Lorenzo Court zoned R-1 a 2 (Single-Family Medium Density). Submitted by Roy a Soriano, property 3 owner. 4 5 White: Just for actual protocol, I don't believe you actually did a motion to 6 postpone the previous case. 7 8 Scholz: We need a motion? 9 10 White: Yes, a motion to postpone, take a vote on it. 11 12 Shipley: So moved. 13 14 Scholz: Second? 15 16 Evans: Second. 17 18 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of postponing Case Z2753 to 19 June 24th, say aye. 20 21 ALL COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS -AYE. 22 23 Scholz: Those opposed, say same sign. It's passed. Thank you, Mr. White. 24 25 White: The next case this evening is Case A1662, is a request for a variance 26 from the required 20-foot rear yard set back for a porch that's situated 10- 27 feet from the rear property line. The subject property is located at 2929 28 San Lorenzo Court. The property's currently zoned R-1 a, submitted by 29 the property owner. 30 Subject property is the Legends West Subdivision. The property is 31 currently zoned R-1 a. The property has direct access off of San Lorenzo 32 Court, a dedicated City Local roadway. The area's identified here. Case 33 specifics as stipulated earlier: the physical address for the property. The 34 applicant is requesting for a 10-foot rear yard setback for an open-air 35 porch. The porch was constructed without a valid building permit. One 36 thing that Staff discussed was the various mitigation techniques so the 37 applicant provided a narrative that's included in your packet. The narrative 38 states that the applicant likes to use the porch for leisure activities and 39 also, I believe, to protect from the summer temperatures. So Staff actually 40 looked at different alternatives. He may actually have to actually meet the 41 20-foot rear yard setback and still be in compliance with the Zoning Code. 42 A couple approaches we evaluated were: the applicant could pursue 43 placing a retractable awning on the rear of the property or actually planting 44 mature trees in the rear yard or something to that issue that would still 45 allow for the zoning to meet the setback of 20-feet, but allow for alleviation 46 from the summer temperatures or for leisure activity. Another option the 11 1 applicant actually has is that if the applicant actually detached the actual 2 porch, it only requires the three-foot rear yard setback. But the applicant 3 would have to be advised that there'd have to be a minimum 10-foot 4 separation for a fire jump and also that sometimes on that rear side it may 5 require some kind of fire protection wall, but that is a possibility if he sits 6 down and discusses it with the building permitting Staff. 7 In respect to the site plan, subject tract of land as stipulated earlier, 8 roughly has 104-feet in actual length with roughly about 50-feet in actual 9 width. The property is actually constructed with one-story stucco. The 10 actual physical setback of the existing structure is 20-feet. The applicant 11 actually constructed this right here which is roughly 36-feet in width, which 12 pretty much straddles the entire rear yard portion that's attached to the 13 home with roughly 10-feet in actual length, thus the request for a 10-foot 14 rear yard setback. 15 Site photos of the property. Up top here it actually shows the actual 16 width and length of the actual physical structure. As stipulated earlier, it's 17 an open-air porch attached to the primary residence. Slide two is actually 18 another picture showing the actual porch and the actual rear yard property 19 boundary. Staff recommendation for this variance is for denial. Of course, 20 the P&Z Commission has three options: they can either approve the 21 request; they can approve the request with conditions they deem 22 appropriate; or they can deny the request. The P&Z Commission has final 23 authority regarding variances but any aggrieving individual can appeal a 24 variance to the City Council and appear, not to exceed 15 days from 25 today. That will end Staff presentation. I'll be glad to stand for any 26 questions this Board may have. 27 28 Scholz: All right. Questions for Mr. White, Commissioners? Yes, Commissioner 29 Crane. 30 31 Crane: You mentioned as a possible mitigation that the porch could be moved 10- 32 feet from the house. It looks if he did that he wouldn't have enough room 33 for the three-foot clearance to the back of the property line. 34 35 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Crane. That is correct. It would have to be 36 modified. You may see like a gazebo or some other kind of structure but 37 there is the ability to build in your rear yard is what I was alluding to. It 38 may not be exactly 10-feet in width or length, but there are possibilities out 39 there. 40 41 Scholz: Other questions? Commissioner Beard. 42 43 Beard: I noticed that the Council has over-ruled some of our setback decisions, 44 and I'm not questioning their authority. Are we missing something that 45 they're catching or why are they over-ruling some of our decisions? 46 12 1 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Beard, I'll give you a very diplomatic answer. 2 It seems like the Planning and Zoning Commission has taken a very literal 3 intent as to what the Code stipulates. These are the required setbacks 4 and you have to build within this. It appears like City Council in some of 5 their recent decision making regarding variances, they can look beyond 6 sometimes the personal hardships. They can look at the dynamics of the 7 neighborhood, are there any complaints from surrounding property 8 owners, those kinds of issues. So some of the previous variances that I've 9 seen that have been approved by City Council, they have got the support 10 of the surrounding property owners. This one has the support. The other 11 issue that I think they're tackling right now is one of the issues of, the real 12 problem really is, like I alluded to before, and something maybe City 13 Council or P&Z will have to evaluate, is the problem is that the lot sizes 14 are staying the same but the houses are getting larger. So in theory, very 15 similar to this right here, the home is built at the setback. So in theory it's 16 very difficult or requires you to be creative to create any kind of accessory 17 structure or attachment onto the rear property line. So I don't want to 18 speak on behalf of City Council because every variance is different. Every 19 case is different. But I think they're evaluating it sometimes beyond the 20 personal hardships and they're going into the dynamics of the 21 neighborhood and some of those issues as well. 22 23 Scholz: All right. It reminds me of a situation we've seen before Legends West, 24 and that is that the builder builds to the absolute limits of the lot and, as 25 Mr. White points out, then there's no room at all for variance or at least 26 you have to be very creative about doing that. Can we hear from the 27 applicant, please? You want to give us another handout, okay. 28 29 Shipley: Thank you. 30 31 Scholz: Thank you. 32 33 Soriano: I'm sorry. My name is Roy Soriano and I'm the applicant. Good evening, 34 everyone. My name is Roy Soriano and I am a first time homeowner. 35 Being a first time homeowner has its advantages and its disadvantages. 36 One of those disadvantages is not being fully aware of City Codes and 37 regulations one must follow and comply with when adding an addition to 38 your house; for example, needing a permit from the City to build a porch. 39 This is what happened to me and that is the reason why I'm standing here 40 before you. I'm here to explain the reasons for my actions of not obtaining 41 a permit. I'm also here to show the Committee that my porch meets the 42 Planning and Zoning Commission's criteria that is needed for granting a 43 variance and that is why a variance should be granted. 44 Being a new homeowner, I was not aware of the property 45 regulations and guidelines for building a porch so I asked my realtor who 46 is also the sales representative of the area I bought my house, Legends 13 1 West. She informed me that I could build a porch as far as 10-feet out 2 and as far as the width of the house, and that is how far I did mine, and 3 that a permit might not be required since it was not an enclosed addition. 4 I, too, was under the impression that only enclosed additions needed 5 permits. This is all new to me and I've never built things on my house 6 before. Had I known a permit was required, I would have gotten one. 1 7 also noticed Desert View offered a 10 by 8 slab of concrete on the 8 backyard as an upgrade; as you can see on your attachment one, the one 9 that's highlighted. So I assumed that this was offered to assist new 10 homeowners with foundations of building a porch. I took this information 11 on face value and built a porch in compliance with what Desert View 12 guided me with. As soon as I found out a permit was needed for the porch 13 1 discontinued all work and sought City procedures. This is the reason for 14 this variance. 15 Now I will discuss reasons for granting the variance on the porch. 16 My neighbors and community members support this variance, as you can 17 see from attachment two. I have gotten signatures. Let me just read it 18 real quick. It says, "I support Mr. Soriano in maintaining his backyard 19 porch. The porch does not affect us in any way, shape, or form." And 20 then on the bottom I wrote that this subdivision is fairly new and there are 21 only five households at the present time. These are their signatures in 22 support of the variance. They cannot come, but they wrote some letters to 23 the Committee to voice their opinions on this variance. You can see on 24 attachment three. This is from Mr. Aguirre, and this is my next-door 25 neighbor. He says, "Hi, James. I became aware that one of the neighbors, 26 Roy Soriano, is seeking a variance to build a patio that is within the 20- 27 feet setback of his property line. I would like to inform you that I am in 28 support of the variance to extend a covered patio within that 20-foot 29 setback. It is my impression that he is proceeding with the best of 30 intentions and wants to cooperate with City Staff. I also believe that had 31 he known the proper procedures for building his covered patio, he would 32 have taken those steps prior to any work being done. As a final note, the 33 work completed to date is tastefully done and blends well with his home 34 and the subdivision. Please feel free to forward my letter to the 35 appropriate Staff member and include it with his or her file. Let me know if 36 you need a letter submitted via regular mail. My home address is 2935 37 San Lorenzo Avenue, 88007. Thank you for your attention. Ruben 38 Aguirre." 39 The fourth attachment, we have a letter from Mr. Carter. It says, 40 "Dear Planning and Zoning Committee. This letter is in reference of a 41 variance application submitted by Mr. Roy Soriano. I, as Mr. Soriano, also 42 live on San Lorenzo Court in Legends West subdivision and am a 43 neighbor. I have witnessed the building of a back porch in his house and 44 do not have a problem with it. On the contrary, I think the porch looks very 45 nice and adds to the value of the property. The porch does not affect me 46 at all. Although I will not be able to attend the meeting to be held on 14 1 Tuesday, May the 27th, 2008, to speak on his support, I fully support Mr. 2 Soriano and am hopeful it will not be requested to tear the porch down. 3 Thank you very much for your attention. Sincerely, Roy Carter." 4 The fifth attachment: we have another one from Mr. Bonny, Derek 5 Bonny. "I cannot attend the public hearing for the request of a variance to 6 the applicant's backyard porch at 2929 San Lorenzo Court of Las Cruces, 7 New Mexico, but wrote this letter to voice my opinion. This letter is in 8 support of the applicant's backyard porch. I think the porch looks very 9 nice and makes our community look much nicer. I find that this porch is a 10 great necessity to have in our area because of the hot weather we live in, 11 especially now that the summer is coming. I hope that the Committee 12 finds it in their heart and good judgment for the applicant to maintain his 13 backyard porch. Sincerely, Derek Bonny." 14 Now I will address the criteria for decisions used by the Planning 15 and Zoning Committee for a variance request. This is from the application 16 for the variance request. 17 18 Scholz: Yes, we have a copy. 19 20 Soriano: Great, thank you. It states: number one; the general harmony your 21 request has with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code, Sign Code, 22 and/or applicable sections of the Design Standards which is to encourage 23 the most appropriate use of land and to promote the health, safety, and 24 general welfare of the community. The variance encourages the most 25 appropriate use of land and promote health and safety issues in the sense 26 that it provides a place for houseguests and me to play without running the 27 risk of getting sunburned or heat stroke. The porch also protects us from 28 windy and rainy days. I also use the porch for my family cookouts and 29 gatherings. As a second grade teacher, I also use this porch to prepare 30 for my science experiments before conducting them in the classroom. 1 31 am also a fervent reader and in the mornings and evenings 1 like to sit on 32 my porch and read. It promotes the welfare of the community because it 33 embellishes the community and house as a whole, thus increasing the 34 value of the homes. 