Loading...
07-22-2008 Ark 1 MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 FOR THE 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 City Council Chambers 5 July 22, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. 6 7 8 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 9 Charles Scholz, Chairman 10 Shawn Evans, Vice Chair 11 Donald Bustos, Secretary 12 Charles Beard, Member 13 14 15 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 16 Ray Shipley, Member 17 Godfrey Crane, Member 18 19 20 STAFF PRESENT: 21 Cheryl Rodriguez, CLC Community Development 22 James White, CLC Community Development 23 Helen Revels, CLC Community Development 24 Gary Hembree, CLC Community Development 25 Adam Ochoa, CLC Community Development 26 Jared Abrams, CLC Legal 27 Lt. Steve Archuleta, Fire Department 28 Becky Eich, Recording Secretary 29 30 I. CALL TO ORDER (6:02 p.m.) 31 32 Scholz: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission for 33 Tuesday July 22, 2008. We're beginning a few minutes late. It's 6:02, 1 34 see by the clock, and I don't see a picture on my screen. Why is that? 1 35 have to turn the power button on. Thank you. Yes, there I am, okay. I'm 36 Charlie Scholz, I'm the Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission. 1 37 represent District 6. I'd like to introduce the other members of 38 Commission. On my far right is Shawn Evans. Shawn is representing 39 district 5. Next to him is Donald Bustos who represents District 3. On my 40 immediate right is Charles Beard, who represents District 2. Our agenda 41 is posted, for those of you in the room, on the screens so you can see it. 42 For those of you at home, if you want to go to the web site, the Community 43 Development web site you can access the agenda and print it out if you 44 like. 45 46 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 27, 2008 1 1 2 Scholz: The first thing is our approval of the minutes. Oh, by the way, one of my 3 Commissioners asked me to please set your cell phones to buzz or vibrate 4 so they don't affect us. I've forgotten mine so I don't have to worry about 5 it. We need the approval of the minutes. Gentlemen, any corrections or 6 additions to the minutes of May 27th? Hearing none, I'll ask for approval 7 of the minutes. 8 9 Beard: I move to accept the minutes. 10 11 Scholz: Is there a second? 12 13 Bustos: Second. 14 15 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. 16 17 ALL COMMISSIONERS -AYE. 18 19 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. The minutes are approved. Thank you 20 gentleman. 21 22 III. POSTPONEMENTS 23 24 Scholz: Staff, are there any postponements? 25 26 Rodriguez: No, sir. 27 28 IV. WITHDRAWALS 29 30 Scholz: Okay, any withdrawals? 31 32 Rodriguez: No, sir. 33 34 Scholz: Thank you. 35 36 V. CONSENT AGENDA 37 38 Scholz: The next item is what we call our consent agenda. This is how it works: I'll 39 read the case numbers and the first line of each item. If there is anyone 40 who wants to speak to those items, that is any Commissioner or any 41 person from the audience; then those items will be moved to the first order 42 of new business. Otherwise, what we'll do is on the consent agenda we'll 43 ask for a vote of the Commissioners and if it passes then we've accepted 44 all of these items, and there won't be any further discussion of them. 45 2 1 1. Case Z2754: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 2 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 6.404 +/- acres located at 3 1215, 1219, 1225, 1227, 1241, 1247, and 1265 EI Paseo Road. The zone 4 change will bring the property into compliance with the 2001 Zoning Code, as 5 amended. Submitted by Brazito Plaza Shopping Center, Ltd. 6 7 Scholz: The first one is Case Z2754, a request for a zone change from C-2 to C-3. 8 Anyone in the audience need to speak to that one? Any Commissioner? 9 10 2. Case Z2755: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 11 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 1.772 +/- acres located at 12 the northeastern intersection of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard and Bataan 13 Memorial West. Submitted by Summit Engineering for Discovery One, LLC. 14 15 Scholz: Okay, the next one is Case Z2755, a request for a zone change from C-2 16 to C-3. Anyone in the audience? Any of the Commissioners? 17 18 3. Case Z2761: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 19 Intensity) to C-3C (Commercial High Intensity-Conditional) for 3.914 +/- acres 20 located at 2700 Picacho Avenue. The zone change request will bring the 21 property into compliance with the 2001 Zoning Code, as amended. 22 Submitted by Scanlon White, Inc. for Starlight Properties LP. 23 24 Scholz: The third one is Case Z2761, a request for a zone change from C-2 to C- 25 3C, getting repetitious, isn't it? Anyone in the audience want to speak to 26 that? Any of the Commissioners? 27 28 4. Case Z2762: A request for zone change from R-1 a (Single-Family Medium 29 Density) to R-2 (Multi-Dwelling Low Density) for 0.1488 +/- acres located at 30 451 Keathley Drive. The request will facilitate compliance with the 2001 31 Zoning Code, as amended, for an existing duplex located on the subject 32 property. Submitted by Marvin & Connie Loyd, property owners. 33 34 Scholz: Number four, Case Z2762, a request for a zone change from R-1a to R-2. 35 Anyone from the audience? There is someone from the audience. All 36 right sir, I'm going to push that to the first order of new business. So we'll 37 get to that in a few minutes. That's item number four which goes under 38 new business. 39 40 5. Case S-08-021: A request for final plat approval for a development known as 41 USRS Tracts (9A-71A & 9A-71 B, Replat No. 1. The subject property consists 42 of 3.419 +/- acres and is located at 526 S. Alameda Boulevard. The 43 proposed final plat will replat two lots into four lots. The subject property is 44 zoned C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity)/R-1a (Single-Family Medium 45 Density) overlapping on the front two lots, and C-2 (Commercial Medium 3 1 Intensity) on the rear two lots. Submitted by BRG & Associates for Wendall 2 Eugenio and Suzanne Tent. 3 4 Scholz: Number five, Case S-08-021, a request for final plat approval for a 5 development known as USRS Tracts 9A-71A and 9A-71B, Replat No. 1. 6 Anyone want to speak to that? Commissioners? Okay, that's still in. 7 Then I'll entertain a motion to accept the consent agenda, which is 8 everything except case number four. 9 10 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the consent agenda. 11 12 Scholz: Is there a second? 13 14 Beard: I second it. 15 16 Scholz: All those in favor say aye. 17 18 ALL COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS -AYE. 19 20 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. Okay, we passed the consent agenda. Thank 21 you, gentlemen. 22 23 VI. OLD BUSINESS 24 25 1. Case Z2753: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 26 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for 1.627 +/- acres located at 27 900 Telshor Boulevard. Submitted by Scanlon White, Inc. TLC Real Estate. 28 29 Scholz: Okay, we have one item of old business and that's something that came 30 up in May, as I recall. It's Case Z2753, a request for a zone change from 31 C-2 to C-3. By the way, here's how the procedure works: we have the 32 Staff present first, then the applicant presents, then we open it to 33 discussion from members of the audience, then we close the discussion 34 and the Commissioners discuss it and then we vote on it. So, Mr. White, 35 you're up. Nice logo. Are we going to see the presentation? 36 37 White: That's what happened the first time. 38 39 Scholz: I think we're rebooting here. 40 41 White: For the record, James White, Community Development Department. The 42 first case this evening is Case Z2753. It's a request for a zone change 43 from C-2 which is Commercial Medium Intensity to C-3, Commercial High 44 Intensity for roughly 1.62 acres located at 900 Telshor Boulevard. If you 45 look at a vicinity map here, the property is located here at 900 Telshor 46 Boulevard. The larger tract is roughly about 1.3 acres in size and is 4 I currently zoned C-3. You have a smaller tract here that actually has 2 access off of Doral Court and is roughly about a third of an acre. The 3 applicant is requesting through a subdivision plat called Menaugh 4 Subdivision, to replat both these lots into one distinct tract of land. Some 5 of the characteristics of the general area are that this tract currently has a 6 7,000 square foot commercial building. It has the Celebrate liquor store 7 and ancillary restaurant located here. There's a 30-foot easement that's 8 parallel on the northern boundary located here, which grants the property 9 access. Secondary access is off of Doral Court. 10 The rational reason to rezone both tracts to C-3 is based upon a 11 condition that all underground utilities be required for this tract of land 12 when this portion is actually aggregated in. So roughly, if any 13 development occurs within this distinct boundary, you have 1.6 acres, any 14 new development will require underground utilities. That is the basis for 15 the zone change for C-3C. The smaller tract mentioned here is currently 16 zoned C-2. It does comply with the 2001 Zoning Code regarding acreage 17 and zoning requirements; but based upon the aggregation of the 18 properties, it requires both these tracts to be rezoned to C-3C. Again, 1 19 won't go into all the zone change specifics. I think I elaborated again: 20 there's a 7,100 square foot building currently on the property. There's a 21 proposed subdivision for the property. And for the entire 1.6 acres, there'll 22 be the standard City Council condition. The smaller tract located at 2807 23 Doral Court is roughly a third of an acre in size. It's currently zoned C-2. 24 As stipulated earlier, the entire 1.6 acres will be conditioned for 25 underground utilities. Here is the actual site plan of the subdivision replat 26 that's actually undergoing review currently. Lot 1 is developed. Lot 2 is 27 Doral Court. This lot line will be eliminated and subsequently you will 28 have a 1.6 acre tract of land. Here's identified a 30-foot easement located 29 on the northern boundary that grants access not only to this property, but 30 also to an office center located in this area here. 31 Aerial photo showing the 7,000 square foot building, showing the 32 parking located in this area here, showing the ingress and egress off of 33 this portion here. An interesting fact regarding this property is that there is 34 no direct access off of Telshor Boulevard for the property. If you notice 35 here, there are no curb cuts. 36 Here's an MPO map showing, identifying, Telshor Boulevard as a 37 Principal Arterial road network. What you're going to be seeing this 38 evening is a bunch of dots. These are actually bus stops. When you see 39 the black dots, those are actually bus stops that are not improved. When 40 you see green dots this evening you'll be seeing bus shelters, actually 41 benches, and when you see the mixture of green and black it means there 42 are actual shelters. Stipulating that Telshor, Mall Drive, Majestic, are all 43 Principal Arterials in the City of Las Cruces. Staff recommendation is 44 approval with the standard City Council condition that all newly utilities be 45 placed underground. Based upon previous discussion, I believe what 46 occurred in May, the reason this came off the consent agenda was in 5 1 regards to an application and based upon the traffic generation patterns, 2 and I'll defer that over to the applicant. That will end Staff presentation. 3 Scholz: Okay. Questions for Staff? Commissioners? No, okay. Can we hear 4 from the applicant? 5 6 Scanlon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is 7 Ted Scanlon. I represent the applicant. I don't really have anything to add 8 further to James' presentation other than to answer any questions you 9 might have with respect to it. 10 11 Scholz: I think the only question that came up Mr. Scanlon was about the traffic 12 generation and on the application it said, "Anticipated traffic generation, 13 two lots at 10 trips a day." Now obviously that's a liquor store and a 14 restaurant; there are a lot more than 10 trips a day. I don't know if that's 15 an oversight or ... 16 17 Scanlon: I think that was meant to probably be peak hour trips rather than trips per 18 day, which would make trips per day be roughly 100, about 10 times that 19 amount. I think it was probably a typographical error with respect to that. 20 21 Scholz: Okay. I think that was the only concern. And Commissioner Shipley isn't 22 here today so he can't really ask that. Any other questions of Mr. 23 Scanlon? Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Scanlon. Anyone from the 24 audience wish to comment on this? Okay, I'm going to close it to public 25 participation. Commissioners, what is your wish? 26 27 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Case No. Z2753 with the standard 28 condition of all newly constructed utilities will be placed underground. 29 30 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved. Is there a second? 31 32 Bustos: I second. 33 34 Scholz: Okay, I'll call the roll. Commissioner Evans. 35 36 Evans: Aye, based on findings and discussions. 37 38 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 39 40 Bustos: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 41 42 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 43 44 Beard: Aye, based on findings and discussions. 45 6 I Scholz: And the Chair votes aye, based on findings, discussion and site visit. So it 2 passes 4-0. Thank you gentlemen. 3 4 VII. NEW BUSINESS 5 6 1. Case Z2762: A request for zone change from R-1a (Single-Family Medium 7 Density) to R-2 (Multi-Dwelling Low Density) for 0.1488 +/- acres located at 8 451 Keathley Drive. The request will facilitate compliance with the 2001 9 Zoning Code, as amended, for an existing duplex located on the subject 10 property. Submitted by Marvin & Connie Loyd, property owners. 11 12 Scholz: Okay, now we're going to the first new business, which is actually Case 13 No. Z2763. A request for a zone change from R-1a to R-2. Mr. White. 14 15 White: The second case this evening is Case Z2762, a request for a zone change 16 from R-1a, which stands for Single-Family Medium Intensity to R-2 for 17 Multi-Dwelling Low Density for roughly 0.14 acres located at 451 Keathley 18 Drive. Before we get into the case, we have to actually look at what R-1 a 19 stands for. R-1a stands for a maximum of one dwelling per platted lot. So 20 based upon the property being one distinct platted lot there is a maximum 21 of one dwelling unit permitted. The request is for R-2 based upon, if you 22 notice here there's an overall density of 15 dwelling units per acre, but it 23 allows for multi-family components. Currently on the property, roughly, in 24 1960 there was a duplex constructed on the property. What transpired is 25 Staff has no record of how, what transpired, since this is about 45 to 50 26 years ago. Based upon the property being roughly 0.15 acres; based 27 upon the overall density threshold here, the maximum build out for the 28 property, would be a maximum of two dwelling units. So there's no 29 confusion. There cannot be any additional density on the property beyond 30 what's currently on the property of the existing duplex of roughly 1,100 31 square feet. 32 Here's a vicinity map showing the whole entire area is zoned R-1 a. 33 The subject property is located here. Again, case specifics, duplex 34 constructed around 1960, roughly 0.15 acres in size. It is unable to 35 substantiate nonconforming status. That's the basis for the zone change 36 this evening. The zone change from R-1 a to R-2 will allow the property to 37 be in zoning compliance for a duplex. As stipulated earlier, maximum of 38 two dwelling units will be allowed on the current tract of land. So there's 39 no ability for future expansion to a third unit. Here's a site plan for 451 40 Keathley Avenue. If you notice here, the actual duplex is located on the 41 rear portion of the property. The current parking area is actually done with 42 crusher-fine or gravel located in this area here. 43 Here's the MPO thoroughfare plan. Subject property is located 44 here in blue. The surrounding area is all zoned R-1a, as stipulated earlier. 