35 Second criteria; (inaudible) granting any variance shall not merely 36 serve as a convenience to the applicant, but the variance shall be the 37 minimum necessary for relief due to some demonstrable hardship. A 38 hardship is not considered to be personal nor monetary in nature, but 39 some type of unusual physical problem or issues with the property to 40 which does the variance request pertain. Granting a variance will be a 41 relief of hardship as mentioned earlier, like running of the risk of my 42 nieces, nephews, and household guests from getting sunburned or heat 43 stroke because of unprotected sun. It would also protect us physically 44 from the windy and rainy days. Granting a variance will provide us with a 45 safe and protective environment. Other relief of hardship is that other 46 people in the community have porches where they do weekly cookouts 15 1 and family get-togethers on their porches. I, too, would like to be a good 2 provider to my family. The porch also helps maintain my house cool. 1 3 don't have to turn my air cooler on when I get off from work because the 4 porch keeps it cool, thus helping me with the electric bill. 5 The third question reads; the variance shall not be granted in such 6 cases where it would adversely affect adjoining properties. Granting 7 variance will not adversely affect adjoining properties because the 8 structure and the decor of the porch is designed to be in congruence with 9 the house, making it appealing and seen as part of the house and not as 10 an addition, as a result, increasing the value of the property. 11 If I may, I would like to show you some pictures of the porch. As 12 you can see, I do have 10-feet from my porch out. I've also spoken with 13 Desert View sales representative and she will request that a two-story 14 house be built behind my house because there's nothing built right now. 15 That way it won't be seen as an encroachment and to provide more space. 16 This is just a porch that was there, no less than a quarter of a mile from 17 my house. It just shows, I mean how detailed the porch was made. 18 19 Scholz: Okay, will you stand for questions, sir? 20 21 Soriano: I'm sorry. I'm not done. Oh, I'm sorry, were you going to ask questions? 22 23 Scholz: Yes, I was going to say, can we have the Commissioners ask you 24 questions? 25 26 Soriano: Oh, yes, of course. 27 28 Scholz: Okay, Commissioners, questions for this gentleman? Commissioner 29 Crane. 30 31 Crane: I went and looked at it. It looks good. It looks good in your photos too. It 32 seems to me that it meets most if not all of the criteria for zoning variance 33 that you've just been through. But Staff has said in the papers that we 34 have that two other people in that neighborhood are actively demolishing 35 structures that are similar to yours because they are against the Code. 36 What is, in your view, the effect going to be on them and on the neighbors, 37 like the one who's structure you showed a few minutes ago, if we let yours 38 stand and other similar applications that are brought to us in the future? In 39 other words, why should we make an exception of you? 40 41 Soriano: Like you said, some others were demolished. I don't know what was the 42 reasons behind it. My intentions on this porch was, as I said, I did not 43 know about City, that I had to get a permit. Had I known, I would just not 44 build it and think of other things. Now as far as like how others would see 45 it, I don't know if they knew about the permit. That they should have 46 requested one and now this late in the game, like I said, had I known I 16 1 would not have built it. But you know, they say ignorance is bliss, but 2 apparently they haven't been in my situation. 3 4 Crane: Did you build this yourself or did have a contractor do it? 5 6 Soriano: Uh, no. I and two other friends, my dad and another friend. So, I mean it 7 really means a lot to me. 8 9 Crane: Thank you. 10 11 Scholz: Other comments, Commissioners, questions? Okay, is there anyone else 12 in the audience who wants to speak to this? Okay, thank you, Mr. 13 Soriano. All right, we'll close it to public discussion. Gentlemen, what is 14 your will? Commissioner Beard. 15 16 Beard: I went around the parade of homes and north of Highway 70 and east of 17 25. 1 noticed that there were all kinds of houses, new houses, where this 18 encroachment or this setback is being violated. It's going, looks like it's 19 going on everywhere. If we start approving these things I think we're 20 going to be in trouble with the Code. I mean we either need to make the 21 Code, change the Code, or stick to the Code. It's up to the Council if they 22 think it's a hardship or some other reason, but we're not here as a 23 politician, we're here as defenders of the Code for the City. That's my 24 view of it. It's starting; it looks like it's getting out of hand. 25 26 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 27 28 Crane: I agree with that, Commissioner. We are the defenders of the Code. We 29 really can't turn up here anymore if we routinely approve variances which 30 are clearly against the Code. My inclination is to see if the Council would 31 like to have mercy on this applicant but I don't think we're in a position to 32 do it. 33 34 Scholz: Commissioner Evans, saw you taking a deep breath there. 35 36 Evans: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've been on the Board here for quite some 37 time and it pains me to see, you know, these applicants come forward, 38 very similar stories month after month. Unfortunately, the majority of 39 those, in fact as long as I've been here, we've turned them down. It's just 40 unfortunate. I think if we start making exceptions what good are the 41 Codes in this particular case. 42 43 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 44 45 Crane: Is the real estate business in this City well aware of what the Codes are? 46 Do they care? Are they well set up to give good advice to gentlemen like 17 1 Mr. Soriano who seems to be misled? And I believe one of the previous 2 applicants, I think, this is only my third meeting, one of the previous 3 applicants was, said he was misled by a realtor who told him he could put 4 up the structure that he did, as long as it wasn't attached and it was not 5 attached by four-inches which does not count as detached. Perhaps the 6 City needs to take some positive steps to see that people who are relied 7 on for advice by first time homeowners are in a position to give good 8 advice. 9 10 Scholz: Thank you, Commissioner Crane. Any other comments by 11 Commissioners? Okay, I'll entertain a motion to accept Case A1662. We 12 had already cut off public discussion on this. I'm sorry. Okay, I'll entertain 13 a motion to accept Case A1662, a request for variance for the required 20- 14 foot rear setback for the construction of a porch 10-feet from the rear 15 property line. 16 17 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Case A1662. 18 19 Scholz: Is there a second? 20 21 Beard: I second it. 22 23 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I'm going to call the role. 24 Commissioner Shipley. 25 26 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 27 28 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 29 30 Crane: Point of information, aye vote is to deny the applicant, correct? 31 32 Scholz: No, any aye vote is to support the applicant. 33 34 Crane: I vote nay. Site visit, discussion, and findings. 35 36 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 37 38 Evans: No, based on discussion and findings. 39 40 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 41 42 Bustos: I'm going to pass as I wasn't here for the discussion. 43 44 Scholz: An abstention. Okay. Commissioner Beard. 45 46 Beard: No, based on site visit, discussions. 18 1 2 Scholz: And the chair votes no based on site visit and discussions. So the 3 applicant is denied 4-1. 4 5 4. IDP 33: A request for an infill development proposal (IDPPZ) for three distinct 6 lots located at the northeastern intersection of Wendale and Cottonwood 7 Street. The subject properties are zoned R-1a (Single-Family Medium 8 Density) encompassing 0.284 +/- acres. The R-1 a (Single-Family Medium 9 Density) zoning designation allows for a maximum of one single-family 10 dwelling per platted parcel. The applicant is requesting to construct three 11 apartments after replatting the properties into a single parcel of land. The 12 apartments will follow the development criteria for the R-2 (Multi-Dwelling 13 Low Density) zoning district. Submitted by Baldemar and Socorro Para, 14 property owners. 15 16 Scholz: Okay, our next case is IDP 33. This is a request for infill development 17 proposal (IDPPZ) for three distinct lots located at the northeast 18 intersection of Wendale and Cottonwood Street. The subject properties 19 are zoned R-1 a (Single-Family Medium Density) encompassing 0.284 +/- 20 acres. And we have more information. Take one and pass it on please. 21 22 White: This case is IDP 33. It's a request for an infill development proposal also 23 known as an IDPPZ, the P and Z standing for Planning and Zoning 24 Commission, for three distinct lots located at the northeastern intersection 25 of Wendale and Cottonwood Street. The subject properties are zoned R- 26 1a (Single-Family Medium Density) encompassing roughly 0.284 acres. 27 The R-1a zoning designation allows for single home site per platted parcel 28 of land. The applicant is requesting to construct three apartments after 29 replatting the properties into a single parcel of land. So to clarify that: 30 what that actually alludes to is that based upon the zoning of R-1 a, you're 31 allowed to have one residential home site per platted tract of land. So in 32 this case if you actually replat the three tracts you're allowed to have one 33 single unit. 34 Here's a vicinity map showing the subject tract of land. It's actually 35 at the northeast intersection of Wendale and Cottonwood Street. The 36 subject tract of land is located right here. What I did earlier today, get into 37 the slide show, what I did earlier today is actually I went out and did a land 38 use survey of the area just to find out currently what's actually transpiring. 39 Not actually what the zoning of R-1 a is happening, but what is the actual 40 land use around the property. So if you notice here, with the exception of 41 the actual subject tract of land, this entire segment of Cottonwood Street, 42 both in the east and west side respectively all have single-family 43 residential structures. The one exception to that is that you have a 44 manufacturing, I would call like raw materials yard, located over here to 45 the actual east which is located generally here. 19 1 As stipulated earlier, I won't go into the whole issue, but what an 2 infill development actually does, it allows the developer or the property 3 owner to have flexibility in the Development Code. It allows him to pursue 4 various options. In this case, what the applicant is requesting is to actually 5 place three apartments on a replatted tract of land of roughly 0.3 acres in 6 size. He proposes to construct apartments in this manner here. It's 7 actually also shown in your packet; Unit A, unit B, and unit C. I believe the 8 actual apartments are roughly about 1,200 square feet each. There may 9 be a little bit difference in size. He's requesting for the actual parking to be 10 in front of the actual building unit here directly parallel to Cottonwood 11 Street, which is located here. The applicant is request for the parking, 1 12 mean the ponding area, to be at the rear of the property, and for the three 13 units to have covered patios in this manner here. It is developed with 14 single-family residential on both this portion here and this portion of the 15 adjacent tracts of land. There's actually also an easement that runs 16 parallel to the rear property boundary in this area here, and to be honest 17 it's in disrepair in some portions. It actually doesn't have true, you can't 18 actually traverse it between Palomas and, I believe, San Juan on this 19 portion here. 20 MPO Thoroughfare Plan: of course we're looking at an infill area, 21 centralized area of the City. Predominantly what you're looking at is pretty 22 much all residential Local dedicated City street systems in here. You do 23 have one arterial, which is actually over this area, which is Walnut, which 24 is classified as a Minor Arterial roadway. Aerial view: of course looking at 25 2004 aerials but this is actually, to be honest, development hasn't really 26 changed the centralized area of the City. You have the actual infill parcel 27 located here, the three lots distinctively located here. As shown earlier, 28 the raw materials area is located in this area here. As alluded to earlier, 29 the single-family residential component as it goes up and down 30 Cottonwood Street. 31 What has been submitted this evening to you, there's a petition 32 submitted by various property owners in the vicinity of Cottonwood Street 33 opposed to the actual placement of three apartment units on the property. 34 What could transpire, based upon the current zoning and the current 35 configuration, is that in theory the applicant could pursue placing three 36 townhomes on the property. If he can actually get them to actually locate 37 within the required setbacks of the actual lot lines, there's a possibility that 38 each distinct lot can have an individual townhome. So that is an option I'm 39 throwing out; that it's permissible by the Code based upon the lot lines 40 being there and the property being zoned R-1a, respectively. In that 41 theory, it's a use permitted by right and does not require any kind of 42 Planning and Zoning Commission approval. 43 Site photos again: just a vicinity shot of the general area of 44 Cottonwood Street. This tract here's the actual vacant lot that we're 45 talking about this evening. Staff recommendation is approval with 46 conditions with the following conditions: 1) All newly installed utilities will 20 APIA 1 be placed underground; 2) The applicant will be required to replat lots 11, 2 12, and 13 block. That's where it is, of the Hermosa Heights second 3 subdivision, into one distinct parcel of 0.284 acres. And with all infill 4 development cases, the P&Z Commission has final authority baring 5 appeal to City Council. That will end Staff presentation. I'll be glad to 6 stand for any questions this Board may have. 7 8 Scholz: I have a couple of questions, Mr. White, but I'll yield to other 9 Commissioners. Commissioners, you have questions for Mr. White? 