45 Just to stipulate that you do have two thoroughfares in the area: you have 46 McClure which is located here on the southern boundary, which is 7 I classified as a Collector, and you have Alameda or North Alameda which 2 is located here which is a Minor Arterial. In close proximity, you also have 3 a trail system which is located in this area here. 4 Site photos of the area: this is the actual parking area for the 5 property. It does conform to the minimum parking requirements for a 6 duplex. It does not require improvements such as asphalt, crusher-fine or 7 gravel is perfectly fine for the property. If there is a renovation of the 8 duplex exceeding $25,000 it would require landscaping improvements 9 based upon the renovation or remodel. Interesting fact is if you look 10 directly west of the property there is also a four-plex located in this area 11 here. This is the property adjacent to the west. 12 Here's an aerial view of the subject property. This is showing the 13 actual parking configuration based in 2004. Staff recommendation for this 14 case is approval without conditions and, of course, since this is a zone 15 change the recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for final 16 consideration. That will end Staff presentation on this case. 17 18 Scholz: Okay, questions from Commissioners? I just have one question, Mr. 19 White. This is essentially a correction, right? Bring this into Code? 20 21 White: Chair Scholz, that is correct. 22 23 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. Okay, there was a gentleman in the audience who 24 wanted to speak to this. Would you come up to the microphone and tell us 25 your name please? 26 27 Contreras: My name is Cesar Contreras. And what we're in question about right now 28 is, first we had a concern about whether or not the intent was to go ahead 29 and build and add, you know, another building to the area. 30 31 Scholz: And they can't do that. 32 33 Contreras: Okay, so now we're clear about that. But now we have a concern also as 34 far as that we know of. I've lived in the area in the house that I occupy 35 right now since 1974 that we know of along with three other neighbors of 36 mine that are here tonight, too. We've never known any crusher-fine to be 37 set at that parking lot. It's a dirt lot. It does need to come into compliance 38 as far as you know we understand right now. And we're wondering, too, if 39 there is a retaining pond that should be there also. 40 41 Scholz: Okay, that's something Staff will have to answer. Staff, do you want to 42 speak to that? Thank you, sir. 43 44 White: Chair Scholz, to try to answer both of those questions; the first one is that 45 based upon the parking requirement it's either gravel or crusher-fine. 46 Either one is permissible for the property. In the event that if there's an 8 1 issue regarding that gravel or crusher fine is not located in the parking 2 area, the applicant will be required to do that. The second issue is a little 3 more of a dilemma because one of the issues we actually evaluated is we 4 were looking for a building permit to see if the actual tract of land was a 5 nonconforming tract. But based upon being 1960 when the actual 6 structure was completed, we have no copy of a building permit, special 7 use permit, or zone change for the property. So that is one of the 8 dilemmas when you talk about a 48-year-old structure is regarding some 9 of those intricacies. I'll be glad to check in the morning with Building 10 Permits and Public Works to find out what is the ponding required for that 11 tract of land. 12 13 Scholz: Okay, thank you. Does that answer your question sir? 14 15 Contreras: I believe it does, sir. And right now I'm not sure you know how my other 16 neighbors feel about it right now so I'd like that we ask them and see if 17 they're okay with it right now. 18 19 Scholz: Sure. 20 21 Contreras: Okay, we're good. Thank you so much. 22 23 Scholz: Thank you. Anyone else want to speak to this from the audience? Yes, 24 sir. 25 26 Bullock: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I do represent the owner. His name is Tye 27 Loyd. I do have a letter. He was called out on an emergency meeting 28 today. 29 30 Scholz: Okay, and your name is, sir? 31 32 Bullock: William Bullock. 33 34 Scholz: Thank you. 35 36 Bullock: And the presentation, we tried to conform with everything with Staff which 37 we've done already. And presented, this building has been sitting there 38 since 1960. It's been a duplex that long. County records, etc. And we've 39 proven to the City Staff basically that it has been a duplex that long. I do 40 have affidavits. I don't know if you have this in your packets or not, but 41 this was items A through G substantiating that it's been a duplex that long 42 in this condition and the applicant has just recently renovated. It wasn't up 43 to $25,000 but he has just recently renovated the property, making it much 44 nicer for the neighborhood. I'm not aware of any ponding issues on the 45 property. And as far as the driveway and the gravel and the parking lot, 46 it's been that way since 1960. So the owner's asking to consider basically 9 I that the property has been and is in that condition. He has renovated it 2 and fixed it up where it's made the neighborhood nicer. I think the 3 neighbors would agree to that. So hopefully it will go through without any 4 problems. I'll answer any questions that I can. If you want to see this list, 5 you're welcome to it also. 6 7 Scholz: All right. Questions, Commissioners? All right. 8 9 Contreras: Still a question to me, you know, because it's not really clear. 10 11 Scholz: Yes, please identify yourself again, sir. 12 13 Contreras: Again, Mr. Contreras, Cesar Contreras. I live at 404 Keathley Dive. 14 15 Scholz: Thank you. 16 17 Contreras: And we'd just like you know for it to really be under compliance. You know 18 if it's asked or you know this zoning change requires it to have crusher-fine 19 or driveway. It doesn't even have a driveway. You know its all dirt. And a 20 lot of the dirt from that area when we get our heavy rains runs down our 21 slope or are running, starts at that corner of the street and it runs down to 22 Alameda. So all that dirt from that lot you know travels down our street 23 too. And I think we need definitely crusher-fine at minimum, a driveway 24 would be perfect. 25 26 Scholz: Okay, well if that's, if we pass this that's what's required. 27 28 Contreras: So you will you know make the owner comply by those rules. 29 30 Scholz: I won't do it personally, but I'll make sure the City Staff does that, yes. 31 32 Contreras: All right. Thank you so much. 33 34 Scholz: That's a Codes enforcement thing, Mr. White. 35 36 White: Chair Scholz, if I can interject. The first issue comes to ... this is a 37 nonconforming structure. There's a picture of the parking area here. This 38 is the parking area in question that we're speaking about this evening 39 that's located in this area here. To say that it's 100% dirt, I wouldn't say 40 that's accurate. There has been something laid down on the property, 41 either crusher-fine or gravel. What will transpire is that if there is an issue 42 regarding ponding impervious surface area that requires additional gravel 43 or some type of material here, that will be evaluated that issue. But to be 44 honest I don't see how this is an issue right now regarding the driveway. 45 A driveway is totally separate. If you're talking about trying to put a cement 46 style driveway into this location, it's not required for this type of ... the 10 I Zoning Code is pretty clear that crusher-fine or gravel is permissible for 2 this tract of land here. Anything for a duplex is permissible. For a single 3 family or duplex in this juncture, gravel or crusher-fine is permissible. 4 5 Scholz: Thank you, Mr. White. Okay, I'm going to close this to public discussion. 6 Commissioners, any questions, comments? Okay, what is your pleasure? 7 8 Bustos: I make a motion we pass Case Z2762. 9 10 Evans: I second. 11 12 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner Evans. 13 14 Evans: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 15 16 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 17 18 Bustos: Aye, findings and discussion. 19 20 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 21 22 Beard: Aye, based on findings and discussions. 23 24 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye on findings and discussion. It passes 4-0. Thank 25 you gentlemen. 26 27 2. Case A1663: A request for a Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) 28 interpretation of a Staff decision regarding Article 1 Section 36-3 Definition/ 29 ON premise sign. Staffs interpretation is that an on-premise sign is limited to 30 advertisement or directs attention to a business, product, service, or activity 31 which is available on the premises where the sign is located. The applicant, 32 Majestic Media, Inc. has requested for a P&Z interpretation that would allow 33 on-premise signs to advertise off-premise businesses. The interpretation 34 rendered by P&Z will be applicable to on-premise signage throughout the 35 City. Submitted by Majestic Media, Inc. 36 37 Scholz: Okay, our next case is an interesting one. We're asked for an 38 interpretation of a Sign Code. I read the Sign Code the other day and 1 39 think it'll make for an interesting discussion. Mr. White, you're up again. 40 41 White: Before we start, I just want to see if the applicant, Mr. Vaughan, is here. 42 43 Scholz: There we go. 44 45 White: The third case this evening is Case A1663, a request for a Planning and 46 Zoning Commission interpretation of a Staff decision regarding Article 1 11 AWN I Section 36-3 definition of on-premise sign. This issue is actually 2 applicable. It's a citywide interpretation. I know previously there was an 3 issue regarding a specific site at the 2800 block of Lohman Avenue. What 4 1 found out is that actually has fell through so now we're looking at strictly 5 a city-wide interpretation that would actually be a policy shift regarding 6 what transpires this evening. 7 1 do have one map. It is a centralized map of Las Cruces showing 8 a centralized area. We do have some of the centralized Major 9 Thoroughfares such as Telshor Boulevard, Roadrunner, Lohman, El 10 Paseo, Avenida de Mesilla, and University. I think we actually have to 11 step back and say what is the Staff interpretation. What actually 12 transpires is that you have an applicant who's in disagreement with the 13 Staff interpretation specifically dealing with the Sign Code Section 36-3. 14 What is transpiring is that there is an issue regarding on-premise, off- 15 premise signs. Usually on-premise signs are only for a business that 16 actually conducts business on the physical site. An off-premise sign 17 usually is like a garage sale, an event, or a billboard. In this request, the 18 applicant has actually disagreed with the Staff interpretation, has appealed 19 the interpretation by Staff to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 20 As stipulated earlier, there is usually not a site-specific location, it's 21 city-wide. It has city-wide implications, regardless, and a notice 22 procedure. We do notify in the Las Cruces Sun News. There are no 23 specific letters to go out on the property because it's not applicable to one 24 property. Where we'd have to actually send letters to everybody in the 25 City of Las Cruces, which we don't do. 26 First, what I want to do is step back and say what is an 27 interpretation. This is actually from the Zoning Code but it actually gives a 28 detailed process of what an interpretation regarding a Staff decision is. 29 And to read it, it says; "The community development director or designee 30 shall interpret the meaning the provisions of the Code. Execute 31 interpretation shall be included. The appropriate section of the Code will 32 remain part of the Code. Disagreement with the Staff decision may be 33 appealed to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Commission 34 decision maybe appealed to City Council." So that is the process that 35 we're following this evening. 36 Again, the specifics of the case we're talking about this evening are 37 regarding Article 1, Section 36-3, Definitions of On-Premise Sign. What 38 you're seeing here is the actual exert from the actual Sign Code that 39 stipulates that on-premise sign means a sign which advertises or directs 40 attention to a business, product, service, or activity which is available on 41 the premises where the sign is located. In 2007, here are some 42 interesting stats: there were 181 on-premise sign permits inclusive of 60 43 free standing signs issued, all meeting this criteria stipulated here as on- 44 premise sign. 45 Now to go to the applicant's request. The applicant is requesting 46 for an off-premise business to advertise any sign regardless of location 12 I within the City limits. To use an example, a commercial business located 2 on the West Mesa, not on the premise, would be able to share advertising 3 space with a commercial sign physically located anywhere in the City 4 limits. This is the Staff interpretation that there is a clear distinction 5 between on-premise and off-premise signs. The Sign Code stipulates that 6 off-premise signs mean a sign which advertises or directs attention to 7 businesses, products, services, or activities which are not available on the 8 premises where the sign is located. In 2007, the City of Las Cruces 9 issued four off-premise signs. Technically, what we're speaking about are 10 billboards. 11 To reiterate, what you're looking at is public area signs. Public area 12 signs are off-premise signs. When you look at the City of Las Cruces, you 13 see the bus shelters and they have like a dedication statement by 14 business XYZ. You're able to actually have the business name, but 15 they're not able to have any commercial message. Other types of off- 16 premise signs: you have garage sale or special events. They're limited to 17 size and duration; political signs, again size and duration and location; 18 vehicle signs, for sale of a vehicle per se; and the one thing that you 19 usually see when you talk about off-premise advertising signs such as 20 billboards. 21 Just to go in briefly what a billboard off-premise sign is; is that there 22 are specific requirements for billboards. Number one thing you have is 23 based upon street segments, have to be 75% or greater for commercial, 24 office, or industrial, you're limited to specified roadways. There are 25 spacing requirements, roughly 1,000 radial feet, and a minimum sign area 26 of 72 square feet. 27 Section 36-83 of the Sign Code talks about billboards. As 28 stipulated earlier, I won't go into too much detail. You're limited to various 29 zoning districts such as C-2, C-3, M1, M2, M3 respectively. And you're 30 limited to various thoroughfares such as Interstate 10, Bataan Memorial 31 East or West, Lohman Avenue, EI Paseo Road, Solano, Valley. When we 32 first looked at this the first key was: we have to do a Staff evaluation 33 criteria. The first question we asked was: do nonconforming signs exist 34 advertising off-premise businesses? What that means are there currently 35 any off-premise signs located on a specific site, such as if you have a 36 restaurant chain located on Lohman, you have an advertisement sign for it 37 on Valley Drive. The second issue you have to evaluate. As Staff 38 evaluated various street segments and what actually occurs is you want to 39 look at both old and new street segments to find out if there are any non- 40 conformities, such as is there a difference between what the signs you 41 have on Solano versus what you have on Lohman Avenue. The third 42 issue you have to look at: is this issue prevalent in the City? Do you have 43 a lot of off-premise advertising on on-premise locations? The fourth issue 44 you look at is the Code ambiguous regarding the issue. To go back to the 45 first criteria that we looked is that do non-conforming signs exist 46 advertising off premise businesses. Staff evaluated about four or five 13 I major road segments in the City and based upon the visual and sign 2 inspection there were no off-premise signs on on-site locations. 3 The second criteria Staff evaluated were various street segments. 4 The answer is yes. I have some photographs to illustrate different 5 portions of the City later in this presentation. Is this issue prevalent in the 6 City? The answer is no. We could not find any non-conforming signs 7 regarding this. Is the Code ambiguous regarding this issue? Staff 8 contends there is a strict distinction between on-premise and off-premise. 9 1 won't go ahead and read the actual definitions again but I read them 10 earlier regarding what is actually implemented as off-premise sign and 11 what's an on-premise sign, located here and here. Here are various street 12 segments that go throughout the City of Las Cruces. If you notice such as 13 Idaho, you have on-site businesses with on-site advertisements such as 14 the KFC restaurant here, the Tom Young's in this location on Idaho. 