10 11 Shipley: I'd like to hold all my questions until after the applicant. 12 13 Scholz: Okay. Mr. White, I noticed that on the site plan that the neighbor to the 14 south of this has a, what is it called, it's part of a vacated street. Was 15 there any plan of putting Wendale through to the back of that property? 16 17 White: Chair Scholz, to be honest I haven't seen any projects that would actually 18 extend Wendale through. I'm assuming you're talking taking Wendale and 19 punching it this way. 20 21 Scholz: Yes. 22 23 White: And I'm assuming the reason really is, is because you have a huge 24 manufacturing yard here so, and these tracts right here you have ingress 25 and egress from Cottonwood respectively. This lot here and this lost 26 respectively here. There is what I was alluding to is an alleyway that you 27 can kind of see in this area here, and I believe it's roughly, I don't have the 28 dimensions, but I think it's probably under 20-feet in width. Some portions 29 are passable. I believe one of these lots here actually uses the alleyway 30 but in some of the areas it becomes really rough and it's ungraded and 31 actually has vegetation growing in some areas. Because Staff will also 32 evaluate the potential at one time of maybe trying to get ingress and 33 egress made from one of the units off this alleyway and not off of 34 Cottonwood and it was kind of complicated just based upon the overall 35 composite nature of the alleyway being located here and the actual 36 condition and state of the actual alleyway. 37 38 Scholz: Well I wasn't thinking of the alleyway, Mr. White, I was thinking of the, to 39 the south on this, let's see it's on the site plan. It says part of a vacated 40 street. I don't know if you have that in your ... yeah, it would be to the 41 right on that map. 42 43 White: We're alluding to this. I haven't checked the actual subdivision plat, but if 44 it's a vacated City street what usually happens is at one juncture when the 45 raw materials plant went in they combined. What they do with vacated 46 streets is that they do a pro-rata right-of-way exchange, 50% of the right- 21 1 of-way that was previously platted will go to this tract of land over here and 2 ... 3 4 Scholz: Oh, okay. 5 6 White: And 50% would go over there. In theory, I mean it's very complicated. 1 7 mean, in theory I think the problem with this would be that you could - 8 there's some problems with some subdivision design issues by trying to 9 create access off an easement, but those are other options that are 10 available on the table. If you create some kind of driveway easement 11 system off of here. 12 13 Scholz: Well, I noticed that the neighbor to the south is using that as a driveway, 14 so, you know I was just curious. Okay, my other question is about, let's 15 see, parking, how many apartments are we talking about? How many 16 units are we talking about? 17 18 White: Three units: Unit A, unit B, and unit C. 19 20 Scholz: No, how many apartments are going to be in A, B, and C. 21 22 White: Total of three apartments. 23 24 Scholz: Oh, it's three apartments. Oh, I thought it was, okay. I understood it was 25 three apartment buildings. 26 27 White: Chair, no, it's three. To reiterate the point, it's going to be three attached 28 apartments and, I believe, from looking at the actual site plan, they're 29 roughly about 1,200 square feet each. 30 31 Scholz: Okay. And so that's adequate parking for three apartments, eight spaces. 32 33 White: Correct. One issue that Staff was evaluating is that there were some 34 issues pertaining to from more of an urban design issue. The issue really 35 was that Staff had some concerns regarding backing up. In theory if you 36 use this design here and you park your vehicular traffic in here, then when 37 you've actually go to pull out, you pull back onto Cottonwood Street. So 38 one thing I discussed with the applicant roughly, maybe about two weeks 39 ago, was the potential of maybe trying to modify or realigning by taking 40 this apartment complex, moving it up closer to the actual physical property 41 boundary up here by Cottonwood Street, taking off this covered patio and 42 then putting the parking to the rear. But after, the applicant never actually 43 called me back because I was trying to get some direction because we're 44 trying to get specified development standards. With infill development as 45 well, we also have to get specified development standards. What are the 46 setbacks going to be? Where are the location of the buildings? Since the 22 1 applicant didn't give me a direction, we proceeded accordingly based upon 2 what was submitted to us. 3 4 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions of Mr. White? 5 Okay, you have a question, Commissioner Crane. 6 7 Crane: Does the City have a standard figure that it uses for the number of people 8 to be expected in an apartment of 1,200 square feet? Do you assume 9 four, three? 10 11 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Crane, we actually have a parking matrix in 12 the actual Zoning Code and it stipulates a number of parking stalls per unit 13 and I don't want to be misquoted, but it's between one and two per unit. 14 15 Crane: I'm sorry. I'm looking at the population, the number of residents. 16 17 White: No, it's based upon the apartment units. And talking to one of my 18 colleagues here, the actual equation is 1.5 parking stalls per unit. 19 20 Crane: Okay, now how many people do you figure are going to be in 1,200 21 square foot unit? I mean do you have a standard that you use for 22 estimates, planning, and so on. 23 24 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Crane, no we do not. I mean I guess in 25 theory you could come with some kind of, based upon bedrooms or 26 something like that, but the City actually, we look at it based upon the 27 number of units and then we equate it based upon that. 28 29 Scholz: Okay, thank you, Mr. White. May we hear from the applicant please? 30 31 Parra: Hi, my name is Miss Parra. I'm the owner of the land in Cottonwood. 32 33 Scholz: Okay. You're going have to get closer to the microphone. 34 35 Parra: Hi, my name is Mrs. Parra and I'm the owner of the land in Cottonwood. 36 We would like to build those apartments. I really don't know what to say. 37 38 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Shipley, you had some questions for the applicant. 39 40 Shipley: I understand it's three apartments. Are they one bedroom, two-bedroom? 41 42 Parra: One of them is one bedroom. The other one, it's two. The other two are 43 two bedrooms. 44 45 Shipley: So five bedrooms total. Okay. Is there fencing between the apartments, 46 in other words, play area? 23 1 2 Parra: Yes. 3 4 Shipley: So when I looked at the diagram I saw the dotted line around there but 1 5 wasn't sure if that's a ... is that fencing line? 6 7 Parra: Yes. 8 9 Shipley: So proposed unit B for example, would have a covered patio and then a 10 fenced in area around it for the, there ... 11 12 Parra: Yes. 13 14 Shipley: Okay, then proposed unit C, they have just the covered patio area? 15 16 Parra: Yes. 17 18 Shipley: So there's no area for children to play or anything? 19 20 Parra: No, 1 don't think so. 21 22 Shipley: Okay. And the proposed unit A has a covered patio and a small fenced in 23 area around there, I guess where children could play outside. The parking 24 along the front there are eight stalls. It looks like there's no sidewalk. 25 You've just continued the sidewalk on either side of the property so 26 anybody that parks there has to walk out into the street to get to the front 27 courtyard, or the residents that live adjacent to there, do they have to walk 28 out in the street to go past the cars that are parked there? 29 30 Parra: I don't, really I don't know. 31 32 Shipley: Okay. The ingress looks like, is the ingress for proposed unit C under the 33 covered patio right there at the corner of the building? The entrance, in 34 other words, when you come up the courtyard, I can see where the walk 35 goes to proposed unit A and I would assume that it goes back to B and 36 this covered patio, does that go to C? 37 38 Parra: Yes. 39 40 Shipley: Okay, so they all share that access. 41 42 Parra: Yes. 43 44 Shipley: Is there any, besides the patio, is there any means of getting out of the 45 building if there were to be a fire in that area? For example, in the corner 46 of unit B or unit C, would the people be trapped in the building? 24 1 2 Parra: No. 3 4 Shipley: Is there a secondary means to get out? 5 6 Parra: Yeah, there's a secondary. 7 8 Shipley: And is it under the patio? 9 10 Parra: Yes, by the covered patio. 11 12 Shipley: Okay. So the entrance, what I guess what I looked at there was the 13 entrance, to proposed unit C and the exit from the patio are real close 14 together, if there was to be a fire in that area the people could be trapped 15 in the remainder of the part of the building. Again, I don't have a diagram, 16 a floor diagram to show me where bedrooms are or kitchen or anything, so 17 it just was a concern of mine because of the way it looked like it was laid 18 out. The other thing is that did you make any plans for where people 19 would take their trash and put their trash? 20 21 Parra: No, we haven't done it yet. 22 23 Shipley: Okay. Because again, with such limited area and with fences and that, 24 there needs to be a place for the trash enclosure when you have an 25 apartment so people have a common place to take their trash. 26 27 Parra: Yeah. No, we haven't done it. 28 29 Shipley: Okay. That was all the questions I had. 30 31 Scholz: Okay. Commissioners, other questions? Okay. Thank you, Ms. Parra. 32 We'll hear from the public. 33 34 Banegas: Hello, my name is Albert Banegas. I'm here to speak on behalf of my 35 parents who live on Cottonwood Street. They are against the building of 36 these apartments. I wrote some notes here. First of all, the request is to 37 allow for three single-family units on one-quarter of an acre. That 0.28, 38 that's closer to a quarter than even a third, which obviously we feel is too 39 crowded, would be too crowded in there. There will be higher probability 40 of disturbances among families living so closely in an apartment complex 41 and I know that from my past experience, from my career. Also, there will 42 be more traffic in the neighborhood which will make it unsafe for children 43 playing or riding their bicycles on the street. There will be more cars 44 parked on the street, cars from tenant's friends, relatives, and tenants 45 themselves. So, more people, more cars, more noise, and likelihood of 46 more disturbances will contribute negatively to the quality of life in this 25 1 neighborhood. This is an old neighborhood. Yesterday one their 2 neighbors described it as being like a historic district. Most of the 3 homeowners in this neighborhood have been there for a very long time. 4 My parents have lived there for over 25 years. Now we are not against 5 the building of a single-family home on this lot, but a three single-family 6 units on one lot is absolutely too many. All the housing on this street is 7 single-family units and that is how it is zoned. We respectfully ask that 8 you please leave it as it and not change the zoning that would allow for the 9 construction of multi-family units on this lot in question. Thank you. 10 11 Scholz: Okay, thank you, sir. Some questions for this gentleman before he goes? 12 No. Okay. Someone else would like to speak to this? 13 14 Estrada: My name is Frankie Estrada and I live in the neighborhood as well. This 15 neighborhood is a very old neighborhood. Basically, everybody that lives 16 there has lived there for a very long time. I do oppose the replat of the 17 existing subdivision. The character of our neighborhood will be 18 compromised by introducing the zoning classification that is contrary to the 19 R-1a. I do agree with the infill policy but it goes contrary to what it is 20 because it is not compatible to what's in the surrounding area. Introducing 21 apartments to the area will be introducing people with no vested interest 22 and I do not agree with the recommendation of the Staff for a replat of an 23 existing subdivision for these reasons. Thank you. 24 25 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else from the audience want to speak to this? 26 Okay. I'm going to cut off public discussion and, Commissioners, your 27 views? Commissioner Shipley. 28 29 Shipley: Well, I visited the neighborhood earlier today and this is a neighborhood of 30 single-family homes and I think that the three, the one thing you notice 31 from this application is that by consolidating three lots into one you take 32 away the five-foot setback on each side of each of the lots. Thereby, you 33 can put the houses or the rental units a little closer together. I had 34 questions about the square footage and that was answered. I had 35 questions about the number of bedrooms. The play area for kids 36 concerned me. The fencing also concerned me because that's difficult. It 37 would be up initially and it'll go away very quickly and then there's more 38 squabbling between neighbors, especially living so close together. The 39 courtyard; I didn't like the design of the courtyard. I thought that it will be 40 very easily made into the play area for the kids, since there is nowhere 41 else. They'll find that area and whatever plants or trees or things that are 42 put in there will immediately be torn down and it'll become an eyesore. 43 Eight parking stalls was plenty; however, I didn't like the layout of the 44 parking stalls nor did I like the fact that it appeared that you had to make 45 the residents of the neighborhood walk behind the cars in the street. Again 46 now that may not be the correct answer, but that's what it looks like on 26 1 paper to me. And I was also as I stated earlier, asked about the trash 2 enclosure because once again you have three families living together. 