15 Here's an EI Paseo, you have a sign cluster, you have a shopping center 16 there. All these businesses are actually located within the shopping 17 center. Other parts of the City: I also looked at Lohman Avenue, similar 18 issue. The Best Buy, the Staples, the McDonald's. These signs are all 19 on-site. Then I actually wanted to take an old area of the City to try to see 20 if there are any non-conformities. That was really important in the 21 evaluation, and based upon the north valley experience, very similar, you 22 have a motel here, you have a Century 21, and KFC. All these signs are 23 on-site. 24 The options that the Planning and Zoning Commission have this 25 evening is to affirm Staff interpretation regarding the distinction of on- 26 premise/off-premise signs; or the P&Z Commission can reverse Staff 27 interpretation that off-premise advertising should be permissible in respect 28 to on-premise signage which will allow for off-site advertising on on-site 29 locations. If the Planning and Zoning Commission goes to the route of 30 number two, it will require the City Department, or City Community 31 Development Department to actually do a Code re-write to allow the 32 option into the actual physical code. That will end Staff presentation. I'll 33 be glad to stand for any questions this Board may have this evening. 34 35 Scholz: Okay, questions of Mr. White? Okay, may we hear from the applicant 36 please? 37 38 Vaughan: Thank you, Chair. Pretty fancy podium you guys have here. 39 40 Scholz: Bring the microphone close to your mouth. There we go. 41 42 Vaughan: Is that better? 43 44 Scholz: That's better. 45 14 I Vaughan: My name's Don Vaughan. Thank you for your time. This issue, and first 2 of all in terms of the Staffs interpretation, I do disagree on the record. 3 Primarily all the information provided is based on the history of signage. 4 What is currently going on not just in Las Cruces but across the country 5 and around the world actually is that technology is out-racing Code, and 6 that is why we're here right now. The question being is that every sign 7 and example and location provided was based on a static, very static, 8 physically static situation where regardless of the material used; paint, 9 metal, wood, block, steel, it was a derived advertisement for a business 10 on-premise, but it was a very static concrete situation. There are two 11 examples in this City right now: one is on Telshor and was just erected 12 recently where a billboard, which is permitted as an off-premise situation, 13 now allows the opportunity which has never been available especially 14 when these Codes were written, to have not a static situation when it 15 comes to displaying advertising messages. 16 The specific situation here is in your current Sign Code and I don't 17 know how to back that up, but ... can you just use these arrows keys. Oh, 18 there it is. If you look at these definitions there's only one word difference: 19 "not." And that is really the situation that we've run into. Whether the 20 activity, the service, or the business is located at that location. Here's the 21 dilemma: I have a company which we have locations in Farmington 22 currently and we've expanded to some other locations, but we have office 23 locations. Unlike a billboard which you have an example of on Telshor, 24 we actually open a physical office and the reason we do that is not only do 25 we have a digital sign there but we offer other products. Some of these 26 might've been provided. I don't know if any of this got provided. But 27 here's a print product that we also provide. It's a kid's publication that we 28 distribute through the school systems. We offer multiple advertising 29 products on-location. 30 So we actually have a physical location because we're doing 31 business at that location. But our business is advertising and we are an 32 advertising business, which in my opinion, and that's why we're here this 33 evening, does conform to this definition. Our product, service, and our 34 activities of advertising are located at that location. Now, it's never been 35 possible in the past, I guess you could run out and change a reader board 36 with the little letters every day to advertise somebody else's business, but 37 now we're in a new age of technology and we're capable of displaying 38 multiple images at a single sign location. So what do we do in this 39 instance when the business, which is an advertising business of multiple 40 products, one of which is display advertising? What do we do then when 41 we're capable of advertising another business' message at that location, 42 and that is in fact an integral part of our business? Along with that, just for 43 your information, we provided the Staff with a web address of a web cam 44 of one of our locations in Farmington. One of the things that kind of 45 clouds the issue here is that we don't just populate that display center with 46 advertising. A lot of what we do is commercial, excuse me, but community 15 I information. We have weather. We have bus schedules. We have 2 community events. The City actually is one of our partners and have got 3 their graphic artist actually sending us on a regular basis City information 4 that is populated on that board. It is not simply advertising, it is an 5 information center. There is no Code even written or even that deals with 6 any thing outside of advertising. One of the things that the Commission's 7 going to have to consider is what do you do with a sign that provides 8 public information? You see banks providing birthdays and 9 congratulations to the winning team for a high school event. That is not 10 addressed in the Code, and is that because it is not commercial. I mean 11 what do you do with information that's provided at a center that is not 12 commercial information? Are there rules regulating that? And the Code 13 does not address that also. 14 So one of the things that we're asking for is, you know, that the 15 Commission address these definitions and address them in the light of the 16 intent of the definition specifically. I think the intent being is that you don't 17 want a furniture store advertising for a mobile home manufacturer next 18 door. You know what ever the purpose of that business is; if it's a furniture 19 store they should be advertising their service and products and their 20 business on that location. If it's a mobile home dealership then they 21 should be advertising their services and products. But when it's an 22 advertising business and those are our services and products and that is 23 the activity that we're displaying, then we believe we are in fact within this 24 Code. Again, we're the good guys here by the way. We are not trying to 25 rock the boat in a bad sense. We have great relationships with the City 26 and the community. You know we put up multiple pieces of information 27 whether it's, you know, scholastic award, athletic awards from local 28 schools, programs. 1 mean we really provide a local, and we try and marry 29 into the community when we go into business. So, it's a little bit bigger 30 than simply the definition, but in this case that's what we're dealing with. 31 32 Scholz: Okay, some questions or comments for Mr. Vaughan? Commissioner 33 Beard. 34 35 Beard: Maybe I missed it, but how large is this sign? 36 37 Vaughan: Well, the signs have to be in compliance with the on-premise sign location. 38 So based on, you know, what we've changed this from as Mr. White 39 addressed earlier, is this was initially subjected to a location on Telshor. 40 But there were some things that came up there and we've now changed 41 this to a city-wide distinction, which he addressed earlier. So, the sign that 42 we would construct would have to be in compliance with the location that 43 we picked. So, depending on, you know, your Codes which those are 44 quite specific. They're very specific on on-premise signage on the size 45 that the sign can be based on code, street, frontage, multiple things. So it 46 would be within compliance of your current Code. 16 1 2 Beard: And are you going to, I think I understood that you were going to advertise 3 for other types of businesses other than just community events. 4 5 Vaughan: Correct. You know that is our business. Our business is advertising not 6 just digital advertising, but we have print advertising that we do also. But 7 we're an advertising business, so yes, if Kentucky Fried Chicken which is 8 nine blocks from us on the same side of the street would like to advertise 9 and we want to put up that they have a special today only for a $1.99, that 10 would be our purpose. 11 12 Scholz: Commissioners, other comments? Mr. Evans. 13 14 Evans: Yes, I have a question, Mr. Chair. We talked about on-site and off-site 15 signs and, you know I'm a novice at this. I'm not sure what all the rules 16 are on signage; however, would off-premise signage, I mean if you had 17 that as, you know, can we use that definition? Would that allow you to 18 run, I mean obviously it would, so is there a way that you can change the 19 on-site to off-site, I mean is there? 20 21 Vaughan: I mean the way I understand it. I will let James ... 22 23 Evans: That would be a question for I guess Mr. White. 24 25 Vaughan: Yes. Because as far as I understand, yes, I mean there are specific 26 definitions of what's allowed. 27 28 Evans: Right, but I guess what I'm asking is that if a sign was designated off-site, 29 then you would be allowed ... 30 31 Vaughan: I believe I can answer that. 32 33 Evans: Then you would be allowed to run whatever it is you wanted to. 34 35 Vaughan: I can answer that. Once you change the designation from on-site to off- 36 site, you fall under different guidelines. Totally different guidelines. And 37 those guidelines require that you can't be within a 1,000-feet of another 38 off-site location. Okay. What you found currently is that Neumann, Clear 39 Channel, Lamar, all the major billboard companies since off-site or off- 40 premise signage is the designation that is in tune then for billboards, is 41 that they have gone in and basically used up all those areas because they 42 have to fall within certain zoning permissions and site permissions. 43 44 Evans: So going through a process of changing yours from on-site to off-site isn't 45 realistic given the limitations that the off-site ... 46 17 OWN I Scholz: Okay. I have a couple of questions. We're talking about digital signs, 2 right? 3 4 Vaughan: Correct. 5 6 Scholz: Like the one in front of Sonic, for instance. 7 8 Vaughan: Exactly. 9 10 Scholz: Okay. I've seen that and of course, that's advertising its own products. 11 12 Vaughan: Exactly. 13 14 Scholz: Not worried about it. It seems to me that what you're talking about is 15 trying to advertise your business. Well, you can certainly advertise your 16 advertising business. You can tell people that you know you can send 17 their message. You can tell people about your print newspaper or 18 whatever else, whatever service you provide. That's certainly allowed 19 because that's the business of your site. What you're asking for is you 20 know the ability to do off-site advertising on-site. 21 22 Vaughan: What we're ask... well, that is ... 23 24 Scholz: Yeah, that's what you're asking for. So ... 25 26 Vaughan: What we're asking for is our advertising business, an integral part of our 27 advertising business is ... 28 29 Scholz: You can advertise your advertising. 30 31 Vaughan: Advertising. 32 33 Scholz: Yes, you can advertise your advertising business. 34 35 Vaughan: Well, we do, and we do that. We say stop in here. 36 37 Scholz: Right. 38 39 Vaughan: Stop by and advertise your business. 40 41 Scholz: Sure, that's no problem. But when you begin advertising somebody else's 42 business, then obviously you're violating the Code. 43 44 Vaughan: But that's not ... 45 46 Scholz: So what you want us ... 18 1 2 Vaughan: Here's our disagreement. 3 4 Scholz: What you want to see is a change in the Code. 5 6 Vaughan: Here's our disagreement. The way your Code is written, we say that our 7 service or activity of advertising is then that is our activity. That is our 8 service. 9 10 Scholz: And I would argue that ... 11 12 Vaughan: So there is the dilemma. 13 14 Scholz: Okay. Well, it's not a dilemma as far as I can see. You can advertise your 15 advertising business. No problem. You simply can't advertise anybody 16 else's business on that site because that's off-site advertising. Well, see 17 what you're asking us to do is, you're asking us to make Code, and 18 frankly, we can't do that. 19 20 Vaughan: Okay, no, I'm asking you to review the Code. I mean obviously there ... 21 22 Scholz: Well, I think ... I've reviewed ... 23 24 Vaughan: Or review the interpretation is why we're here, simply put. 25 26 Scholz: I've reviewed the interpretation and it's my feeling that the interpretation 27 that Staff put on it was correct: that you can't do off-site advertising on- 28 site. I realize there are all kinds of potential with moving signs. We had a 29 case, I think it was about three months ago for the new Walgreen's on EI 30 Paseo. And what they wanted to do was locate their sign on the sidewalk. 31 We suggested that was not the right place for the sign because it should 32 be set back a certain number of feet from the sidewalk. They wanted to 33 do the same things. I don't know if they contacted your company or not, 34 but they wanted to do the same kinds of things: public information, talk 35 about specials at their stores. It, of course, is on-site advertising, or on- 36 site promotion. So it's legal. We simply wanted them to put the sign in the 37 right place. 38 39 Vaughan: So does the Commission have an opinion then based on public 40 information on the sign? Is that off-site advertising if it's for a high school 41 event? 42 43 Scholz: Commissioner Evans, go ahead. 44 45 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I kind of ... you know when you advertise, you know, for 46 your business and then you advertise for, you know, like he had 19 AVON I mentioned earlier having your daughter's birthday or something on the 2 sign. You know, I mean there seems to me to be a reasonable argument 3 that, you know, what's the difference between advertising, you know, 4 maybe you're having a get together or something, I guess that was still 5 business related though. 6 7 Scholz: Oh, you're thinking what's the difference between a personal event and a 8 commercial event. 9 10 Evans: Yeah. When you don't use it solely for advertisement of your business. 11 12 Vaughan: Which is the way the Code is written. 13 14 Evans: So I don't know, I guess ... it's an interesting question. I'm not sure if I'm 15 quite ready to go the full nine-yards but, you know, technology has 16 changed and after hours, you know, maybe a business wants to lease 17 their signage out, you know, to advertise for some other endeavor and the 18 new technology would allow them to do that so ... 19 20 Vaughan: Well, you know, I ... 21 22 Evans: But that's kind of deviating from ... 23 24 Vaughan: I agree with the intent of the Code: the intent being is that you do not want 25 a furniture store advertising something other than a furniture store. All the 26 examples that were provided today by Staff, none of which were 27 advertising companies. They were all product-based businesses. They 28 were not necessarily service-based business. And so when it's an 29 advertising service and that is an activity, my interpretation is then that if it 30 is our activity is advertising then we should be able to provide that activity 31 on our sign. And the Code is written where the only thing that is to be 32 advertised on an on-premise sign is that business' product, services, or 33 activities. So if, you know, the bowling alley over here on Telshor is 34 advertising, "Happy Birthday, Joey," that is still in violation. Then the way 35 the Code is written because it is not advertising a product, service, or 36 activity based on that business' business license. 37 38 Scholz: That's an interesting interpretation. Commissioner Beard. 39 40 Beard: Mr. White, when is a sign a sign? Does it have to be a certain distance to 41 a street or if a sign is sitting right above the door of a facility or a window is 42 that considered a sign? 43 44 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Beard, let me kind of back track for a second, 45 try to clarify an issue. Really, what you're looking at here from a planning 46 perspective is this issue: the issue you're looking at is site location versus 20 0 1 content. And what I mean by that is there is not a limitation on content, 2 but it requires certain signs to be located in certain areas. Very similarly, 3 you have zoning districts or billboards. Like in billboards, you have 4 spacing requirements, zoning requirements. You're looking at a very 5 similar issue here. It's not dealing with content but site location. And if 6 you're going to have, let's say, an on-premise sign, you must have the 7 business on-premise. That is what the actual logistics of what we're 8 speaking about this evening is regarding signage. Another issue that you 9 also have to look at; let's take the Roberto's in town here. Every week you 10 go by there's a community event on there. There's always happy birthday 11 somebody. Those type of informational signs or community event signs 12 are exempt. Those are allowed on-premise even though they have off- 13 premise activity. But you don't go to those signs and see Roberto's is 14 advertising for a restaurant across town. So that is a big distinction when 15 you look at those kinds of informational signs. You're not seeing products, 16 and you're not seeing endorsements for any certain type of products. You 17 are seeing community events and you are seeing informational signs. 18 You go to a bank, you'll see a bank sign that has the temperature, the 19 date, those kinds of issues. So if they have any advertisement, come in 20 and look at our CD package or come look at our money market rates, but 21 those informational signs are specific to the location. 22 23 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 24 25 Beard: I'll save it (inaudible). 26 27 Scholz: Okay. Any other comments or questions from the audience? Thank you 28 for your presentation, Mr. Vaughan. Yes, sir. 29 30 Guchic: Chair Scholz and Commissioners. My name is Vince Guchic. My family 31 has lived in the area for 23 years. And I sympathize with the applicant 32 here saying that there's a restriction on billboards but the intent of the law 33 is basically to prevent us from becoming a forest of signs. I think that is 34 part of the intent of the law. Chair Scholz, I believe your interpretation is 35 perfectly correct that he can advertise his business but he cannot put up 36 specific advertising. You don't see Kentucky Fried Chicken cooking on 37 their sign or showing their suppliers or anything else. So I would say that 38 the strict interpretation is very clear. Thank you. 39 40 Scholz: Thank you. Someone else? Okay, I'm going to close it to public 41 discussion. Commissioners? What is your pleasure? Commissioner 42 Beard. 43 44 Beard: The reason I asked the question of Mr. White was that when you see an 45 automobile dealership they advertise with Jack Key or whoever it is, 46 Bravo, and the product that they are advertising is sitting right behind the 21 I sign, the automobile. And I'm not certain that this sign couldn't sit just like 2 an automobile would be, that's not sticking up there in the air. So I'm not 3 certain that if he put a second sign or 10 or 15 other signs in his property 4 that he wouldn't be doing the same thing as an automobile dealership is 5 doing. 6 7 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Beard, I will try to answer that. The analogy 8 you used is stipulating one thing, is an on-premise sign. You have, let's 9 say, an auto dealership and you may have a Jack Key sign promoting the 10 Dodge trucks but the Dodge trucks are actually sold on the premises. 11 12 Beard: But he's selling his sign on-premise too. 13 14 White: The sign can be on the premises. There is different type of signage in the 15 Code. When you look at on-premise sign you have what's called attached 16 signage. Attached signage, let's say, you have a building or a wall and 17 you're allowed to have XYZ square footage of the signage attached to the 18 building. You have monument signs as well or marque signs that are also 19 on-premise. So in theory those signs are actually advertising the 20 businesses on the site or products on the site. 21 22 Scholz: Commissioners, other comments, questions? Commissioner Evans. 23 24 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I actually like the idea. However, I was thinking outside of 25 the box in advertisement and utilizing space when at various times you 26 know to help promote your products. However, I do think it does not 27 conform with the interpretation of Staffs requirements. 28 29 Scholz: Okay. Anything else, gentlemen? 30 31 White: For a point of clarification. Can we get your vote to either affirm or reverse 32 Staff interpretation so we have it for the record? 33 34 Scholz: Yes. We have to either affirm or reverse Staff recommendation, or 35 interpretation, sorry. Okay, I'll entertain a motion to that effect. 36 37 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I move that we affirm Staffs interpretation regarding the 38 distinction of on-site premise and off-site premise signage. 39 40 Scholz: Okay, is there a second for that? 41 42 Bustos: I second. 43 44 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner 45 Evans. 46 22 1 Evans: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 2 3 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 4 5 Bustos: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 6 7 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 8 9 Beard: Aye, based on findings and discussions. 10 11 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye based on findings and discussions. Okay. Thank 12 you very much. 13 14 3. Case A1664: A request for a variance from the minimum acreage 15 requirement for the placement of a private primary school within the 16 centralized downtown area. The 2001 Zoning Code, as amended Section 17 38-33D (Conditional Uses) requires a minimum site area of one (1) acre for 18 the placement of a school. The subject property encompasses 0.14 +/- acres 19 zoned CBD (Central Business District). The proposal is to locate a private 20 primary school with an anticipated enrollment of 50 students at 212 S. Main 21 Street. Submitted by Las Cruces Academy, Inc. 22 23 Scholz: All right, Mr. White, you have one more bite at the apple here. This is 24 Case A1664, a request for a variance from the minimum acreage 25 requirement for the placement of a private primary school within the 26 centralized downtown area. 27 28 White: Again for the record, James White, Community Development Department. 29 This case is a request for a variance from the minimum acreage 30 requirements for the placement of a private primary school within the 31 centralized downtown area. The subject property is located at 212 South 32 Main Street. 33 First, we have to go back and let's evaluate the Code. Primary 34 schools, middle schools, or high schools are permitted conditionally based 35 upon the Zoning Code that's under Section 38-33d. There are two 36 evaluation criteria for placement of schools: they are permitted in any of 37 the residential zoning districts; they are permitted in the commercial 38 zoning districts; but they are prohibited from the manufacturing zoning 39 districts. The first criteria that has to be evaluated is the school must be 40 located on a Collector or higher designated roadway. Even though the 41 subject property has a physical address of South Main, physical access is 42 from Water Street. Water and Church Streets are both parallel to South 43 Main and are both Major Arterials. So based upon those criteria this 44 proposed school site confirms. 45 The second issue is the one we're evaluating regarding a variance. 46 All school sites shall have a minimum of one acre. The subject property is 23 1 roughly 0.14 acres so it does not conform to the minimum requirements 2 for a private primary school. That's the reason we're here this evening. 3 The depiction here is that what you're looking at is that the property is 4 located at 212 South Main Street. It's highlighted here. The entire area is 5 zoned Central Business District. There are a couple of new (inaudible) 6 with the Central Business District: number one is that you have a Main 7 Street Overlay which is located in this area right here. There are no 8 specified parking requirements because there are three public parking lots 9 located here, here, and here. So in theory any of the businesses utilizing 10 or in operation in this area here are able to use public parking in these 11 locations here. Just to look at some of the zoning patterns around, here 12 on Campo you have R-4, 0-2 in this area here in the pink, and 0-1 in this 13 area here. 14 Case specifics: it is zoned Central Business District. The current 15 site or structure is roughly a 2,500, 3,000 square foot portion of a building, 16 an existing building at 212. Based upon discussion with the lessee, it'll 17 have an indoor multipurpose room that will substitute for an outdoor 18 playground. The parking lot as stipulated earlier is owned by City of Las 19 Cruces. Based upon being the Main Street Overlay, there are no specific 20 parking requirements. Again, you have two specified parking lots that 21 access Griggs and Water respectively. Staff did a site assessment of the 22 parking areas. There are two ADA parking spaces located directly 23 adjacent to the building or in close proximity. Located on the western side 24 of the building there's a fire lane, and when I use the word parking pod 25 which I'll discuss a little bit later, there are approximately 25 parking 26 spaces each. 27 Now to actually look at this issue here. What I was elaborating 28 here is that in this area here you have a fire lane located here. So there's 29 no parking. You have parking pods. What I call a parking pod is you have 30 this right in here, you have this area right here, and this area right here. 31 There are approximately 25 parking stalls per parking pod. There is also 32 outside parking located around here. I did a brief count, don't know how 33 accurate it is, but there are roughly about 25 to 30 parking spaces on the 34 exterior located here. And my suspicion is you have very similar located 35 in this area here as well. You have ADA compliant parking spaces. You 36 can actually see this paint located right here and right here. The subject 37 property is located here at 212 South Main Street. To look at the parking 38 configuration of the area, you have this is the old Steinborn building here, 39 you have a private parking lot located here, you have a private parking lot 40 located here, private parking lot located here, private parking lot located 41 here, and a public parking lot located here. And as stipulated earlier, Main 42 Street Overlay, there are no parking requirement based upon public 43 parking in these three pods here. 44 Here's a site photo of the actual tract of land or in this question 212 45 Main Street in which the actual parochial school would go into. It's located 46 here. Based upon discussion with the property owner is there is currently 24 I an engineering firm occupying the building and the remainder will be 2 leased out for the private school. 3 Staff recommendation is approval with condition. Based upon the 4 actual size of the location, Staff recommends that the private primary 5 school located at 212 South Main Street enrollment would be limited to a 6 maximum of 50 students. Of course, the P&Z Commission has final 7 authority regarding variances. That will end Staff presentation. 8 9 Scholz: Okay, questions for Mr. White gentlemen? All right. May we hear from 10 the applicant please? 11 12 Kay: I'm Lou Ellen Kay, the director of Las Cruces Academy, the school that's 13 asking for the variance. We believe that this town needs alternative 14 private schools because currently we are specifying that we will teach 15 gifted children, a population that's really at risk in our schools. Twenty 16 percent of school dropouts are gifted students even though they compose 17 only 2% of the population. With no child left behind this population is even 18 more poorly served than before, so we think it's really important to start 19 this school. This building we do not expect will be our permanent home 20 but we intend to start with young children and we think that this building 21 would be quite an adequate place to stay and we think the location is 22 wonderful for us. There are two other private schools which also are in 23 building which are a very small area but they are public, well in shopping 24 areas, essentially. So that even though their particular building is less 25 than an acre they are on lots with lots of other shops, which fulfill the one- 26 acre requirement. And we think we are not out of compliance with what 27 has been approved because you know we will have certainly as much or 28 more space for the school itself as the other private schools, Ann Mercer's 29 school and River's Academy, even though are technically on one acre lots 30 because there are other ... you know so if you look at our lot as being the 31 Downtown Mall, which in some ways is equivalent, you know so the 32 building plus the equivalent parking, we would say it's bigger than an acre. 33 34 Scholz: Some questions for this woman? Commissioners? I just had two. I think 35 you've answered one. You said is this enough room for a primary school, 36 and you're limiting the enrollment to 50 students? 37 38 Kay: Yeah, we expect that we will start, we've estimated we will probably start 39 with between 20 and 30 students and then maybe add another 20 40 students the next year. 41 42 Scholz: What age range are we talking? 43 44 Kay: We are starting with kindergarten through maybe up to third grade. 45 25 I Scholz: Okay. Thank you ma'am. Any one else from the audience want to 2 comment on this, speak to this? Okay, I'll close it to public discussion. 3 Commissioners, questions, comments? Okay. Can 1 hear a motion? 4 5 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Case No. A1664 with the following 6 conditions: the primary school located at 212 South Main Street 7 enrollment will be limited to 50 students. 8 9 Scholz: Okay, do I hear a second? 10 11 Bustos: I second. 12 13 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner Evans. 14 15 Evans: Aye based on findings and discussion. 16 17 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 18 19 Bustos: Aye findings and discussion. 20 21 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 22 23 Beard: Aye based on findings and discussions. 24 25 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye based on findings and discussions. So it passes 26 4-0. Thank you. 27 28 4. Case A1667: A request for a variance from the required rear yard setback of 29 20-feet for a property zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). The 30 applicant is requesting to construct an enclosed addition of 196 square feet 31 approximately 10-feet and 6-inches from the rear yard property boundary. 32 The subject property is located at 650 Frontier, encompassing 0.17 +/- acres. 33 Submitted by Georgia Christiansen, property owner. 34 35 Scholz: Ah, a new face. Next is Case A1667, a request for a variance from the 36 20-feet minimum rear yard set back. 37 38 Ochoa: Good evening. For the record, Adam Ochoa for Community Development. 39 Case A1667, it's a request for a variance from the required rear yard 40 setback of 20-feet for a property zoned currently PUD, which is Planned 41 Unit Development. The subject property is located on 650 Frontier and it 42 encompasses about 0.17 acres. Code requirements under Article 4, 43 Section 38-31d for Development Standards for Residential Zone Districts 44 which would be R-1a which is Single-Family Medium Density: the 45 minimum building setback for the front yard is 15-feet, side yard is five- 46 feet, and rear yard is 20-feet. The subject property itself, like I said, is 26 AMN I PUD, but setback requirements are set with the R-1a Single-Family 2 Medium Density Development Standards. The applicant is requesting to 3 construct an enclosed 196 square foot addition that would be 4 approximately 10-feet six-inches from the rear yard property boundary. 5 The proposed new addition would encroach on the rear yard set back by 6 nine-feet and six-inches. The applicant has stated that due to age and 7 medical ailments going up and down the stairs of their two-story home has 8 become much more difficult. The applicant has further stated that the 9 addition will help facilitate the applicant's needs and will help the applicant 10 avoid using the stairs as much as possible. 11 This is the subject property right here at 650 Frontier. Everything 12 around it is zoned PUD under the same R-1a Development Standards. 13 Here is an aerial photo of the house with the green marking the property 14 boundaries. Here's a site map explaining how the addition is going to look 15 and where it will sit on the property. Staff has met with the applicant and 16 has explained that the addition could be possibly constructed and moved 17 on the southern side yard of the house which is 21-feet away from the side 18 so five-feet, so they will have 16-feet to work with there. Staff has also 19 explained that they could possibly move the new addition behind the 20 garage with that space right there, not too sure how big that area is 21 though. 