3 They have to take care of that trash enclosure and keep it clean and neat, 4 otherwise you can have rodents and other things introduced into the living 5 area and that's not a good thing. I felt that this really isn't appropriate use 6 for this neighborhood. I don't know that you'll generate that much more 7 traffic. The number of people living there, three single-family residences 8 will generate about the same number of traffic. The difference is if the 9 people own those three different parcels they'll take a much better interest 10 in maintaining it and keeping it that way. So I, again I don't think I could 11 support this. 12 13 Scholz: Someone else? Commissioner Crane. 14 15 Crane: I agree with Commissioner Shipley on the parking. It looks very tight and 16 I've no idea where a trash container would be put that would be accessible 17 to the pickup vehicle. I don't know if we're talking single story. Going to 18 be two story any chance? I couldn't find anything in the documentation 19 that indicates whether this is one or two stories. You know, Mr. White? 20 Well, that's fine. I went and looked at the area, too, and the houses are 21 small and I'm feeling that three apartments on this lot, one or two story 22 would rather dominate, overpower the neighborhood, and I think perhaps 23 something of the order of two apartments would be better suited. I just 24 think it's too tight. 25 26 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 27 28 Beard: I agree with you. The one thing I would add is that not only do we listen to 29 the City's recommendation and we listen to the applicant, but we also 30 listen to the neighbors, and there's an awful lot of neighbors here that are 31 opposed to this particular construction. We do have to consider input from 32 the City, from the people that are in the local area, and I think that we 33 have to really weigh in these people that have signed this petition and the 34 people that have spoken. 35 36 Scholz: Someone else, another Commissioner? Commissioner Bustos. 37 38 Bustos: Well, the only thing I might add is, has the applicant, have you guys talked 39 to the neighborhood at all? I mean have they got together to maybe talk 40 at all? 41 42 Parra: NOT AT PODIUM, BUT SAID NO. 43 44 Bustos: I mean, I would suggest that maybe, you know, I agree with the other 45 Commissioners. I think three might be too many and it sounds like the 46 neighborhood is not against maybe two, that's what I understand correctly, 27 1 but I mean I think that would be something that'd be interesting that the 2 applicant and the neighborhood get together. 3 4 Scholz: We had a similar situation about four months ago with an infill piece and 5 after the developer talked to the neighbors they worked out the situation 6 and I think they came up with a good compromise and I believe they finally 7 decided on as many units as the developer had originally proposed but in 8 a different configuration. My concern here is that, and I'm not sure if the 9 neighbors are aware of this, but there are three lots here and that means 10 that three individual houses could be built on those three lots. They'd be 11 relatively small houses because the lots are narrow. I think the total width 12 is about 95-feet for that vacant lot. So if you're concerned about traffic 13 and density, you know three single-family dwelling would provide probably 14 as much traffic and density as apartments. So I'm not sure that that's a 15 thing to consider. Well, I'm open to a motion here. Commissioners? 16 17 Bustos: I make a motion we approve case IDP 33. 18 19 Scholz: Okay, is there a second? 20 21 Beard: I second it. 22 23 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I'm going to call the role. 24 Commissioner Shipley. 25 26 Shipley: I would vote nay for approval for findings, site visit, and discussion. 27 28 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 29 30 Crane: Vote nay for site visit, findings, and discussion. 31 32 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 33 34 Evans: No, findings and discussion. 35 36 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 37 38 Bustos: No, findings and discussion. 39 40 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 41 42 Beard: No, findings and discussions and site visit. 43 44 Scholz: And the Chair votes no for findings, discussion, and site visit. Okay, so 45 the subject is denied 6-0. 46 28 1 5. IDP 34: A request for an infill development proposal (IDPPZ) for three distinct 2 properties located at 630 S. Espanola Street. The subject properties are 3 currently zoned C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) encompassing 0.20 +/- 4 acres. The C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) zoning designation requires 5 a minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre. Based on the properties combined 6 size of 0.20 +/- acres a minimum of two dwelling units would be required to 7 be constructed on the properties. The applicant is requesting for the 8 construction of one single-family residence adhering to the development 9 criteria for the R-1a (Single-Family Medium Density) zoning designation. 10 Submitted by Adan Sanchez, property owner. 11 12 Scholz: Okay, our next case is also an infill, case IDP 34, a request for an infill 13 development proposal for three distinct properties located at 630 S. 14 Espanola. The subject properties are currently zoned C-2 (Commercial 15 Medium Intensity) encompassing 0.20 acres. The C-2 (Commercial 16 Medium Intensity) zoning designation requires a minimum of 10 dwelling 17 units per acre. Based on the properties' combined size, a minimum of two 18 dwelling units would be required to be constructed on the properties. The 19 applicant is requesting for the construction of one single-family residence 20 adhering to the development criteria for the R-1a (Single-Family Medium 21 Density) zoning designation. Submitted by Adan Sanchez, property 22 owner. Mr. White. 23 24 White: Chair Scholz, since you read that for me I'll just go ahead and paraphrase. 25 The property's located at 630 S. Espanola. Again, you have three distinct 26 lots. What transpires in most of these areas, you have antiquated 27 subdivisions. You have a lot of lots that are roughly about 24-feet wide by 28 about 100-foot width. So in theory what's occurring here are the 29 properties in this area. Look at the vicinity map. Point of reference, here's 30 Espanola Street located here. You have Kansas located up here, and just 31 above one block you have Lohman Avenue. In this general area here this 32 is all zoned C-2. 33 What's transpired over the last three to four years is this has been 34 one of the most active areas of infill development in the City, if you're 35 familiar with this Espanola area. This entire area here has been 36 developed into townhomes. You have three townhome units here and you 37 have townhome units that come to this portion right here. The real issue 38 is that based upon it is an infill area, but the actual zoning designation has 39 never changed. It's still C-2. So what the applicant is trying to do, this is 40 kind of reversed to what we discussed, is based upon the C-2, which 41 requires apartments to be constructed, they want to place one residential 42 structure on three distinct lots. So I've advised the applicant that they will 43 have to proceed first with actual replatting that into one distinct lot. I won't 44 go into all the specifics again, but of course as stipulated earlier, infill is 45 encouraged in centralized areas of the City and the western portion of 46 Espanola Street located south of Kansas Street has been one of the most 29 1 active infill areas within the City and I believe we had seven homes that 2 have been constructed out there in the last two or three years. 3 Again, just to give you a little bit, here's the actual subject tract of 4 land in question this evening. Of course, you have two thoroughfares in 5 close proximity. On the western boundary you have Solano which is 6 located here which is a north/south connection point and you have 7 Lohman Avenue located here. You do have a few commercial structures 8 located in this area right here. Aerial view of the lot: these are actually 9 outdated. These are 2004 aerials that actually now you actually have 10 townhomes in all these specified lots up and down this area here. At the 11 end of Espanola Street here you have a cul-de-sac located here with a 12 very narrow radius. If you actually tried to turn around in that area you'd 13 notice that. Staff recommendation is for approval with conditions, and 14 again, all newly installed utilities will be placed underground. And just like 15 you saw with the previous case, the applicant will be required to replat lot 16 16, 17, and 18, lot 54 of Grandview Subdivision to one distinct lot of 0.20 17 acres. The one thing that was also alluded to in your packet is 18 Development Standards because when they come in for a building permit, 19 we won't have specified Development Standard setbacks, so what actually 20 they've agreed to is to do R-1 a setbacks which will be a 15-foot front yard 21 setback, 25-feet for the garage, five-feet for the side, and 20 for the rear. 22 So, that was the process of also trying to get development standards in 23 this actual IDPPZ so we can actually set it and have setbacks when they 24 come in for an application. Of course, the P&Z Commission has final 25 authority over this case. 26 27 Scholz: Okay, questions for Mr. White. 28 29 Shipley: I have one. 30 31 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley. 32 33 Shipley: Mr. White, you talked about the cul-de-sac. Is that street supposed to go 34 through eventually, because it's shown on the map as a through street? 35 36 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Shipley, the answer is no because it's directly 37 adjacent to a major arroyo and I don't see the City trying to build a bridge 38 over that arroyo. Actually, Espanola picks up on this side here and it just 39 ends. 40 41 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley, I was going to ask the same question about Texas 42 Street; if Texas Street went through and then I realized it would run into 43 the arroyo. 44 45 Shipley: I just wondered if they were going to put a bridge. That was my next 46 question. 30 1 2 Scholz: A bridge over troubled waters. No, there's already one on Solano, I think 3 we're cool there. Okay, can we hear from the applicant, please? 4 5 Sanchez: How are you doing this evening? My name is Adan Sanchez and these 6 pieces of land, lot 16, 17, 18, and 20 have been in my family for a long 7 time. We've hit a couple of hurdles when trying to develop. We were 8 actually trying to get lot 19 which is owned by a different person, you 9 know, to either swap us sides or to purchase it off of him so we can join 10 our four units and not have a piece of land between, but that's kind of 11 yielded a dead end. So what we've done is we're trying to get three units 12 put together and build a small home there for me and my family, you 13 know, which would give us access to, you know, it's close to my mom's 14 house, my son and daughter's school, and a small business that we own. 15 So I'm asking for permission to rezone it to Residential so we can put a 16 small home there. 17 18 Scholz: Okay. Questions for the applicant? Okay. Is there anyone else from the 19 audience who wants to comment on this? Thank you, Mr. Sanchez. 20 Okay, I'll close discussion and what is your, what do you want to do, 21 Commissioners? 22 23 Crane: Move to approve. 24 25 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved to approve case IDP 34 with the following 26 conditions and that is all newly installed utilities will be placed 27 underground and the applicant will be required to replat lots. 28 29 Shipley: Second. 30 31 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. I'll call the role. Commissioner Shipley. 32 33 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 34 35 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 36 37 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 38 39 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 40 41 Evans: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 42 43 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 44 45 Bustos: Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 46 31 1 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 2 3 Beard: Aye, based on findings and discussions and site visit. 4 5 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye based on findings, discussion, and site visit. So it 6 is passed 6-0. Thank you, gentlemen. 7 8 6. Case S-08-33: A request annexation plat approve of 10.153 +/- acres of land 9 into the Corporate Limits of the City of Las Cruces, otherwise known as Las 10 Cruces Center, generally located within Section 29, Township 23 South, 11 Range 2 East, NMPM of the USRS Surveys part of the USRS Tract 11 D-54, 12 within the lands of New Mexico State University, located south of Las Cruces, 13 Dona Ana County, New Mexico. The subject property is located south of 14 University Avenue, west of Union Avenue, north of College Avenue, and east 15 of the Las Cruces Lateral. The property is currently within the lands of New 16 Mexico State University. Submitted by The Regents of New Mexico State 17 University. 18 19 7. Case No. PA-08-02: A request to amend the University Avenue Corridor 20 Plan to add areas six (6) and seven (7) to the University Avenue Corridor, to 21 allow for and govern the development of the Las Cruces Center and NMSU 22 full service hotel. Submitted by the City of Las Cruces, Community 23 Development Department. 24 25 8. Case No. ZCA-08-02: A request to amend Chapter 38, section 38-44 of the 26 Municipal Code, to add area six (6) and seven (7) to the University Avenue 27 Corridor to allow for and govern the development of the Las Cruces Center 28 (6) and the NMSU Hotel (7). Submitted by the City of Las Cruces, 29 Community Development Department. 30 31 Scholz: I'm going to suggest we take a nine-minute break here and then we're 32 going to tackle the Planning and Zoning Commission City of Las Cruces 33 thick packet here. So let's be back here at 7:30. 34 35 NINE-MINUTE BREAK. 36 37 Scholz: Okay, we're reconvening. Gentlemen, Gary Hembree, who is the planner 38 is going to enlighten us. Actually, I think you're going to ask us to suspend 39 the rules. 40 41 Hembree: The first thing I'm going to do is ask you to please suspend the rules so we 42 can hear these three cases together and it's a lot to ask. It's late in the 43 evening. 44 45 Scholz: I know it is. Okay. I'll accept a motion to suspend the rules so we can act 46 on these three cases together. 32 ON 1 2 Evans: So moved. 3 4 Scholz: Is there a second? 5 6 Crane: Second. 7 8 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. Okay, all those in favor say aye. 9 10 ALL COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS -AYE. 11 12 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. The motion carries. 13 14 Hembree: Thank you, Chair, members of the Commission. I'm Gary Hembree. I'll 15 be handling this case with my associate, Susan Lowell. I'll do a quick 16 introduction and talk a little but about the annexation plat, and then Susan, 17 who's been very active in the planning process and the development of 18 the Design Standards and the Zoning Standards for this particular case, 19 can wrap it up. Then I believe that the University is here as well as the 20 applicant to answer any questions you might have. 21 As you stated, there are three cases being heard currently this 22 evening before the Commissioner. There is S-08-033 which deals with 23 the Annexation Plat for Las Cruces Center which is a portion of Area 6 of 24 the University Avenue Corridor Plan which Susan will talk a little bit more 25 about in the future. Then there's PA-08-02 which establishes Area 6 and 26 7 in the UAC Plan for the Las Cruces Center and the New Mexico State 27 University Hotel respectively and which actually then serves as the Master 28 Plan, if you will, for the area to be annexed by the Annexation Plat that's 29 before you this evening. The third Case is ZCA-08-02, which establishes 30 Area 6 and 7 in the Municipal Code adding to the UAC Overlay for those 31 areas known as Las Cruces Center and New Mexico State University 32 Hotel, respectively, and then again will serve as the Initial Zoning for areas 33 to be annexed into the City relative to this project. 34 1 guess I could've gone through, I kind of got ahead of myself there 35 didn't I? Okay. Well, we'll just go through here. I'll play catch up with the 36 screen. Talk a little bit about the Annexation Plat at hand. The location, 37 the subject property is south of University Avenue, west of Union Avenue, 38 North of College Avenue, and east of the Las Cruces Lateral. Acreage is 39 approximately 10.153 acres. This area right here in the hatched portion of 40 Area 6, which Susan will talk more generally about in terms of planning 41 and development standards in a little bit. And 7 here is also being added 42 into the UAC Plan and Overlay. This is the area of potential future 43 annexation for the hotel. Again, more detail on the actual Annexation Plat. 44 University Avenue, if I can find my cursor here, the Las Cruces Lateral to 45 the west, College Avenue to the south, and then Union Avenue to the 33 1 east. This area comprises the only area of annexation being considered 2 by the Commission this evening. 3 I'd like to talk a little bit about the annexation process. New Mexico 4 State University Staff and City Staff have been working diligently on the 5 annexation planning and zoning process for more than a year. The 6 process of review and comment began actually on May 5th when the UAC 7 Design Review Committee reviewed and approved the amendments to the 8 UAC plan into the Overlay. On May 14th, the City's Design Review 9 Committee reviewed the Annexation Plat and approved it with comments, 10 which have been incorporated into the package before you this evening. 11 Abiding by the terms of the lease, the Staff will take the Annexation Plan, 12 Master Plan, Initial Zoning based upon your recommendation to the City 13 Council for first read when the City signs the contract for construction of 14 the Las Cruces Center. That's an actual condition of the lease. With that, 15 my quick overview, I would like to turn it over to my associate, Susan 16 Lowell, who will give you additional context on these cases and will review 17 the zoning district and Design Standards for these project cases. 18 19 Scholz: Mr. Hembree, before you leave, I have one question. I want to make 20 clear, this is - we're only talking about the annexation for the Convention 21 Center right now. Is that right? 22 23 Hembree: That is correct. For the Las Cruces Center, which was that blue hatched 24 area portion of Area 6. That is correct. 25 26 Scholz: Thank you. I wanted everyone to make sure of that. Okay, Ms. Lowell. 27 28 Lowell: Thank you. We'll proceed with giving you a little bit of background on the 29 context of this case. The lease agreement was executed on March 12th, 30 2007 and then again amended in February of this year. That lease 31 agreement roughly defines the Las Cruces Center and hotel parcels. It 32 roughly defines optional expansion parcel. It defines the allowed uses for 33 both areas and it defines the terms of the annexation, specifically that the 34 City shall not take action to approve the application for annexation until it 35 has entered and signed a contract for construction of the Center. 36 The City can only zone within its corporate limits. That's going to 37 define the geographic differences in the maps that we have presented you 38 this evening. The plan area includes the optional expansion parcel. The 39 Overlay Area 6 is specific to the annexation plat before you this evening. 40 Again, that's the yellow hatched area in the lower left. The Overlay Area 7 41 is an estimate of the future annexation plat for the NMSU Hotel. Plan 42 Area 6 includes the future possible expansion of the Las Cruces Center. 43 Plan Area 7 includes the future possible expansion of the NMSU Hotel. 44 Overlay Area 6, as you can see, is equivalent to the annexation plat 45 before you this evening, and Overlay 7, again, is an estimate of the 46 annexation plat for the NMSU Hotel, which has not yet been received. 34 1 There are provisions in the plan and the Overlay amendments that 2 are unique to Area 6 and 7. Those that are unique to Area 6 include 3 allowed uses specifically that are conditioned upon being ancillary to the 4 Center rather than as independent uses. Commercial parking has been 5 added due to the nature of the Convention Center. Lodging will be 6 prohibited unless the Hotel is not developed. Provisions unique to Area 7 7 are indeed land uses, all of which must support a full service hotel. There 8 are also provisions in common for Areas 6 and 7 and they include Trost- 9 inspired architecture which has been added to those areas to reflect the 10 architects influence on the campus and buildings designed in what he 11 called the Spanish Renaissance style. The side and front setbacks are 12 intended to be a minimum threshold and subject to design review by the 13 University Avenue Corridor Citizens Design Review Committee within the 14 context of the buildings mass, its orientation, and design. Landscaping 15 requirements would not be reduced. Instead they would be adjusted to fit 16 within the remaining side and rear setbacks, should the buildings design 17 be suitable for zero setbacks. The current code states that 50% of 18 landscaping has to be within the front setback of the building. So if the 19 setback is reduced or eliminated landscaping would shift to the remaining 20 setbacks. 21 Limitations in the code regarding frequency and duration of banners 22 will not apply to Area 6 and 7, but all other restrictions apply: that means 23 one banner at a time, it must be constructed of a certain set of materials, 24 there are size standards, and mounting standards. The modeling 25 requirement is for design review, again by the Citizens Design Review 26 Committee for the University Avenue Corridor. A modeling will convey 27 three-D conceptual images of the building's mass, its orientation, and 28 relation to University Avenue. 29 Staff recommendation is for approval on all cases with the condition 30 that these actions will not be forwarded to the City Council for 31 consideration until the terms of the lease agreement between the City of 32 Las Cruces and NMSU have been met, which requires the City to first sign 33 the construction contract for the Las Cruces Center. Your options are to 34 approve the Annexation Plat, Master Plan, and Initial Zoning as 35 recommended by the DRC, and Master Plan and Initial Zoning as 36 recommended by the University Avenue Corridor Citizens Design Review 37 Committee, with the condition that the terms of the lease agreement are 38 met prior to City Council consideration; or approve the Annexation Plat, 39 Master Plan, and Initial Zoning as recommended by the DRC, and Master 40 Plan and Initial Zoning as recommended by the UAC Citizens Design 41 Review Committee, with additional conditions deemed appropriate by the 42 Planning and Zoning Commission; or deny the annexation proposal 43 including Annexation Plat, Master Plan, and Initial Zoning request. Denial 44 would need to be based upon findings other than those identified by Staff, 45 identified by the Citizens Design Review Committee, and identified by the 35 a 1 City's Design Review Committee. That concludes our presentation. We 2 stand for questions and the University is here as well. 3 4 Scholz: Okay, Commissioners, questions for Ms. Lowell? 5 6 Shipley: Please, I have one. 7 8 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley. 9 10 Shipley: I would just like to ask why there's zero setback on the front setbacks of 11 the, both sides with the hotel and the Center. 12 13 Lowell: It would be either one or the other and it is to encourage a design and 14 pedestrian feeling that we're hoping to achieve in collaboration with the 15 NMSU master plan. 16 17 Shipley: But we're not looking at anything. So in my mind I'm trying to visualize a 18 90-foot building that was built right up against the sidewalk on a zero lot 19 line, which doesn't seem as friendly to pedestrians as something that's set 20 back a little bit with some greenery and some trees and things of that 21 nature which gives it more of a human-scape as opposed to a bold, you 22 know, and again I've looked at the pictures of the various types of 23 architecture and I've tried to visualize in my mind what you're proposing, 24 but that's why I asked why no setback at all. 25 26 Lowell: Well, I think that's, we set it at a minimum of zero, anywhere between zero 27 and 20-feet. But again, it's ... 28 29 Schuster: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Shipley, Tom Schuster from Community 30 Development Department. I was involved in this process when it began 31 last year and subsequently have been working with Susan on it. One 32 thing to keep in mind with the UAC Corridor is that any design of buildings 33 within the Corridor is subject to architectural review by the Design Review 34 Committee, which means that if someone were to come in with a proposal 35 that was right up against the street and 90-feet straight up and down, if 36 that that were an undesirable proposal, the committee would certainly 37 have the ability to say, "No, you have to either push it back from the street 38 or you have to have the front of the building only be several stories where 39 the highest part of the building is set back from the street further up." 40 There are a number of options that the committee does have there. What 41 this does is it doesn't require them to put it right on the street section, but it 42 does allow that. The problem that we see in a lot of other parts of the 43 Corridor is that there is a front setback of 20-feet required which can't in 44 theory have parking, which ends up being a lot of somewhat wasted space 45 and you force the buildings away from where the pedestrians are. What 46 we want to have, the goal with this, was to have pretty easy access from 36 4; a 1 the sidewalk directly into the building. But again, that's subject to specific 2 review and modeling review visualization by the committee. 3 4 Scholz: If you recall, Commissioner Shipley, we passed this, oh what was it, four 5 months ago Tom, four or five months ago when we modified the University 6 Avenue Corridor plan? 7 8 Schuster: Mr. Chair, there was a case in Area 1, on the other side of the UAC where 9 a similar modification was made to allow for zero front setback, yes. 10 11 Scholz: Right. Commissioner Beard. 12 13 Beard: For Area 6 where is the access going to be going into it, off of University 14 or off of Union? 15 16 Mendez: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Tomas Mendez, architect, City of Las Cruces. 17 18 Scholz: Actually, it's good evening, sir. You're close. 19 20 Mendez: My stomach says it's still afternoon. Good afternoon and good evening. 21 Tomas Mendez, architect, City of Las Cruces. That determination has not 22 been made and as a matter of fact right now we are in schematic design 23 stage for that facility. So we are exploring options. It could work either 24 way. I think that the University has a similar dilemma on their hands, 1 25 guess, unless that's already been determined whether they're going off of 26 University or off of EI Paseo/Union. We'll find out in the next couple of 27 weeks which direction the architect plans to go. 28 29 Beard: Another question: how many parking lots are going to be in Area 6? How 30 many cars can you accommodate in there? 