22 Findings, Staff has reviewed the variance request and concluded 23 that no valid physical hardship exists for the subject property as identified 24 in the 2001 Zoning Code under Article 2 section 38-10. Staff has 25 identified alternative measures by which the addition can be built while 26 remaining within the conformance with the required property setbacks. 27 Staff recommendations: Staff reviewed the variance request and 28 recommends denial based on the preceding findings. Options are 29 approval of the variance request; approval of the variance request with 30 conditions determined appropriate by the Planning and Zoning 31 Commission; or denial for the variance request. 32 33 Scholz: Okay. If you'll stand for questions before you sit down. I have a question 34 from Commissioner Beard. 35 36 Beard: Without the addition when I add up eight-feet and 10.6-feet that's 18.6, 37 he's already in violation, the house is already in violation of the code? 38 39 Scholz: I think there's a two-foot easement, isn't there at the back? 40 41 Ochoa: He is actually, I believe he's still inside the ... give me a minute. Yes, he is 42 actually it looks like. 43 44 Scholz: So there are less than 20-feet there right now. 45 27 1 Ochoa: No, sir. I'm sorry I believe this isn't drawn to scale. From what I was told, 2 it would be about nine-feet six-inches. I apologize. 3 4 Scholz: Okay. 5 6 Beard: Does the City have this Affordable Housing type of goal? Is this property 7 right here fall under that definition of Affordable Housing? 8 9 Ochoa: No, sir. I believe it just falls under the, I believe it's the Northrise 10 Community Neighborhood kind of thing. Apologize, it's High Range. It's 11 the High Range Neighborhood this place is located at. 12 13 Scholz: Okay, any other questions for this gentleman. Thank you. Could we hear 14 from the applicant please? 15 16 Christiansen: My name is Georgia Christiansen. 17 18 Scholz: Go ahead. 19 20 Christiansen: The reason we are here tonight, because as he explained I would like, 1 21 don't have much room inside my kitchen area or to sit or to use any 22 machine for back, the injuries I have. 23 24 Scholz: Can you speak a little closer to the microphone? 25 26 Christiansen: Okay, thank you. 27 28 Scholz: Thank you. 29 30 Christiansen: I need to extend little bit room outside of my kitchen which is the only 31 place is available for me to do that and so you can give me time for me as 32 1 get older and I need to have some machines to have my injuries to care, 33 like exercise machines. And as I get older, I have steps, 15 steps to go up 34 and down. As I get older, I don't think I'll be able to do it. So if I put a little 35 addition there will be big help for the older age coming up. So that's my 36 attention is. 37 38 Scholz: Okay. Questions for this lady, Commissioners? 39 40 Evans: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions. 41 42 Scholz: Go ahead, Commissioner Evans. 43 44 Evans: Yes, based off of the map that was provided to us, it appears to me, as 45 was mentioned in the Staff presentation that there are quite a bit of other 28 1 areas that would potentially work for your addition that wouldn't violate the 2 City setbacks. 3 4 Christiansen: That area yes, I'm aware of that, but we have ... 5 6 Evans: I'm sorry, could you speak to the microphone. 7 8 Christiansen: We have the irrigation under there and I cannot build something solid 9 there because of the irrigation block so, what I'm going to do? I have to 10 dig holes to correct that if something happen. The irrigation, you water 11 your system you know you have. 12 13 Evans: The sprinkler system. 14 15 Christiansen: Sprinkler system, thank you. And that one I could not build there. It 16 would be nice, but they can't because we have, what I'm going to do with 17 the water system, where I'm going to put them. They've been there for 18 years. 19 20 Evans: Well I think it would be pretty easy to move a sprinkler system and still 21 conform with the City setbacks. I mean it's, in fact, you know they put 22 one-inch pipe under ground all the time, under the slabs. They do that all 23 the time for running water. 24 25 Christiansen: Well, if you see if I don't think you would like to do it yourself either and 1 26 don't think it's proper. If it was a way, yes, but there the way it is lay out 27 and you go to the left of the site, you're not going to work. 28 29 Evans: Okay. 30 31 Christiansen: If it would I'd be happy to do it that way, to go that route. 32 33 Scholz: Any other questions for Ms. Christiansen? Okay, thank you very much. 34 Anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this? All right, I'm 35 going to close it to public discussion. Commissioners, what is your 36 pleasure? Commissioner Evans. 37 38 Evans: Actually, I still don't believe that there is a reason why they can't move it to 39 an area that would coincide or fall within the setback areas. 40 41 Scholz: So there's actually 16-feet on that one side, because it's a 21-foot off set, 42 and only five-feet is needed I guess between these. Commissioner Beard, 43 1 see your hand went up. 44 45 Beard: We have done an awful lot of not allowing people to extend patios and 46 those people didn't even have places to go to the side and I kind of agree 29 1 with you that there is space over here on the left side that could be used, 1 2 don't how difficult it is to put in there, but I hate to say yes to some one 3 and then we have said no to so many other people that have come in here 4 with something that's already in place and we tell them no. We're just 5 trying to following, we're interpreting the code, and I think this is against 6 the Code. 7 8 Scholz: All right. Any other discussion, Commissioners? Okay, I'll entertain a 9 motion. 10 11 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Case A1667. 12 13 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved. Is there a second? 14 15 Beard: Second. 16 17 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner Evans. 18 19 Evans: No, based on findings and discussion. 20 21 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 22 23 Bustos: No, findings and discussion. 24 25 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 26 27 Beard: No, based on findings and discussions. 28 29 Scholz: And the Chair votes no, findings and discussion. Thank you gentlemen. 30 31 5. Case A1669: A request for a variance of five (5) feet into the required rear 32 yard setback of 20-feet for a property currently zoned R-1a (Single-Family 33 Medium Density). The applicant is requesting the variance for an illegally 34 built attached back porch built on a 10 x 10 foot concrete slab that originally 35 came with the house. The subject property is located at 1227 Antelope Pass 36 Drive. Submitted by property owner Enid Salcido. 37 38 Scholz: Our next case, pronounce your last name for me, would you please. 39 40 Ochoa: Ochoa. 41 42 Scholz: Ochoa. Okay, I missed that. Mr. Ochoa. It's Case A1669. 43 44 Ochoa: Correct. 45 30 AmIk 1 Scholz: A request for a variance from the 20-foot minimum rear yard setback. Oh, 2 here we go again, for a property zoned R-1 a. 3 4 Ochoa: Okay, Case A1669, a request for a variance of five-feet plus or minus a 5 couple of inches from the required rear yard setback of 20-feet for a 6 property currently zoned R-1a, Single-Family Medium Density. The 7 subject property is located at 1227 Antelope Pass Drive. Again, 8 requirements, Article 4 section 38-31d for R-1a Single-Family Medium 9 Density the minimum building setbacks for the front yard is 15-feet, side 10 yard is five-feet, and rear yard is 20-feet. The subject property again is 11 zoned R-1 a. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow the 12 continued use of a 100 square foot attached back porch that was built 13 without a permit. I apologize about the math on your packets; it's 100 14 square feet. Applicant has stated that the porch was built over a sliding 15 door to help alleviate summer heat that would enter the home from the 16 sliding door at the northwest part of the home. Staff has made contact 17 with the applicant and has made recommendations that will help mediate 18 the summer heat without violating property setbacks. 19 This is basically the property off of Antelope Pass. Everything 20 surrounding it is zoned R-1 a. Here are site photos of the location: bottom 21 two pictures are the actual back porch in question. Here's a site map of 22 the location. The porch was actually built on a 10 by 10 foot concrete slab 23 that originally came, or was originally built with the home, that's basically 24 where she built it and she didn't add anything on to it. 25 Findings, Staff has reviewed the variance request and has 26 concluded that no valid physical hardship exists. Similar requests though 27 for a variance has come up in the past for a property located on the same 28 street as the current applicant's. The Planning and Zoning Commission 29 action was denial for the variance which the applicant appealed to the City 30 Council and the variance was then approved by City Council. Staff 31 recommendation: Staff has reviewed this variance request and 32 recommends denial based on the preceding findings. The three options 33 are: approval of the variance request; approval of the variance request 34 with conditions determined by Planning and Zoning Commission; and 35 denial of the variance request. 36 37 Scholz: Okay, questions of Mr. Ochoa? Seeing none. Let's hear from the 38 applicant. 39 40 Salcido: Good evening. I built my porch. 41 42 Scholz: Please give us your name. 43 44 Salicido: Oh, Enid Salcido. 45 46 Scholz: Thank you. 31 1 2 Salcido: I built my porch in December to help me block the summer heat from my 3 home because it's too hot in the afternoon. Even though I close the 4 blinds, it's just too hot. I build it without a permit because I honestly didn't 5 think about the regulations about building a porch. And I would like to get 6 it approved, the variance approved because it would cost, even though my 7 porch didn't cost me to be built because my uncle built it for me. It would 8 cost me to tear it down. So I don't know if you have any other questions 9 for me. 10 11 Scholz: Okay, some questions for Ms. Salcido? Gentlemen? Okay, thank you. 12 Anyone else from the audience would like to speak to this? Okay, I'm 13 going to close it for public discussion. Gentlemen, what's your pleasure? 14 Commissioner Evans. 15 16 Evans: From what I understand from Staffs presentation is that there was a 17 similar house along the same street that was approved by City Council 18 after we had denied it? 19 20 Ochoa: Correct sir, at 1235 Antelope Pass Drive. 21 22 Scholz: It was on the same block. 23 24 Evans: So that puts me in a precarious situation. Seeing how that on pretty much 25 100% of these you know we traditionally deny approval. And you know 26 we do that based off of the premise that if everybody were to come 27 forward and do that then you know what's the use of having these 28 guidelines. But it puts me in a tough situation to deny something when 29 Council has overturned that. So I'm kind of the opinion that perhaps we 30 ought to give them an opportunity to do that again. 31 32 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 33 34 Beard: We're here to interpret the Code and listen to the public and we've done 35 that and I think we have to follow the Code. I mean it's just, I hate to have 36 somebody build something that's so nice and then maybe have to tear it 37 down, but they do have an option. But as far as we're concerned we 38 interpret the Code and if the Code needs to be changed then change the 39 Code, but we have to go by the Code. 40 41 Scholz: Right, any other comments, gentlemen? All right, I'll entertain a motion. 42 43 Bustos: I make a motion we move Case A1669. 44 45 Scholz: We approve Case A1669. Okay, is there a second? 46 32 I Beard: I second it. 2 3 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner 4 Evans. 5 6 Evans: I'm sorry. Denial based on findings and discussion. 7 8 Scholz: Thank you. Commissioner Bustos. 9 10 Bustos: No, findings and discussion. 11 12 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 13 14 Beard: No, based on findings, discussions, and site visit. 15 16 Scholz: And the Chair votes no based on findings, discussion, and site visit. 17 Thank you gentlemen. Okay, it's almost 7:30, I'm going to suggest we 18 take about a seven-minute recess here, stretch our legs, and then we'll 19 come back and continue. We'll see you in seven minutes. 20 21 SEVEN-MINUTE BREAK. 22 23 6. Case IDP-35: A request for an Infill Development Proposal (IDPPZ) for a 24 property located at 819 Fir Street. The properties underlying zoning 25 designation of R-4 (Multi-Dwelling Low Density) requires a minimum density 26 of ten (10) dwelling units per acre. Based on the properties combined size of 27 0.14 +/- acres a minimum of two (2) site-built or manufactured homes will be 28 required. The applicant is pursuing the IDPPZ process for the placement of 29 one (1) single-wide mobile home having a front yard setback of 20-feet 30 inclusive of a rear/side yard setback of seven-feet. Submitted by Henry 31 Reyes, property owner. 32 33 Scholz: All right, we're back. Everyone is refreshed and has answered their cell 34 phones and we should be in good shape. Mr. White, you're on deck 35 again. This is for Case IDP-35, a request for an Infill Development 36 Proposal. 37 38 White: Okay, again for the record, James White, Community Development 39 Department. The next case this evening is Case IDP-35, is a request for 40 an Infill Development Proposal, also known as an IDPPZ, PZ stands for 41 Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing, for a property located at 42 819 Fir Street. If you notice here the subject property is located mid-block, 43 located right here, 819 Fir. Currently the property is zoned R-4 which is 44 Multi-Dwelling High Density. In this area over here, you have R-2, which 45 is Multi-Dwelling Low Density, and in this area to the north, you have C-2 33 1 which is Commercial Medium Intensity. General vicinity: you have Solano 2 located here and Fir Street located in this area here. 3 Before we start, we need to discuss what is infill development? 4 Infill development is actually, what can occur in a centralized area of the 5 City. Infill development actually promotes vacant tracts of land in the City 6 of Las Cruces. The minimum criteria for a pursuing an IDP is that the tract 7 is vacant or a structure has been torn down and then the property's vacant 8 for a period of a minimum of two years. The advantages of IDP are that 9 based upon Planning and Zoning Commission is that the applicant is able 10 to request almost anything that they wish. But the Planning and Zoning 11 Commission, if it's outside the purview of the zoning district, must consent 12 to those deviations of the variances or what you're seeing here which is 13 called a change use or a Zone Change. Any IDP request that's not 14 compliant with the underlying zoning district requires a public hearing 15 process. Let's discuss that. The property is currently zoned R-4. R-4 16 requires it to be Multi-Dwelling High Density. The minimum criteria for the 17 R-4 zoning district is a minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre, which 18 suggests, number one, that on an individual tract of land or in this case, 19 two antiquated tracts of land, you have to have multiple dwelling units. 20 The next thing we have to evaluate are the type of structures allowed on 21 R-4. Currently, if you notice here with what's highlighted, apartments are 22 permitted, mobile home parks are permitted, limited retail and office uses 23 in the R-4 zoning district. The dilemma that we occur with this zone 24 change is that the applicant is requesting a very similar land use to what 25 you would see over here which is called R-1 aM which allows for a Single- 26 Family Residential structure which is either a mobile home or 27 manufactured home. The applicant does abide by the actual setbacks for 28 the property as stipulated here: 20-foot front yard, seven side, seven rear. 29 So what you're looking at in respect to this case even though it is infill 30 development, the applicant is requesting to move from this development 31 cell to this development cell over here which is called R-1 aM. R-1 aM 32 does allow for mobile homes or manufactured homes. 