31 32 Mendez: I'm sorry I can't answer that question at this time. 33 34 Beard: Ten acres seems to be awful small for everything that you're putting in 35 there. Union is already stressed as well as University. I think these are 36 critical things that need to be discussed and determined before we act on 37 a plan like this. 38 39 Scholz: Does Staff have an answer for us here? 40 41 Schuster: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Beard, as I understand it and Mr. Mendez can 42 correct me if I'm wrong, but the design, the specific design of the 43 Convention Center, is subject to a public review process. 44 45 Mendez: Well, not precisely. There'll be public input. There will be opportunity for 46 the City Council to review the design along the way. Also, I think that the 37 1 design will be consistent with the City's Development Standards in terms 2 of parking requirements. Any other development centers may be 3 accessed, throughways, traffic ways, just, I don't know that. That's the 4 land that we have and that's what we're working towards. I don't think that 5 we can build more. Well, I guess it's a matter of opinion as to whether the 6 street can support more traffic than not. One of the things that we're 7 required to do prior to initiating the design is to complete a Traffic Impact 8 Analysis and that has been completed and that was relayed to our Public 9 Works Department as well as to the New Mexico Department of 10 Transportation. So far, we haven't heard any negative concerns that we 11 are adversely affecting the traffic. 12 13 Beard: Well, right now there's a stop light, of course, at the corner of University 14 and El Paso or Union. There's also one at Stewart and there's one on 15 Stern Drive, and there should be one at Sam Steele because that is one of 16 the most hazardous corners there ever was. And I think that you're going 17 to create another corner just like that on College if that happens to be your 18 outlet. There's no stop light on Sam Steele. There should be. 19 20 Mendez: Are you asking me whether we're going to plan to release traffic on 21 College? 22 23 Beard: Are you going to get this traffic going through there? I drive there every 24 day. This is my district. I drive through there every day and I curse those 25 lights every time I drive through it. 26 27 Mendez: I'm not understanding the question, Commissioner Beard. 28 29 Beard: I want to know what you're doing. What your plan is for trying to minimize 30 the traffic that's going through there? 31 32 Mendez: Well, so far, as I said, the Traffic Impact Analysis on the building that we're 33 proposing to put there does not show an adverse effect on that. 34 35 Schuster: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Beard, Tom Schuster again. According to the 36 process that we generally follow with annexations, issues such as number 37 of parking stalls and specific traffic flow related to a site are usually not 38 addressed at that stage. What we're looking for is in general the land 39 uses that are proposed. Those issues would be addressed at the site 40 development level which ultimately would be subject to City Council 41 approval at a later time. 42 43 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley. 44 45 Shipley: Will that come back to us for us to approve? Will we see that again? Will 46 we see the site or the architecture or anything else? 38 1 2 Schuster: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Shipley. The site design itself will not come 3 back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. It will go to the UAC Design 4 Review Committee and then to City Council. 5 6 Mendez: Mr. Chair, if I may, that's not to say that you as a special interest 7 representative could not attend any one of the upcoming presentations 8 that we would have and voice an opinion as to what to you think of the 9 design as it is progressing. 10 11 Scholz: I have a feeling you'll hear from us. Could we hear from the University, 12 please? 13 14 Rickenbacker: Good evening, my name is Michael Rickenbacker. I'm the University 15 Architect and Director of Facilities, Planning and Construction at New 16 Mexico State University as University Architect. I'm here this evening to 17 speak on behalf of my Board. The Board of Regents at New Mexico State 18 University have actually approved this project by first, when they adopted 19 the University master plan in December '06 when they approved a plan 20 that clearly indicated the site in question as a site for the Las Cruces 21 Center, and second when they approved the lease. I'm prepared to stand 22 for questions. 23 24 Scholz: Okay, questions for this gentleman. 25 26 Beard: Do you know where the exits are going to be? I mean, you're going to put 27 a hotel, this traffic has got me. I have a big concern for it. You're going to 28 put a hotel in 7 which means that you can't use College. I don't know 29 whether you're going to use College or not, which means you have to put 30 another access road on Union or University. It seems like that hotel 31 should be moved over so that you could utilize, maybe, College. 32 33 Schuster: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Beard, Tom Schuster again. The hotel parcel 34 isn't being considered for annexation here tonight. It's just the Las Cruces 35 Center parcel on the other side of Union. 36 37 Beard: But we are considering both of them under these discussions, aren't we? 38 39 Schuster: In terms of master planning and zoning yes, but that doesn't get into the 40 level of traffic, vehicular access to that parcel. 41 42 Scholz: Any other questions for this gentleman? Okay, is there someone from the 43 public would like to comment on this? Yes, ma'am. 44 45 Geiger: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Sandy Geiger. I wrote you, 46 wrote actually Chair Scholz a letter listing some concerns that I had 39 1 related to the process of drafting a preservation plan for NMSU. I had 2 participated in this process earlier in February and checked with Greg 3 Walkey, who's here with us this evening, at NMSU to see what the status 4 of NMSU's heritage preservation plan was, and I understand it's still in a 5 drafting process. It hasn't come back before the committee that has been 6 selected to work with this plan nor has it come back for public review 7 again. These are two things that need to happen before it's presented to 8 the NMSU Board of Regents. I thought it was very significant that NMSU 9 was conducting a heritage preservation plan and was very, felt very 10 grateful to be able to participate in it. Consequently, my letter to you and 11 to Chairman Scholz ... 12 13 Scholz: I passed it along; by the way, everyone got it. 14 15 Geiger: Okay. Thank you very much. And then I did a second letter with some 16 background information to give you a much bigger picture of this entire 17 process of selecting the convention center. At any rate, I was grateful to 18 be a part of that process and felt it was important that this Commission 19 realize that there is a preservation process going on at this time. I ask that 20 you consider postponing the decision on the annexation and the follow-up 21 area planning processes to be able to allow this preservation plan to come 22 forth and be approved by the Board of Regents September or October of 23 2008. That way for sure we would get all University and public input 24 regarding what is historically important on that campus, including the west 25 end where the Civic Center and the hotel are to be located. 26 In my letter to you, I'll try to outline a couple of ideas. We request 27 that you consider postponement to allow the preservation plan to come 28 forward and the postponement would allow all parties to carefully 29 reconsider the decision to annex and carefully reconsider the contents of 30 the ground lease and water agreements which accompany, would 31 accompany the decision to annex. The agricultural west end of NMSU's 32 main campus was repeatedly nominated for preservation by the public and 33 the Preservation Plan Committee members in response to calls for input 34 early in 2008. Recommendations for preservation have included the west 35 campus irrigable agricultural area including the City Center site, the 36 nematology lab, which is known as the seed house built in 1893, the 37 livestock barns, the corrals, the horse arenas, the acacias or the EBID 38 irrigation canals, the cedar tree, and NMSU's water and water right. 39 1 have also been in conversation with the City Council regarding the 40 water agreement part of the City Center lease and I would like to give just 41 a tiny bit of background. Another reason to postpone this decision for 42 annexation would allow everyone to revisit the decision to place a City 43 Center at this location. 44 1 am not arguing against a convention center. I am simply bringing 45 to your awareness that there are problems with this location. There has 46 been significant opposition to the location of the City Center at the west 40 G 0 1 end of NMSU. In addition to its historical significance, students and 2 faculty continue to need more irrigable farmland on campus for teaching 3 and research. During fall of 2006 the location of the convention center site 4 was protested by 1,050 persons via a petition. Most of the petitioners 5 were NMSU faculty and Staff. At the same time, the NMSU faculty senate 6 passed a resolution requesting faculty and Staff participation in the 7 process to determine how the arable agricultural land on the west end 8 shall be used. These efforts to retain a historical agricultural part of the 9 NMSU campus were essentially ignored by the NMSU administration, the 10 Board of Regents, and the City Council. Now I'm not intending to pull you 11 into this fray at this time. However, by postponing the annexation decision 12 it would allow us to revisit some of these very important points. 13 1 also agree with Commissioner Beard that along with an 14 annexation of a property on the corner of Union and University Avenue 15 should come some idea of what that plan is going to look like for the use 16 of that particular site and I would agree that if indeed a Traffic Impact 17 Analysis has been conducted, that the Commissioners should have this 18 information available to you for you to study. 19 1 had one other concern. I've learned a lot from the presentation by 20 the City Staff tonight and I will get the PowerPoint of the presentation and 21 take a look at the amended February 19th agreement, ground lease 22 agreement. I'm assuming the City Council approved this agreement. I am 23 very concerned about the acreage in addition to the 10 acres for the City 24 Center that is going to be adopted possibly this evening as Area 6 and 25 Area 7. That is substantially greater than the ground lease indicated at 26 this time. The original ground lease indicated eight acres for the City 27 Center, and here we are up to 10 acres plus and then the ... I would like to 28 know the acreage for Area 6 and 7. It looks like the City Center and the 29 hotel is going to take up significantly more than we originally thought in 30 this planning process. I think that is the gist of my request this evening. 31 Thank you very much for your consideration. 32 33 Scholz: Okay. Ms. Geiger, would you stand for questions if there are questions 34 from the Commissioners? 35 36 Geiger: Certainly. 37 38 Scholz: Commissioners? Commissioner Crane. 39 40 Crane: We're being asked tonight if I understand it correctly to approve an 41 Annexation Plat in case 08-033 to amend the University Avenue Corridor 42 Plan PA-08-02, and to amend the Municipal Code in the third case. If we 43 go ahead and do these as requested it seems to me what you're saying is 44 if we go ahead and do this, then that may conflict with the Heritage Plan 45 that the University is working on. 46 41 1 Geiger: Could possibly. 2 3 Crane: So you want us to hold off on this while we wait something like, give them 4 a little flextime, five-six months. 5 6 Geiger: That is according to an estimate when the plan might come before the 7 Board of Regents, the Heritage Preservation Plan, August, September, 8 October. 9 10 Crane: Thank you. 11 12 Scholz: Any other questions for Ms. Geiger? Okay, we'll close it public discussion. 13 Commissioners, what is your pleasure? 14 15 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I'd like for NMSU to address the Heritage Plan that Ms. 16 Geiger is referring to because it's going off of her estimated timeline. So 17 I'd like the representatives of New Mexico State be able to address that 18 plan. 19 20 Scholz: Certainly. Okay, and it looks like its going to be a tag team here. 21 22 Walkey: Yes, it will. Commissioners, I'm Greg Walkey. I'm the Assistant University 23 Architect. I'm the one who is working with the Getty Foundation on 24 preparing the Heritage Preservation Plan. I think probably the key point to 25 bear in mind here is that land that is leased to others as this land is, this 26 land in question, will be excluded from the boundaries of any Heritage 27 Preservation Plan that we develop. Any plan the University adopts will 28 only be applied to property that it controls and the Regents have already 29 made it clear through their actions that they consider this lease done and 30 taken care. The land is leased to others and won't be included in any 31 Heritage Preservation Plan. It will be excluded. 32 33 Scholz: Okay. Questions for Mr. Walkey? 34 35 Walkey: I would also add that Ms. Geiger is correct about most of the statements 36 about the condition of the plan right now except that it's unlikely that it's 37 going to be accepted in September or October, probably be next summer 38 at the earliest. But it doesn't affect this property at all. 39 40 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walkey. Commissioner Crane. 41 42 Crane: So if we have the feeling that this property should belong, should be 43 protected as part of the University heritage that's, in fact, a moot issue 44 because the lease has already been signed and the property is under the 45 control of the City and so cannot be preserved. 46 42 AWN 1 Walkey: That's right. Not under this plan. 2 3 Crane: Right. But the City is unlikely having chosen to lease it for a convention 4 center to suddenly decide it should go back to agriculture use. 5 6 Walkey: Yes, sir. The University considers it under the control of the City at this 7 point by our lease. 8 9 Crane: So, even if we were to defer as Ms. Geiger wants us to do, it's still a lost 10 issue. The lease is signed. 11 12 Walkey: That's right. 13 14 Crane: Deferring this Annexation Plan, Plat, approval etc. is going to have no 15 effect on the Heritage Plans. 16 17 Walkey: That's right. 18 19 Crane: Thank you. 20 21 Scholz: Commissioner Beard would like to hear from Ms. Geiger. I'll allow that. 22 23 Geiger: I question the length of time now that it takes for this heritage preservation 24 plan to come forth. At the public meeting in February, we were told we 25 would see a draft by April. When I talked with Mr. Walkey a few days ago, 26 last Friday, he said, "Oh gosh! Well, it might come forward to the Regents 27 by September or October of this year." The interesting thing about having 28 it come forward a year from this summer is that the two-year time period 29 within which the City or NMSU could withdraw or cancel the lease will be 30 over. So I find that very curious. I also find it curious that the City Council 31 will not review the annexation or the area development process planning 32 until the terms of the lease agreement with NMSU are met. Now why is 33 the Planning and Zoning Commission being asked to address this when 34 the City Council cannot? That's just another curiosity. I still think Mr. 35 Beard, Commissioner Beard's point about annexation should come in with 36 at least a sketch plan addressing some of the concerns that you all might 37 have about such a center at University and Union, is a valid one. Other 38 annexation plats do come in with sketch plans for specifically those same 39 concerns. Thank you. 40 41 Scholz: Ms. Rodriguez, you want to respond to this? 42 43 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, presented before you tonight is an 44 Annexation Plat, Master Plan, and Initial Zoning. Your task tonight is to 45 offer a recommendation to the City Council. City Council has the final 46 authority on the Annexation Plat, Master Plan, and Initial Zoning, and they 43 01 a 1 have to do so in accordance with State Statute. As State Statute, as we 2 recall with the Vistas at Presidio annexation, was under great debate 3 regarding the timeline. So once City Council accepts the annexation 4 application, basically Staff has 60 days for City Council to make that final 5 approval. So what Staff has done, your action tonight is a 6 recommendation. We're going to take that recommendation and then 7 we're going to hold it until the City of Las Cruces is ready to execute the 8 contract for the, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Mendez, the design to build 9 portion of the Las Cruces City Center. And we anticipate that contract to 10 go to City Council this fall; perhaps the earliest late this summer. Once 11 that contract is getting ready to go to City Council and we're aware of that, 12 Staff anticipates that we will then go ahead and forward your 13 recommendation to City Council. City Council will hear it as a first read of 14 the ordinance. Then the next step is to go to Dona Ana County for State 15 Statute for their review, which is a 30-day time period. But since this is not 16 in the County's jurisdiction, we expect the comments to be minimal. 17 Then what we do is we take that recommendation and we forward it 18 all to City Council for final action. What Staff is anticipating to do is to 19 bring the Annexation Plat, Master Plan, and Initial Zoning either at the 20 same City Council meeting where they execute that contract or the 21 following City Council meeting. And Staff will work, Community 22 Development Staff will work with Facilities Staff to get that time period. 23 What we're here tonight is just to firm up the recommendation. In regards 24 to the design components of the Las Cruces City Center, that is a different 25 avenue that will be handled by, as Mr. Schuster said, the UAC Design 26 Review Board as well as City Council. Once they handle that, then we'll 27 take the Annexation Plat. As Mr. Mendez said, any concerns regarding 28 access, parking will all comply with the City Zoning Code. There are 29 parking mandates in there and it will comply with the parking mandates for 30 parking. Access will be determined. You have access off of University 31 Avenue, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is a Principal Arterial, and Union 32 which is also a Principal Arterial I believe. So you have two Major 33 Thoroughfares that can accommodate access. All of that will be taken into 34 consideration during the design-build phase of the Las Cruces Center. If 35 you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. 36 37 Scholz: Any questions, Commissioners? Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez. Okay, I'll 38 entertain a motion ... oh, excuse me, we have to rise from the ... what 39 was that, Mr. Hembree, suspension of the rules. Yes, we have to un- 40 suspend the rules. So I'll accept a motion to un-suspend the rules. 41 42 Crane: So moved. 43 44 Scholz: Is there a second? 45 46 Shipley: I'll second, reinstatement of the rules. 44 1 2 Scholz: Right, reinstatement of the rules. Thank you. At least you know the 3 language, Commissioner Shipley. Okay. All those in favor to reinstate the 4 rules say aye. 5 6 ALL COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS - AYE. 7 8 Scholz: Those opposed, same sign. Rules are reinstated, which means we vote 9 on these things individually. So I will accept a motion to ... 10 11 Shipley: Do we have any discussion? Point of order. 12 13 Scholz: Yes, Commissioner Shipley, go ahead. 14 15 Shipley: I guess one of the things I would just like to say is the name of this group 16 is the Planning and Zoning Commission, not just the Zoning Commission, 17 and to me when we are going to build something within the City limits that 18 is of this stature and this nature, I kind of like to know what we're building 19 and how it's going to be laid out. So that's kind of my concern number 20 one. And I think with traffic when we talk about planning, we want to know 21 how it's going to be laid out. I think it's very important that we not be 22 excluded from that. When it comes to design of buildings and setbacks 23 and so forth, I take a great interest in that as well. And again, it's all based 24 upon does it fit in, does it meet the neighborhood standards, does it go 25 with those design things? 26 Once again, you know, I wouldn't be objectionable to put another 27 condition in here that it comes back to us when you have more definitive 28 plans so that we can actually look at what we're planning for and zoning 29 for and do it the right way the first time. I think when we are doing things 30 in the dark it doesn't make a lot of sense to me and I'm not real pleased 31 with that. So I would say in my personal opinion of looking at things in a 32 planning process is that the more information we have the better plans 33 and the better decisions we can make. So, I think that with regards to 34 setbacks, I think that we ought to put a condition in that those be brought 35 back to us for approval and we can make a recommendation to the City 36 Council or they can override it if they don't want us to do that. But I'd like 37 to see a little bit more about the traffic analysis. I'd like to see a little bit 38 more about the design standards and what they're putting in there. Just to 39 do something in the dark is not a good process for me. 40 41 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley, we are constrained by the University Avenue 42 Corridor Design Review Committee and I think they have the final say 43 about design review. Correct me if I'm wrong, Staff. I see Ms. Lowell is 44 nodding. That's correct. The University Avenue Design Review 45 Committee has the final say about the design? 46 45 1 Shipley: I think the Commission would have more authority than the Committee. 2 They recommend to us. 3 4 Scholz: Yes, they recommend to us at this stage. That is they've looked at this 5 annexation and said, "Yes, we agree the Annexation is a good thing and 6 the adjustments to the UAC Code and the Municipal Code are a good 7 thing." That's what they've recommended to us. 8 9 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, what we could do, since the design of the Las Cruces 10 Center is subject to review by the UAC, we can also have it come to the 11 Planning and Zoning Commission for review, but ultimately the final say 12 will reside with City Council. We could accommodate that. 13 , 14 Scholz: Shall we put that into our recommendation or will this be understood? 15 16 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, if you want to condition it would be. It would not be part of 17 the Annexation Plat. It would come more so under the Master Plan. You 18 could make the recommendation that that it come under the Master Plan 19 or it's just understood that because it's understood it has to go to the UAC. 20 We can make it understood that after UAC we bring it to the subsequent 21 Planning and Zoning Commission. Usually typically, UAC meets I believe 22 the first Monday of every month and we can bring it that same month that 23 the UAC considers it and then it go to City Council. 24 25 Scholz: Okay, Commissioners, are you willing to accept that understanding? Yes, 26 1 see heads nodding. Okay. 27 28 Shipley: We have to make it a condition under the Master Plan. 29 30 Scholz: Yes, that's what she said. 31 32 Shipley: Yes. 33 34 Scholz: A condition under the master plan. Commissioner Crane. 35 36 Crane: It seems to me that what we're being asked to do at the present is not 37 much more than a formality. Simply to put these two areas under the 38 jurisdiction of the City for various purposes and I was assuming that as 39 plans progress the Planning and Zoning Commission and whoever else is 40 appropriate would be asked to pass on the various details as they come 41 up. So my present feeling is that this is almost a pro-forma approval that 42 we're being asked for, not any detailed plans. As to the University 43 heritage ideas, it seems a great pity to me that that is not being given 44 more respect by the Board of Regents. Clearly it's, if the Board does not 45 have any interest in preserving this land, there's not much point in our 46 trying to frustrate the plans through our own vote. 46 1 2 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 3 4 Beard: I'm not sure what is going to get included when you just accept it or offer. 5 6 Scholz: Would you care to review that again, Ms. Rodriguez? 7 8 Beard: Explicitly is going to be included. 9 10 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, could you restate your question 11 because I'm not quite sure I understood your question? 12 13 Beard: Well, I'm not sure what we're accepting when the University Avenue 14 Corridor is going to put together some type of a plan. 15 16 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, the University Avenue Corridor has 17 already reviewed the master plan and Initial Zoning component to the 18 annexation request and has recommended approval. What the UAC will 19 review in the future to my understanding is the design-build component to 20 the Las Cruces Center because when that structure is designed. They will 21 be reviewing the setback. Earlier we talked about Commissioner Shipley's 22 concern regarding setback being the minimum at zero feet. Well, 23 considering the scale of the building, it may not be at zero feet. It may be 24 setback as five, seven, maybe even ten. One doesn't know at this time 25 because we're not at the design component, the construction component 26 phase of the Las Cruces City Center. 27 So at a future date when City Staff with the selected contractor is 28 ready to do the design and build component of the Las Cruces Center, 29 they will take that plan which will have gone through, as my 30 understanding, a series of public hearings to gather public input. Then 31 they will take that plan and the UAC will review it and offer 32 recommendation with City Council final approval. When it goes to the 33 UAC, it goes to their meeting at the first Monday of every month. What 34 Staff can do is basically three weeks later bring it back to the Planning and 35 Zoning Commission and have the Planning and Zoning Commission look 36 at the same thing that the UAC did and, essentially, the final say for the 37 execution of the design build component for the Las Cruces Center rests 38 with City Council. 39 40 Shipley: But we will get a chance to make a recommendation. If there's something 41 in there that's way out of whack we still have an opportunity to make a 42 recommendation at that time to the City Council. 43 44 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, that is correct and you also have 45 the option of attending the public hearings that will be set aside to gather 47 G (3 1 public input to see what the public is saying regarding the design-build 2 component of the Las Cruces Center. 3 4 Shipley: Okay. 5 6 Scholz: Does that satisfy you, Commissioner Beard? 7 8 Beard: No. Are we asking, are we going to delay this until we receive that UAC 9 build out? 10 11 Scholz: I don't think we're going to delay the annexation. I don't think that's the 12 point. 13 14 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, think of it of analysis when we do 15 typically annexations for, I'm going to pick on Sierra Norte or Vistas at 16 Presidio. We had the annexation bringing the land into the City and we 17 had the Master Plan identifying the land uses, and then the corresponding 18 zoning. This is very similar. We're not at that phase of the annexation 19 process where like at a final site plan or preliminary plat, or even the 20 construction drawing that comes later in the development process. We're 21 at the very beginning of it. And think of it when we do like the annexation 22 like Vistas as Presidio, we're bringing land in, we need to establish our 23 land use which Area 6 and 7 established the land uses for the Convention 24 Center, the hotel, and all ancillary uses, and then we're zoning accordingly 25 and the zoning is the University Avenue Corridor Plan. It's very similar. 