33 Next thing we have to look at is a zoning map of the area. As 34 stipulated earlier the property is zoned R-4, so the basis is that you'd be 35 looking for multiple housing units on tracts of land. So the first thing Staff 36 looked at was: are there other tracts of land in the area that have multiple 37 housing units? Again, tract in blue is the subject property, across the 38 street you have a four-plex, adjacent to that you have a three-plex. What's 39 kind of interesting about this property is that this right here is actually a 40 zoning district line that goes currently on the boundary of the property 41 located here. Directly adjacent to the property you do have a single family 42 home. It is site built in nature. The other issue that I also want to allude to 43 is I was trying to find out where the closest mobile home in relation to this 44 area, and there is a, I would say it's actually a manufactured home, 45 located in this area here. It is permanently affixed ground set here on 46 Pinon Avenue, and is located here. 34 1 In your packet, you also have letters of opposition from various 2 members of the surrounding area identified by the thumbtacks that you 3 have these tracts of land and property owners did submit letters. This 4 tract, this tract, this tract, this tract, and this tract. Also from a land use 5 composite, to the rear you have a new commercial business that opened 6 roughly about a year ago located here. And this is actually an apartment 7 complex in this area located here. 8 Now again, the case specific regarding the case that we're here to 9 discuss this evening: the tract of land is an antiquated subdivision. 10 Combined acreage is roughly 0.14 acres. It is currently zoned R-4, Multi- 11 Dwelling High Density. The request for the IDDPZ process is for the 12 placement of one singlewide mobile home within the R-4 zoning district. 13 As stipulated earlier, this process allows for greater flexibility associated 14 with vacant properties in the centralized area of the City. As shown earlier 15 in the previous slide, letters objecting to this request have been received. 16 Next issue we have to discuss is what is the difference between 17 manufactured home and mobile home. Based upon State Statute, a 18 manufactured home is a single-family dwelling unit with a heated area of 19 at least 36-feet by 24-feet and a minimum combined area of 864 feet 20 constructed in a factory to HUD designated standards of 1974 Housing 21 Act. The biggest difference you're going to see between a manufactured 22 home and mobile home are two issues: number one is the actual specified 23 width of the 24-feet for a manufactured home. The second issue is the 24 construction standards as outlined in the bottom of this paragraph as 25 based upon the HUD standards in the 1974 HUD Manufacturing Housing 26 Construction Standards. The definition for a mobile home is a movable or 27 portable housing structure larger than 40-feet in body length, eight-feet in 28 width, with 11-feet in overall height, but does not include structures built to 29 the municipal codes and other technical codes. As shown earlier in the 30 preceding slide, a mobile home is not built to applicable Codes and the 31 width of the manufactured home is a minimum eight-foot versus the ones 32 shown before that's 24-feet. 33 Here's a site photo regarding the actual IDPPZ project this evening. 34 This tract of land that's actually adjacent is across the street showing one 35 of the multi-family dwelling units in the surrounding area zoned R-4. This 36 is the subject tract of land in question this evening. As discussed earlier, 37 composite land uses if you look to the rear of the property you have the 38 new commercial structure located here. And don't forget you also have a 39 zoning district boundary that actually is parallel with this rock wall that 40 you're also seeing a portion of a single-family residential structure located 41 in this area here. 42 Here's the MPO thoroughfare plan as alluded to earlier. We have 43 designated thoroughfares that are in close proximity to the property. You 44 have North Solano Boulevard which is located here which is classified as 45 a Principal Arterial, and in this area, you have Spruce which is located in 46 this area here that's also classified as a Principal Arterial. And identified 35 I earlier, the actual circles here identify bus shelters and bus structures. 2 These are actually bus stops, no improvements have been made, located 3 here, here, and here. This right here, the green area is identified as 4 actually a bus bench located in close proximity to the property right here at 5 the corner of Spruce. Here's an aerial view of the property showing the 6 development pattern in the area. To the east you actually have a bunch of 7 warehousing units and other type of commercial related uses in this area 8 here, as shown earlier. As stipulated earlier, this is the apartment 9 complex. It has access off of Spruce Avenue located here. This is a 2004 10 aerial. There is now a new commercial structure located on this lot. This 11 lot here is a single-family residential structure that we're speaking about 12 earlier. This is the tract of land that's currently in question this evening. 13 Adjacent to the property it is currently vacant. This right here has been 14 replatted and it can be assumed as being a townhome type of 15 development because you actually have a lot line going through here and 16 you have two units located in this area here. 17 The area shaded here in blue, you're looking at the Mesquite 18 Overlay zone. This property's outside of the specialized overlay zone of 19 the property. So based upon it, it has strictly R-4 zoning. And the request 20 this evening is for an infill development proposal for change of use to 21 permit a singlewide mobile home to be placed on the property. 22 Staff recommendation for this case is for denial for IDPPZ IDP-35. 23 Planning and Zoning Commission has final authority regarding infill 24 development cases. This case maybe appealed to the City Council by 25 any aggrieved party. That will end Staff presentation. I'll be glad to stand 26 for any questions or comments this Board may have this evening. 27 28 Scholz: All right. Questions for Mr. White? Okay, can we hear from the applicant, 29 please? Do you want to give us a handout? Certainly. If you like, yes. 30 31 Urias: I'm Karen Urias and this is my husband Sal. And this handout just will 32 help you to understand what we are hoping to do in the neighborhood and 33 we do have some extra copies for our neighbors and others. I know there 34 are some neighbors ... I'll give you a minute to receive those and then I'll 35 go through this with you. In response to the recommendation for denial, 36 we just want to go through this and address the Commission and our 37 neighbors. We know that there are some objections to the type of home 38 we want to place there but we want to reassure our neighbors that we plan 39 to develop and maintain our home in a manner that's in keeping with the 40 character of the neighborhood. We originally thought that we would put 41 either a chain-link fence or a wooden fence, but the neighborhood is more, 42 the way that the neighborhood is set up, we feel that a rock wall would be 43 better and so that's what we would like to do is build a rock wall, because 44 it goes more with the rest of the neighbors'. We've hired an engineer to 45 design a permanent foundation for our home and there's a copy of a letter 46 from the engineer saying that we've hired him, so it won't just be a mobile 36 I home sitting there. Also, the axials will be removed and the hitch. It'll be 2 on a foundation so it will no longer be classified as a mobile home. 3 We've paid our developer fees and we've had the property leveled. 4 We planted some evergreen trees. Once we get situated, we plan to do 5 some other landscaping with some indigenous plants and flowers and 6 grass once our home is in place. We're good neighbors and we're hard 7 workers and we like to keep our home in good condition. Now I know that 8 this isn't, it isn't personal, but it is nice for neighbors to know what kind of 9 people they might have living next to them so we wanted to address that 10 too. We have a letter of reference. We don't have copies of it but we do 11 have it here if anybody would like to see it from the manager of the mobile 12 home park where we currently live. And then Sal is from this area and 13 he's a graduate of NMSU and he's a licensed social worker. I've only lived 14 here since September but I'm from Grants where I lived in the same home 15 for 32 years and worked for Comcast for 10, so we're not, you know, 16 people who pick up and just leave or who can't be depended on. We're 17 reliable people. 18 On the next page, you'll see a couple of pictures of our home where 19 we're at right now. You can see that it's well kept. It's not landscaped 20 because it's not our property and we can't landscape there, which is why 21 we want, you know, we want to move our home to own property so that 22 we can landscape and make it ours and that's what we're hoping for. 23 Now we would like to build an on-site home or put a manufactured 24 home there, but we can't right now. We have invested in the land and so 25 that's not an option for us right now. But we would like to be part of this 26 neighborhood and we like the neighborhood. We would be good 27 neighbors. That's what we have to say. 28 29 Scholz: Okay. Questions for these folks? Commissioners? Okay, thank you for 30 your presentation. Are there other members of the audience who'd like to 31 speak to this? Sir. 32 33 Saminego: My name's Rudy Saminego. Ms. Tarrin, she's the neighbor at 815 Fir, 34 right next to the property, the house to the east. She can't be here 35 unfortunately. My wife and her other daughter are here. The only 36 objection we have to this and I lived in a mobile home for many years and 37 there's nothing wrong with it. It's a perfectly fine house. I lived in one for a 38 very long time. The only thing that our objection is, you know, it is in the 39 Mesquite Historic District. You know the City has spent lots of money 40 restoring the Historic District with signs and lighting and what not. Right 41 around the corner you've got the Jardin de Mesquite. Most of the houses 42 in that area are adobe houses. Again, please, you know we would 43 welcome you in the neighborhood, believe me. I mean that's not an issue 44 at all. The only issue that we have on our part of the family is just 45 restoring the Historic District and so that's what we want to share. Thank 46 you. 37 1 2 Scholz: Okay. Is there someone else from the audience that want's to speak to 3 this? Yes, ma'am. 4 5 Roberts: Hello, my name is Karen Roberts and I own Studio K which is the 6 commercial building that is on that particular lot, right directly behind it. 7 And my biggest issue is that I have a beautiful contemporary upgraded 8 commercial building and my property value is my utmost concern. I run a 9 hair salon. I have very high-end clients and having a mobile home behind 10 my commercial business is of great concern to my property value down 11 the road. Other than that, they seem like lovely people, but if they built a 12 home there, that would be great. But a mobile home is definitely, and 1 13 was told by someone who is a realtor, that it's possible that the zoning for 14 a mobile home had something to do with it needing to be in a mobile home 15 park versus on an individual lot and I'm sure that has something to do with 16 the zoning of which I have no knowledge of. 17 18 Scholz: Ma'am, this is why they're asking for a variance. 19 20 Roberts: Right. And that would be my concern is my property value of my 21 commercial building. 22 23 Scholz: Thank you. 24 25 Roberts: Thank you. Someone else would like to speak to this? Yes, ma'am. Are 26 you going to double team us here? 27 28 Flores: My name is Dominga Flores. And I live there on 1140 North Virginia all 29 my life. And I try to keep up with my house. Every time, a mobile home, 30 like the man said don't take me wrong, they're good neighbors. I have 31 good neighbors around there too. But we all try to keep up with our 32 houses. A mobile home, I don't know, the value of my house will do down 33 even if I keep up with my house. Recently I paid over $1,000 just to have 34 it painted outside to keep up with even the little part that's on the side. So, 35 a mobile home, I don't know. I really don't want one there. Thank you. 36 37 Scholz: Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak to this? Yes, ma'am. 38 39 Diaz: Good evening. Claudia Diaz, for the record, and I'm also, I'm speaking on 40 behalf of my mother. She's sitting down there, Spanish speaker, so I'll go 41 ahead and talk for her, as well for my sister. We're all, my home is 827 42 Fir, my mother's is 713 East Pinon, and I'm sorry I can't remember my 43 sister's, but we all live around the neighborhood. 44 45 Scholz: You know where she lives then anyway. 46 38 I Diaz: Yes. I'm actually pointing to my home right there. And again just to say 2 it's nothing against the people that are trying to put the mobile home or 3 anything. We just feel that it doesn't blend in well with the existing 4 neighborhood. We are aware of this mobile home that is in this corner. 5 However, my mom's lived here; well, I've lived with her just as, well, over 6 25 years and it's been there well past that, so we consider it more as like a 7 grandfathered double mobile home. So we don't feel that that would be 8 enough justification. And we're just concerned that again as property 9 owners we are for infill development. We would like to see all the vacant 10 lots being built on; however, just as property owners we are again 11 concerned that we try to keep up with trying to have a good home. We 12 are as well hard workers and trying to fit in and be good neighbors to 13 everybody. We're concerned that also our property value is going to be 14 decreased. The other concern is that there's one; they're requesting one 15 mobile home and I have a question that would a second one be placed, 16 could be placed at a future date and therefore facilitating this adjacent lot 17 to also come in with proposing two other mobile homes. And again maybe 18 the other vacant lots would then be encouraged to do as well. So then 19 therefore, you could potentially have all this area, especially this area over 20 here, you have a lot of vacant land. So then it would just kind of open up 21 the door for that. So that's our major concern that we would then have a 22 lot of single homes or duplex, triplex with in combination of almost mobile 23 home area which we feel the mobile home would be more adequate at a 24 mobile home park. So although we understand maybe their financial 25 needs, we also want them to understand ours. That's about it. 26 27 Scholz: Okay. Could you give us your last name again? 28 29 Diaz: Diaz. D I A Z. 30 31 Scholz: Thank you. I missed that. I do have a comment and that is that since it is 32 zoned the way it is, each parcel would have to have a variance in order to 33 put a mobile home on it. 34 35 Diaz: Yes, we're just concerned that once one variance is approved then it just 36 opens up the door for facilitating then other future owners to justify the 37 variance and just keep on going. 38 39 Scholz: I understand that. Thank you. 40 41 Diaz: Okay. 42 43 Scholz: Anyone else want to speak to this? Okay, I'm going to close it to public 44 discussion. Commissioners? Commissioner Evans. 45 39 1 Evans: Mr. Chairman, you know I tend to be in full support of infill development 2 proposals, but in this particular case, I believe that it does not conform 3 with the surrounding area, and would like to see something that is more 4 conforming to the area be placed there. 5 6 Scholz: Okay. Someone else? Commissioner Beard? No. Commissioner 7 Bustos? All right, I'll entertain a motion. 8 9 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Case No. IDP-35. 10 11 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved. Do I hear a second? 12 13 Bustos: I second. 14 15 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner 16 Evans. 17 18 Evans: No, based on findings and discussion. 19 20 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 21 22 Bustos: No, findings, discussion, and site visit. 23 24 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 25 26 Beard: No, based on site visit, findings, and discussions. 27 28 Scholz: And the Chair votes no based on findings, discussion, and site visit. 29 Thank you gentlemen. 30 31 7. Case Z2756: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 32 Intensity) to C-2C (Commercial Medium Intensity-Conditional) and M1/M2 33 (Industrial Standard) overlapping for 0.24 +/- acres located at 1555 W. 34 Picacho Avenue. The applicant is also pursuing a zone change from C-2 35 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3C (Commercial High Intensity- 36 Conditional) for 1.10 +/- acres located at 1565 W. Picacho Avenue. 