26 27 Beard: I understand that. But it's a different situation. You're going out in the 28 desert and there's nothing out there to, that's going to bother you when 29 you start building out there. Well, maybe there is. This is right in the 30 middle of the City and I agree with Mr. Shipley in that we're being asked to 31 approve something without knowing the plan. And I think the plan could 32 have some adverse effects to what's existing right there already on 33 University as well as Union. 34 35 Rodriguez: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Beard, I'm going to respectfully disagree with 36 you because you're not approving the Las Cruces City Center the building. 37 You're approving the Annexation request to bring land into the City with 38 the appropriate land uses and the appropriate zoning. The actual 39 technical details of that plan have yet to be decided. It's no different than 40 when we were bringing in annexations in the periphery of the City, which 41 this is the periphery as well. But if, like Vistas at Presidio and Sierra Norte, 42 the two large annexations that we've recently done, or even Kennan 43 annexation, we're bringing land in, establishing land uses, but not 44 approving any plan yet. You're not approving those subdivision 45 components to those developments. Those come back to you. 48 1 In terms for this, since this is kind of a hybrid, what we're asking 2 you to do is to consider the recommendation for the Annexation, the 3 Master Plan, and Initial Zoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission 4 doesn't have the final authority regarding the Las Cruces City Center. The 5 design-build component of it, that rests with City Council. What Staff can 6 do as UAC is going to be reviewing that component, we can bring it back 7 to the Planning and Zoning Commission at a later date. You, too, can 8 review it and collectively offer a recommendation to City Council when it 9 goes back to City Council. That's what Staff can offer you. 10 11 Scholz: Okay, thank you, Ms. Rodriguez. Any other questions from the 12 Commissioners? Okay, what we'll do is entertain a vote then on, excuse 13 me, ask for a motion for Case S-08-033, a request for annexation plat 14 approval of 10.153 +/- acres of land into the corporate City limits of Las 15 Cruces, otherwise known as Las Cruces Center. 16 17 Shipley: I so move. 18 19 Scholz: Is there a second? 20 21 Crane: Second. 22 23 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. I'm going to call the role. Commissioner 24 Shipley. 25 26 Shipley: I vote aye, findings and discussion. 27 28 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 29 30 Crane: Aye, findings and discussion. 31 32 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 33 34 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 35 36 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 37 38 Bustos: Aye, findings and discussion. 39 40 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 41 42 Beard: No, findings and discussions. 43 44 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings and discussion. So it passes 5-1. 45 Okay. Then we have Case PA-08-02, a request to amend the University 46 Avenue Corridor Plan to add Area 6 and 7 to the University Avenue 49 1 Corridor to allow for and govern the development of the Las Cruces 2 Center and NMSU full service hotel. 3 4 Shipley: I move to approve with one condition, is that once the University Avenue 5 Corridor Design Committee has reviewed, made their recommendations, 6 that they come back to use for our recommendation to the City Council. 7 8 Scholz: Okay. Is that clear, Commissioners? 9 10 Crane: Do we have to vote on that amendment? 11 12 Scholz: Yes, technically we have to vote on that amendment. So could you read 13 your amendment again, Commissioner Shipley? 14 15 Shipley: Say again, please? 16 17 Scholz: Could you read your amendment again, please? 18 19 Shipley: I move to approve the Master Plan PA-08-02, bringing in, I don't have the 20 whole thing right in front of me, but as stated with one additional 21 recommendation to have the University Avenue Corridor Design Review 22 Committee plan for development of the Center come back to the Planning 23 and Zoning Commission for our review, approval, and recommendation 24 not the City Council. 25 26 Crane: Second that amendment. 27 28 Scholz: Okay, I'll call the role on that. No, actually I will do, we'll do it by voice 29 vote. All in favor of that amendment say aye. 30 31 ALL COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS - AYE. 32 33 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. The amendment passes. Okay. Now, Case 34 No. PA-08-02 as amended. Do I hear a motion to accept? 35 36 Shipley: So moved. 37 38 Scholz: Is there a second? 39 40 Evans: Second. 41 42 Scholz: Okay, we'll call the role here. Commissioner Shipley. 43 44 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion. 45 46 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 50 1 2 Crane: Aye, findings and discussion. 3 4 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 5 6 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 7 8 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 9 10 Bustos: Aye, findings and discussion. 11 12 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 13 14 Beard: No, based on findings and discussion. 15 16 Scholz: And the chair votes aye. So it is passed 5-1. Finally, Case ZCA-08-02, a 17 request to amend Chapter 38, Section 38-44 of the Municipal Code to add 18 Areas 6 and 7 to the University Avenue Corridor. Is there a motion to 19 accept? 20 21 Crane: So moved. 22 23 Scholz: A second? 24 25 Evans: I second. 26 27 Scholz: All right, it's been moved and seconded. I'm going to call the role. 28 Commissioner Shipley. 29 30 Shipley: Aye, findings and discussion. 31 32 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 33 34 Crane: Aye, findings and discussion. 35 36 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 37 38 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 39 40 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 41 42 Bustos: Aye, findings and discussion. 43 44 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 45 46 Beard: No, findings and discussion. 51 1 2 Scholz: And the chair votes aye for findings and discussion. So it passes 5-1. 3 4 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS 5 6 Scholz: All right, that brings us to the end of our new business. Is there other 7 business, Staff? No, okay. I have a question for Staff. How does the P&Z 8 vote get to the City Council? The reason I'm asking that is because there 9 was one item that came up before the City Council land use this 10 afternoon, I don't know how it was, whether it was voted up or down, you 11 could probably tell me, it was the Mesa Avenue ... 12 13 Rodriguez: The Mesa Drive zone change request from R-1a to R-2c. 14 15 Scholz: Yes. 16 17 Rodriguez: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of that zone 18 changes. 19 20 Scholz: Yes. 21 22 Rodriguez: And City Council this afternoon approved that zone change request with 23 the condition that no more than two manufactured dwelling units could be 24 placed on the subject property. 25 26 Scholz: How unfortunate. What is the process for, how does the P&Z vote get to 27 the City Council? 28 29 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, the Planning and Zoning Commission vote gets forwarded 30 to the City Council in a packet identified as a Council Action packet. It 31 includes a narrative of the case beforehand. It also includes discussion of 32 when the case went to the Planning and Zoning Commission and how the 33 Planning and Zoning Commission voted and if there were any vacancies 34 or absences of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners. If there was any 35 public input, public discussion, nature of protest or approval, we give a 36 synopsis of that in the Council Action packet. Then we attach the 37 Ordinance or Resolution. We also attach the Planning and Zoning 38 Commission Staff report that you all receive and we also attach at that 39 time, the draft minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission. But 40 wherever it is in the record, we attach the portion of the minutes. So they 41 actually get the verbatim minutes of the discussion that happened at P&Z. 42 43 Scholz: Well, the reason I asked that is because it seems to me that the 44 presentations that are made before Council are from the Staff and the 45 applicant. Is that right? 46 52 1 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. Staff makes the presentation to Council and 2 then we inform the Council that the applicant is here to provide a 3 presentation or answer any questions. It's very similar to the format that 4 we use here. 5 6 Scholz: Well, it is, but it seems to me that it's omitting the process, that is it's 7 omitting the voice of the Planning and Zoning Commission. And I guess 8 my concern is that if the Planning and Zoning Commission isn't 9 represented particularly in negative decisions. You know if the Planning 10 and Zoning Commission agrees with the Staff and says, "Yes," you know, 11 whether it's 5-1 or 6-0 or whatever, you know that doesn't seem to make 12 any difference. Then I think our voice is heard. But if you as Staff 13 recommend it and we as Planning and Zoning deny it then it seems to me 14 there's a conflict there and I don't think the Planning and Zoning 15 Commission voice is heard. Now is there some legal reason for not 16 including the Planning and Zoning Commission voice? Should we ask the 17 legal representative of the City here? 18 19 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, are you referring to the Planning and Zoning 20 Commissioners being in attendance to the City Council and input? 21 22 Scholz: Yeah, I would say a Commissioner in attendance, you know it could be the 23 Chair; it could be a single Commissioner representing the views of the 24 Planning and Zoning Commission. 25 26 Connelly: My name is Pete Connelly, the Deputy City Attorney. There is an 27 Ordinance. You caught me without my black book. That provides that 28 members of the Planning and Zoning Commission will not attend a City 29 Council meeting as to offer testimony unless so invited by the City 30 Council. So, just to go along with what Ms. Rodriguez said today, it's not 31 as black as it seems because the City Council, in reaching out and 32 reaching this one little compromise that one does, added a condition onto 33 that manufactured home that the manufactured home will not be allowed 34 in until the EBID grants a permit and that permit must take into 35 consideration Mr. Parris' well which supplies water to the property that's 36 involved. So until the person gets the EBID permission to have a septic 37 system and an approved septic system, that manufactured home cannot 38 go in. So they gave, how would I say this, they balanced the apple and 39 said the glass is half full or the apple's half cut, whatever way you want to 40 look it, but there's a condition ... 41 42 Scholz: Well, the reason it was turned down by Planning and Zoning is because 43 the state law requires an adequate septic system and it wouldn't work for 44 the manufactured homes that they wanted to place there. 45 53 1 Connelly: That's exactly what Ms. Rodriguez and Staff presented to the City Council. 2 So the City Council basically did exactly, they said approved, but at the 3 same time they said you have to meet this condition or you can't do it. So, 4 it's like giving you a bone but if you can't get the bone you don't get the 5 bone. Does that make any sense? 6 7 Scholz: Well, yes, I guess. I understand the Council's need for compromise. 1 8 think the Council is more responsive to the general public than perhaps 9 we are. We are looking at specific cases. 10 11 Connelly: Yes, sir. 12 13 Scholz: And I understand that. What I don't understand is why the Planning and 14 Zoning Commission is left out of the process? 15 16 Connelly: The P&Z is not left out of the process. 17 18 Scholz: But they're not represented by anyone. 19 20 Connelly: It's much like a judge. When the judge rules against me and I take an 21 appeal, the judge doesn't become my adversary, he is a non-party. 22 23 Crane: May I interject something here? 24 25 Scholz: Yes, please. 26 27 Crane: In that instance the appeal court gets to read the transcript of the original 28 proceedings, right? And I take it that the City Council does not get to read 29 the minutes. 30 31 Connelly: No, the City Council is presented the minutes and all of the exhibits of this 32 hearing. So it is before them now. Whether an appellate judge chooses 33 to read it or not, a party can't control that. 34 35 Crane: The minutes, they get to see the minutes even though we haven't 36 approved them? 37 38 Connelly: Yes, sir. Everything that's done here, your entire proceeding is given to 39 them. The only difference is, is that the person who is complaining, if you 40 will, knows he was turned down or she was turned down by you and 41 knows why and basically begins to play the violin up there and that's how 42 it happens. That's just the way it is. 43 44 Scholz: Okay, well I understand your legal point. Thank you very much for 45 clearing that up. 46 54 1 Connelly: Yes, sir. 2 3 Scholz: Okay, any other business Commissioners? 4 5 IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 6 7 8 X. STAFF COMMENT 9 10 11 XI. ADJOURNMENT 8:36 P.M. 12 13 Scholz: All right then, we stand adjourned at 8:36. Thank you very much, Staff, for 14 your endurance. 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 perso 21 55