37 Submitted by Russell Johnson, Colene Johnson, and Rudy Johnson, 38 property owners. 39 40 Scholz: Okay, our next one, Mr. White, you're back in the saddle I see. Case 41 Z2756, a request for zone change from C-2 commercial to C-2C, and 42 M1/M2. 43 44 White: The next case this evening is Case Z2756, a request for a zone change 45 for two distinct properties located at 1555 West Picacho and 1565 West 46 Picacho. In respect to the physical address: the smaller skinnier tract of 40 I land is 1555 West Picacho, the larger tract is 1565 West Picacho. You 2 can also identify by this map that the current tracts of land are both zoned 3 C-2 which is Commercial Medium Intensity for both distinct tracts of land. 4 First, let's actually look at the request for each individual tract of 5 land. The applicant is requesting for 1555, again is the skinnier of the two 6 tracts, is that he's looking to actually implement light metal fabrication. 7 The issue is that light metal fabrication requires at a bare bones minimum 8 a zoning district of M1/M2 respectively. The applicant is requesting for 9 overlapping zoning. The existing C-2 to remain on the property to overlap 10 with M1/M2. Here's a copy of the actual Zoning Code that stipulates that 11 fabrication of metal products requires at a minimum M1/M2. So the 12 request again is for overlapping zoning for the existing zoning of C-2 to 13 remain on the property and for M1/M2 to be implemented, so fabricated 14 metal products can be placed on the property. 15 The second request this evening is for the parallel lot directly 16 adjacent to the west which is also known as 1565 West Picacho. This is 17 merely a zoning conversion from C-2 to C-3. The total area is roughly 1.1 18 acres in size. The tentative use for the property is mini-storage units and 19 urban design elements play in effect. One of the big issues regarding 20 urban design is that if the tentative use of mini-storage is placed on the 21 property, the urban design section of the Code requires chain-link fencing 22 to be off a Major Thoroughfare. So what a lot of individuals have been 23 doing is that if you actually take the chain-link fence and move it in one- 24 foot, in theory it's not on the property boundary so then it's a permitted 25 use. So what City Staff has been trying to do is trying to enforce some of 26 the urban design elements. So in this request which you're going to see 27 later on in this presentation is that the Staff is actually asking for 28 landscape buffering regarding chain-link fencing that's utilized for mini- 29 storage units. 30 Again, we're looking at zoning conversion. Here is the actual 31 zoning table from the 2001 Zoning Code. As shown, the issue that we're 32 getting into for 1565 West Picacho is this right here. Maximum parcel size 33 is 43,560 square feet, also known as one acre. The request would be to 34 C-3 based upon the acreage actually exceeding the maximum threshold 35 for properties in the C-2 zoning district. Here's a zoning map and this also 36 shows some of the adjacent land uses for the property. Also what you see 37 here on the zoning map you see this little area right here, this is 38 designated actually as a bicycle lane available on West Picacho. This 39 actual diagram goes all the way back out to 1-10. What also you're seeing 40 here if you look to the property to the east you have an auto repair 41 business which is this lot here and also encompasses this lot here. To the 42 south you have a mobile home park that has access off of Hadley Avenue 43 located here. In this area here, which is zoned M1, you have pretty much 44 what I would call a manufacture, or what I would call an industrial park. 45 You have Buildtek Court which is actually a dedicated City roadway. You 46 have City street lighting going up and down this corridor. The actual 41 I zoning now is M1/M2 based upon recent amendments done to the Code. 2 And directly adjacent you have warehousing. 3 In respect to the west of the property, you have multi-dwelling 4 apartments located on this tract of land over here. Based upon what was 5 submitted to Staff, here's a conceptual plan in respect to the overall layout. 6 Currently what you have on the property, I believe this is an antiquated 7 gas station located here. The issue will be, it'll be converted over to some 8 kind of commercial use. In the rear here, you have a business and 9 believe this is the one that's going to actually be the area where the metal 10 fabrication's going to occur. It's a large green building located on this 11 portion of the property. And on this area, you actually have chain-link 12 fence and you have a large vacant area where the proposed mini-storage 13 units would go, in this area here. 14 Here's an MPO thoroughfare map of the general area. Just to 15 signify a couple of points of interest to some Commissioners, as you do 16 have a trail system to the north of the property outlined in this area here. 17 Again, you have a bicycle system in place for West Picacho going through 18 the entire corridor of West Picacho all the way to 1-10 which is identified by 19 these little cells in here. And also, what's interesting is that you do have a 20 bus stop directly in front of the property and you also have a bus shelter 21 directly adjacent to the multifamily units or apartments located here. 22 Aerial view, again subject tract of land, what we're speaking about 23 1555 West Picacho, long narrow tract of land. Larger tract here is a 24 zoning compliance issue based upon the overall size, thus the reason for 25 it to seek C-3 zoning. Of course, it also gives you a great depiction of the 26 aerial, the land uses here. This is actually an auto repair garage here, and 27 if you notice to the rear, you have a salvage yard located in this area here. 28 As stipulated earlier, you have a mobile home park located to the south; 29 portion of the roofline for the warehouse district here, and this is actually 30 showing the configuration of the respective apartment complex here with 31 the applicable parking here to the west. 32 Site photos, as stipulated earlier, the antiquated gas station is here 33 with the two bays. If you actually look west of the gas station, if you match 34 the chain-link fencing up, this is the area that is proposed for the mini- 35 storage units, in this area here. 36 And to go into Staff recommendations: approval with conditions. 37 Number one is that all newly installed utilities will be placed underground. 38 Number two is in the event that mini-storage units are constructed, chain- 39 link fencing adjacent to Picacho off set from the property line will require 40 semi-opaque landscaping adhering to City of Las Cruces design 41 standards. The other issue would have to be evaluated during building 42 permitting would be landscape buffering. The biggest issue of landscape 43 buffering to be honest would be with the mobile home park to the south, to 44 the west you have the apartment complex that currently has razor wire 45 fencing, roughly about eight-feet in height, and actually, to the actual east 46 you probably would have some side of buffering from the auto salvage 42 1 yard as well. And of course, since this is a zone change, P&Z 2 recommendation would be forwarded to City Council for final 3 consideration. That would end Staff presentation. I'll be glad to stand for 4 any questions this Board may have this evening. 5 6 Scholz: Questions for Mr. White? Okay, may we hear from the applicant please? 7 8 Bullock: Commissioners, I'm Van Bullock. I'm the realtor that has the property 9 listed. I represent the Johnsons. Russell and Colene Johnson live in 10 California. They could not be here. There's actually a typo, its Ruby 11 Johnson, a third owner and she's an elderly lady and she is in assisted 12 living. The reason we're requesting the zone change is to facilitate the 13 sale of the property to the purchaser, Mr. Richard Parra. He's the one 14 that's done the design, the conceptual work on the property. Pretty clearly 15 if you saw this property you'd know that this is going to be a much better 16 property for the neighborhood. It's going to remove a considerable 17 eyesore and I think the use is pretty compatible. For specific questions 18 and plans, I'd like to yield to Richard because he's the one that'd be 19 purchasing the property and would be operating it. May I have Richard 20 come up and talk, address your questions? 21 22 Scholz: Sure. 23 24 Parra: Richard Parra. Basically what I'm proposing. 25 26 Scholz: Stay close to the microphone please. 27 28 Parra: Oh, I'm sorry. What I'm proposing for this property, of course it's 29 contingent on the zoning change. There is a warehouse that was used by 30 Mr. Russell as fabricating for a plumbing business that he had. The 31 structure which is to the east was their home at one time and of course, 32 there's the gas station that has been vacant for I'd say at least five to six 33 years. So what I'm proposing is actually using the structures that are 34 currently there and updating them with landscaping, all new facades. 35 They're very outdated. I mean they still have fuses as far as electrical. 36 want to do landscaping, create a new area. I'm going to currently do this 37 in three stages: one the warehouse which we'll update; two will be the 38 property to the east which was their home at one time; and then also do 39 the old gas station. My third phase is going to be hopefully bringing in a 40 set of mini-storage units. Any questions? 41 42 Scholz: Okay, questions for this gentleman? Do you know are the tanks out of 43 that gas station? 44 43 I Parra: Yes. We are currently doing a phase one, phase two. The tanks are out. 2 We just received the phase one and they're in the process of doing the 3 phase two. 4 5 Scholz: Okay. That's always a concern of mine. 6 7 Parra: There shouldn't be at all. 8 9 Scholz: Okay, anyone from the audience want to speak to this? Thank you sir. 10 11 Parra: Okay, thank you. 12 13 Scholz: All right. I'll close it for public discussion. Commissioners, what's your 14 pleasure? Mr. Bustos. 15 16 Bustos: I'd like to add that I think that now on the west side with Picacho I think as 17 you guys can see now when driving down Picacho that there are a lot of 18 new business down there more towards Motel Boulevard. But 1 think 19 that's a good idea because Picacho for a long time has been kind of like 20 an eyesore. And if someone's coming in to want to spruce it up a little bit 1 21 think it's a very good idea. 22 23 Scholz: Okay. All right, I'll entertain a motion to approve this. 24 25 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Case No. Z2756 with the following 26 conditions: all newly constructed utilities will be placed underground. In the 27 event mini-storage units are constructed, chain-link fencing adjacent to 28 Picacho offset from the property line avenue will require semi-opaque 29 landscaping adhering to City of Las Cruces Design Standards. 30 31 Scholz: Okay, is there a second? 32 33 Bustos: I second. 34 35 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner Evans. 36 37 Evans: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 38 39 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 40 41 Bustos: Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 42 43 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 44 45 Beard: Aye, findings and discussion and site visit. 46 44 AWN 1 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion, and site visitation. Okay. 2 Thank you. 3 4 8. Case S-07-079: A request for preliminary plat approval for a single-family 5 residential development known as Cortez Estates. The applicant is seeking a 6 waiver to the CLC Subdivision Code and CLC Design Standards to which the 7 applicant will provide off-site improvements on Wilt Avenue from Reynolds 8 Drive to Cortez Drive in lieu of required roadway improvements adjacent to 9 the property on Cortez Drive and Wilt Avenue. The subject property consists 10 of 12.86 +/- acres, proposes 52 +/- dwelling units and is zoned R-1 a (Single- 11 Family Medium Density). The subject property is located south of Cortez 12 Drive and east of Wilt Avenue. Submitted by Summit Engineering for Matt 13 Watson, Developer. 14 15 Scholz: All right. Ms. Revels, nice to see you. 16 17 Revels: Hello. 18 19 Scholz: This is Case S-07-079, a request for preliminary plat approval for a single- 20 family residential. 21 22 Revels: Good evening, I'm Helen Revels. This presentation is for Cortez Estates. 23 It's a preliminary plat and waiver request. The proposed development is 24 proposing 52 dwelling units on 12.59 acres. It is currently zoned R-1 a. It 25 is generally located east of Wilt Avenue and south of Cortez. There is a 26 vicinity map there showing the property. 27 Case specifics, the preliminary plat proposes single-family 28 residential land use; 52 dwelling units, density is 4.53 dwelling units per 29 acre; proposes single-phase development. Subject property has direct 30 access to Wilt Avenue and Cortez Drive. 31 Case specifics for the waiver request, the applicant is proposing off- 32 site roadway and utility improvements in lieu of improvements adjacent to 33 the subject property. Applicant is dedicating pro-rata share of right-of-way 34 for both Cortez Drive and Wilt Avenue. Off-site improvements located 35 north of subject property on Wilt Avenue from Reynolds Drive to Cortez 36 Drive. Off-site improvements to include 1,300 linear feet of improved 37 roadway with curb, gutter, and sidewalks. This here shows the location of 38 the improvements that are requested in lieu of the on-site improvements. 39 Here's a copy of the preliminary plat. There is an aerial view of the 40 property there in question. 41 The DRC recommendation was that the details of the waiver 42 request be defined in greater detail at the final plat construction drawing 43 phase. Recommendation tonight is approve preliminary plat and waiver 44 request as recommended by DRC and Staff; approve preliminary plat and 45 waiver request with additional conditions; or deny the preliminary plat and 46 waiver request. 45 1 2 Scholz: Okay. And you'll stand for questions. Are there any questions 3 Commissioners? I have two Ms. Revels. 4 5 Revels: Sure. 6 7 Scholz: One is, I drove on Wilt Avenue and it is very narrow at Reynolds. Is there 8 a right-of-way problem in, you said in doing the curb improvement, we're 9 running the sewer up there. Isn't that the idea? 10 11 Revels: Correct. 12 13 Scholz: Okay. Is there going to be a problem getting right-of-way dedication for 14 that? 15 16 Revels: I'll defer that question to the engineer. 17 18 Scholz: Okay. Good, well I'll ask you a second question then. 19 20 Revels: Sure. 21 22 Scholz: Since there are two outlets to this subdivision: one on Wilt Avenue and 23 one on Cortez, I drove down the other section of Wilt Avenue south of 24 Cortez, and it's like a country lane. I'm wondering if there's going to be 25 any improvement on that, or is the Wilt Avenue development in lieu of 26 improvements on Wilt Avenue south of Cortez. 27 28 Revels: The Wilt Avenue improvements are in lieu of the improvements adjacent 29 to the subdivision. 30 31 Scholz: Well, I find that problematic because half of the people are going to drive 32 out on Wilt Avenue and they're going to drive out on what is essentially a 33 country lane with, you know, dirt shoulders and so on, and I don't see that 34 that's a very good use of that road. In fact, I think they're going to be 35 problems with when it rains. And I noticed the creek has been fixed. I 36 think the culvert, or the creek has been diverted anyway, a culvert is there. 37 So that solves part of the problem. Well, let's ask the engineer. 38 39 Revels: Okay. 40 41 Byres: My name is Greg Byres. I'm with Summit Engineering. I'm representing 42 the developer for this project. I'll go through a quick presentation and then 43 I'll try and address some of the questions that you had. 44 45 Scholz: Thank you. 46 46 I Byres: Again, this is zoned R-1 a as Helen had stated. Proposed land use would 2 be for single-family site built homes. Subject property is 12.86 acres 3 consisting of three separate parcels at this point in time. Proposed 4 development would include 53 residential lots. The lots are roughly about 5 60 by 100-foot lots. Development would include construction of all 6 infrastructure including roads and utilities within the proposed 7 development. Access to the development would be from Cortez and from 8 Wilt Avenue. Here's just another copy of the preliminary plat. One of the 9 items that we have as far as development that's going to be required for 10 this project, Posse Creek runs along the southern boundary of the 11 property. The City currently has right-of-way for Posse Creek for 12 development. We are going to utilize their right-of-way as well as dedicate 13 additional right-of-way to do this portion of the Posse Creek development. 14 This is an extended project that the City has ongoing both to the east and 15 to the west of this project. Included in that is the crossing at Wilt down on 16 the southwest corner. The existing culvert that's in there is undersized 17 and is going to have to be resized to accommodate the actual 100-year 18 flow that comes through there. As part of the improvements on Wilt 19 adjacent to the property, we will have to replace that culvert as well as 20 pavement up and down both sides of that to get that roadway back into 21 compliance with City standards. 22 The maximum allowable number of lots with the proposed zoning 23 are with the zoning we currently have is 70. However, we're only doing 52 24 lots. Proposed development will include the extension of sewer from 25 Reynolds Drive to the proposed development. At the intersection of 26 Reynolds Drive and Wilt under the phase one of construction for Reynolds 27 Drive there was new curb returns placed in there and as part of all of the 28 developments coming up through there including Wilt, there is a full 50- 29 foot right-of-way for those roads. Most of those streets, or most of the 30 properties up through there have developed their lawns and so forth all the 31 way out into the roadway. 32 33 Scholz: I noticed that. That was my concern. 34 35 Byres: Yes, considerably. But there is a 50-foot right-of-way all the way up 36 through there which will allow for a residential roadway to be constructed 37 with the utilities that will be improved coming up through there. Drainage 38 easements, as I had mentioned on Posse Creek will also be part of this 39 development. Here's another aerial of the site with the proposed 40 development. Again, the improvements will be coming down Wilt Avenue 41 from Reynolds and then you can see where Posse Creek runs. It comes 42 in from the east through the development and goes out to the west. And 43 again, we will have to reconstruct a part of Wilt Avenue in there to replace 44 that culvert as well as get that pavement back up to standard. 45 Development shall include installation of all utilities including the off-site 46 sewer at Reynolds Drive. Interior roadways shall be constructed to 47 I comply with City standards. Drainage improvements along Posse Creek 2 will be taken care of as well as the crossing at Wilt in lieu of improvements 3 along Cortez Drive and Wilt where the streets abut the development, 4 improvements will be completed along Wilt Avenue from Reynolds to 5 Cortez. Improvements will include all the paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk in 6 conformance with standard for a minor local roadway. 7 Again, this is just a master plan that was approved by the P&Z 8 earlier. That's the end of my presentation. 9 10 Scholz: Okay, some questions for the engineer? Well, as I said, my concern is the 11 rest of Wilt Avenue. Now you're going to built out to the limits of your 12 development, right? 13 14 Byres: Correct. 15 16 Scholz: Okay. Well then, we have the stretch of Wilt Avenue pass this private 17 residence which is, as I said like a country road. Obviously, that's not your 18 concern because you're not building there. I looked at Cortez, there 19 seems to be a fairly, much larger piece of pavement on Cortez, so I think 20 Cortez can handle the traffic. But I'm wondering about that Wilt Avenue. 21 Staff, do we have any comments on that? Thank you, Mr. Byres. 22 23 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, what the applicant is required to do per the City Design 24 Standards is build their pro-rata share of improvements to both Wilt 25 Avenue and Cortez Drive which are both identified as Collectors on the 26 MPO Thoroughfare Plan. However, when you build the thoroughfares 27 adjacent to the subject property, the subject property doesn't include this 28 corner parcel here at the intersection. So the applicant is not responsible 29 for those improvements to Wilt Avenue. 30 31 Scholz: No, I understand that. 32 33 Rodriguez: What the DRC has reviewed and accepted is to basically shift those 34 required improvements for Wilt and Cortez to the off-site improvements to 35 Wilt including the utility connections as well as building a full Minor Local 36 roadway for Wilt Avenue north of Cortez Road. In terms of the existing 37 pavement here on Wilt Avenue, it will remain as it stands today with the 38 exception of whatever improvements the applicant will have to do to Wilt in 39 this area to rebuild those drainage culverts. But in terms for building out 40 Wilt Avenue to the intersection of Cortez Road, the applicant is not 41 required to do that and the pavement condition as it stands today would 42 remain so.. 43 44 Scholz: Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez. Okay, does someone from the public want to 45 speak to this? No, okay, I'll close it to public discussion. Commissioners, 46 what's your pleasure? Commissioner Beard you're shaking your head. 48 1 2 Beard: No, I don't have anything to say. 3 4 Scholz: Which is why you're shaking your head. Someone else? Okay, I'll 5 entertain a motion to approve. 6 7 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Case No. S-07-079, approve the 8 preliminary plat and waiver request as recommended by the DRC. 9 10 Scholz: Is there a second? 11 12 Beard: I second it. 13 14 Scholz: Okay, it's been approved and seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner 15 Evans. 16 17 Evans: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 18 19 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 20 21 Bustos: Aye, findings and discussion. 22 23 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 24 25 Beard: Aye, findings and discussions. 26 27 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 28 29 9. Case S-08-013: A request for preliminary plat approval for a development 30 known as Aurora Subdivision. The subject property consists of 5.23 +/- acres 31 and is located west of Elks Drive and north of McCoy Avenue. The proposed 32 single-family residential development consists of 22 +/- dwelling units and is 33 zoned R-1a (Single-Family Medium Density) and FC (Flood Control). 34 Submitted by Summit Engineering for Richard and Aurora Valverde. 35 36 Scholz: We have one left. And Ms. Revels, you're back up. This is Case S-08- 37 013, a request for preliminary plat approval for a development known as 38 Aurora Subdivision. 39 40 Revels: Aurora Subdivision; this is a preliminary plat request. Aurora Subdivision 41 is located west of Elks Drive and north of McCoy Avenue. It consists of 42 5.23 acres and it is zoned R-1 a and FC. The FC is the northern boundary 43 portion back here where the drainage tract will be held. Here's another 44 vicinity map here. It's showing the property located west of Mesa Manor 45 Subdivision and it will be accessed off McCoy Avenue. 49 1 Case specifics: the preliminary plat proposes single-family 2 residential land uses. It is proposing 22 dwelling units, single-phase 3 development; density is 4.39 dwelling units per acre. There are 4.44 4 acres that are zoned R-1 a and there are 0.79 acres zoned FC (Flood 5 Control), the location for the drainage pond which is tract A on the 6 proposed preliminary plat. Tract A is located at the northern boundary of 7 the property and will be owned and maintained by the homeowners' 8 association. I know previously in the packet it was stated that it was 9 proposed to be dedicated to the City of Las Cruces but after further 10 discussion it was decided that it would be owned and maintained by the 11 homeowners' association. There is an existing dwelling unit as identified 12 as Lot 1 of the proposed preliminary plat. The applicant is responsible for 13 100% of improvements to the internal roadway within the proposed 14 subdivision. No improvements are required on McCoy Avenue because 15 improvements were done in conjunction with Mesa Manor Subdivision 16 previously. 17 Here is a copy of the preliminary plat. Right here you see the 18 existing home and back here is the tract A, which is the portion that is 19 zoned FC for Flood Control. Here is an aerial photograph. Here you can 20 see the existing home and you can also see some mobile homes that will 21 be removed prior to the construction phase of this subdivision. 22 DRC recommendations were to approve conditionally that the 23 drainage pond issue be resolved with public works and plat B revised prior 24 to Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Recommendation today is 25 to approve the preliminary plat request as recommended by DRC and 26 Staff; approve preliminary plat request with additional comments; or deny 27 the preliminary plat request. 28 29 Scholz: Okay, questions for Ms. Revels? I have two. One is, and this is a 30 question that Ray Shipley asked two months ago or three months ago 31 when we approved the initial zoning for this. Why is there no secondary 32 access? 33 34 Revels: I'm saying that the Fire Code requires that if there are less than 30 35 dwelling units or 30 lots that it only requires one access. If there were 36 more than 30 units then they would have to have a secondary access. 37 38 Scholz: Okay. I recall that that was the reason given. What about the 39 development of that road next to this property or the dedication of that 40 road? It seems to me there is a road there called Holliday. I don't have 41 my notes from the last time this was approved that. 42 43 Revels: Okay, the engineer's telling me that Holliday is actually one lot over. That 44 it's not adjacent to the property. 45 50 I Scholz: Oh, it isn't. Okay. Fine. And my final question was, was the wall location 2 resolved? There was a problem with an existing landowner in, what's that 3 one called, Mesa Manor. Was that resolved? It was. Okay, I see it here. 4 Okay, those are my questions. 5 6 Revels: Okay. 7 8 Scholz: Can we hear from the applicant? And you're up again, Mr. Byres. Nice to 9 see you again. 10 11 Byres: Actually, I have a presentation but I'll just go through hers real quick since 12 we're...unless you have additional questions. One of the items that we do 13 have and one of the reasons that we changed some of the drainage 14 issues with the property; we have a large drainage pond that goes along 15 the northern end of this property and it works in conjunction with an 16 existing drainage structure that was built with Mesa Manor. The storm 17 water will dump from Mesa Manor directly into this proposed ponding area 18 and what we had initially intended was to make this large enough to 19 accommodate a 100-year storm without outlet. And the reason for that is 20 there are some structures that are down stream of this property that 21 currently when the discharge comes out of Mesa Manor there is a problem 22 with that water coming down through there. It's kind of flooding out some 23 properties and so forth. What we have proposed rather than holding that 24 water is we will discharge that water but we will discharge it at a very slow 25 rate so to keep that under control and keep it within the historic flow pass 26 that currently exist rather than hold that water which the City had problems 27 with due to State Engineer criteria and so forth. That's why we've revised 28 that. On this particular map you see a Holliday written right in here. That's 29 mistakenly put in the wrong place. Holliday actually exists down here so 30 that's why you're looking at that. 31 One of the other items that came up when we were doing the zone 32 change on this was the second access and, again, there is no access, 33 public access to this north end of the parcel. So consequently, we don't 34 have an outlet that we can outlet anywhere out other than on McCoy. So 35 that's the way we've arranged it and that's about all we have on that. If 36 you have questions, I'll be glad to answer. 37 38 Scholz: Questions for this gentleman? Okay, thank you very much. Comments 39 from the public? 40 41 Mason: My name is Paul Mason. And I am the property owner right here. There's 42 my house right there. I'd like to address both of those issues. As far as 43 the ponding area, we are quite concerned about, you know, I'm not here to 44 object to the proposal or to support it, but we really would like to find more 45 information because the pond that was built here has really caused a lot of 46 problems because it overfills very quickly. We had it overfill just this 51 1 month with the rain we had. Once it overfills, it comes down through, this 2 is more or less, this is a photo prior to the development as you can see 3 here and the drainage is a little bit different, but it does come right out here 4 and deposits a lot of sand right here because it comes through a narrow 5 channel and then opens up into this area and just deposits lots of sand 6 here. So it is our great concern that whatever is done here be done in a 7 way that was better than what was done back here because this is our 8 access. Often times vehicles get stuck here. In fact a FedEx truck came 9 to deliver a package just three or four days ago to my house; had to get a 10 tow-truck to pull it out there because just lots of sand out here. 11 The other issue does have to do with the, what they call here I think 12 maybe one it says Holliday here. This is Holliday Lane and I think maybe 13 unofficially they call this Holliday Place, which is to allow access to the 14 mobile homes here. This is a private road here that is on my property that 15 extends to Hatfield Road here. Now there's another property between 16 mine and Hatfield and so my private road doesn't go all the way to 17 Hatfield, so I can't speak for them. But, depending upon the 18 circumstances, we are amenable to discussion of having that access from 19 this subdivision along that line. But it sort of comes as a whole package of 20 how is the ponding going to be dealt with and if there's a need for a road 21 here that it's possible that we could allow access there. 22 23 Scholz: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mason. Anyone else from the public want to speak 24 to this? All right, I'll close it to public discussion. Gentleman, what's your 25 pleasure? Questions, comments? Okay, I'll entertain a motion to 26 approve. 27 28 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Case S-08-013. Approve the 29 preliminary plat as recommended by the DRC. 30 31 Scholz: Okay, and what's the condition we're talking about Ms. Revels? 32 33 Revels: Actually it can be removed because we had asked that notes and 34 discussion be discussed with Public Works regarding the drainage pond 35 and note be added to the plat in that effect and that has been done. 36 37 Scholz: Okay. Is there a second to that motion? 38 39 Beard: Second it. 40 41 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I'll call the roll. Commissioner 42 Evans. 43 44 Evans: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 45 46 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 52 1 2 Bustos: Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 3 4 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 5 6 Beard: Aye, based on findings and discussions. 7 8 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye based on findings, discussions, and site visit. All 9 right. Thank you. 10 11 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS 12 13 Scholz: Now, do we have any other business. I see people packing up their 14 notebooks and things already. Obviously we don't. Ms. Rodriguez. 15 16 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I just would like to remind the Commission that Staff is still 17 moving forward for a work session to be held Tuesday August 19th at 6:00 18 p.m. That work session will be held here at City Council Chambers. 19 20 Scholz: Work session here. Okay. 21 22 Beard: August 19th. 23 24 Scholz: And that'll be at 6:00 p.m. I assume. 25 26 Rodriguez: Yes, sir. 27 28 Scholz: Do we get to sit up front again, or do we have to sit down at the table? 29 30 Rodriguez: Whatever your desire is. 31 32 Scholz: Cool. Okay. 33 34 IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 35 36 Scholz: Is there any other public participation? I see no members of the public 37 left. 38 39 X. STAFF COMMENT 40 41 Scholz: Any Staff comments? 42 43 Rodriguez: None at this moment. 44 45 XI. ADJOURNMENT (8:37 p.m.) 46 53 I Scholz: Okay. Then we are adjourning at let's see 8:37 1 think by my clock. Thank 2 you very much folks. Thank you Staff. And thank you Commissioners. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Chairperson 10 54