Loading...
08-26-2008 I MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 FOR THE 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 City Council Chambers 5 August 26, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. 6 7 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 8 Charles Scholz, Chairman 9 Shawn Evans, Vice Chair 10 Donald Bustos, Secretary 11 Ray Shipley, Member 12 Godfrey Crane, Member 13 Clayton Iserman, Member 14 15 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 16 Charles Beard, Member 17 18 STAFF PRESENT: 19 Vincent Banegas, Planning & MPO Administrator 20 Cheryl Rodriguez, Development Services Administrator 21 Gary Hembree, Senior Planner 22 Tom Schuster, Senior Planner 23 Carol McCall, Planner 24 Susan Lowell, Planner 25 James White, Planner 26 Adam Ochoa, Associate Planner 27 Jared Abrams, CLC Legal 28 Lt. Robert Gonzales, Fire Department 29 Becky Eich, Recording Secretary 30 31 I. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 32 33 Scholz: Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, August 26th, 2008 session of 34 the Planning and Zoning Commission. I'm Charlie Scholz. I'm the Chair of 35 the Commission. I represent Council District 6. 1 want to introduce the 36 other members of the Commission; on my far right, Commissioner 37 Shipley. He's the mayor's appointee. Next to him is Commissioner Crane. 38 He represents District 4. Next to him is a new member of our 39 Commission, Commissioner Iserman, and he's representing District 1. 40 Welcome, Clayton, nice to see you. Next to him is Commissioner Evans. 41 Commissioner Evans represents District 5. Commissioner Bustos, next to 42 him, is District 3. And Commissioner Beard represents District 2, and is 43 absent. 44 The way this works is, we follow the agenda which is posted on the 45 screen. For those of you who are watching at home, if you haven't seen 46 the agenda or you want to check the details, you can go to the Community 1 1 Development website and you can find posted all of the information that 2 we will be dealing with tonight, including the particular cases. 3 4 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 22, 2008 5 6 Scholz: The first thing we have is the approval of the minutes. Were there any 7 additions or corrections to the minutes, gentlemen? Okay, I had one, and 8 that was on page 49, line 14, and I think I misspoke, I should have said, 9 "Okay, it's been moved and seconded," instead of "approved and 10 seconded." That's the only correction I found. Anything else? Okay, I'll 11 entertain a motion to approve the minutes. 12 13 Bustos: I make a motion to approve the minutes. 14 15 Scholz: Okay, a second? 16 17 Evans: I second. 18 19 Scholz: All those in favor, say aye. 20 21 COMMISSIONERS BUSTOS, EVANS, SHIPLEY, AND SCHOLZ -AYE. 22 23 Scholz: Those opposed, same sign. The minutes are approved. Thank you, 24 gentlemen. I'm sorry. And two abstentions. Four in favor, and two 25 abstentions. 26 27 III. POSTPONEMENTS 28 29 Scholz: All right. Any postponements, Staff? 30 31 Rodriguez: No, sir, Mr. Chairman. 32 33 IV. WITHDRAWALS 34 35 Scholz: Okay, any withdrawals? 36 37 Rodriguez: No, sir. 38 39 V. CONSENT AGENDA 40 41 Scholz: Next, we have the consent agenda. The items on the consent agenda will 42 be voted on, on one motion, with the acceptance of the agenda. What I'm 43 going to do is read the first lines of each case and if any one of the 44 Commission or the Staff or the public wants to speak to these, then we'll 45 put them first in line in the order of new business. 46 2 1 1. Case Z2759: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 2 Intensity) to C-3C (Commercial High Intensity-Conditional) for 2.69 +/- acres 3 located at 1320 S. Solano. The zone change will bring the property into 4 zoning compliance, based on the overall size of the property exceeding the 5 one (1) acre maximum size for commercial properties within the C-2 6 (Commercial Medium Intensity) zoning district. Submitted by Southwest 7 Engineering, Inc. for Families and Youth Inc. 8 9 Scholz: Okay, the first one is Case Z2759, a request for a zone change from C-2 10 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3C (Commercial High Intensity- 11 Conditional). Does anyone need to speak to this? Commissioners? 12 Okay, that stays on the consent then. 13 14 2. Case Z2763: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 15 Intensity) to C-3C (Commercial High Intensity-Conditional) for 2.69 +/- acres 16 located at 2395 N. Mesquite Street. The zone change will bring the property 17 into zoning compliance, based on the overall size of the property exceeding 18 the one (1) acre maximum size for commercial properties within the C-2 19 (Commercial Medium Intensity) zoning district. Submitted by Donahue Land 20 Surveys for Mesilla Valley Business Park, LLC> 21 22 Scholz: The second is Case Z2763, a request for a zone change from C-2 23 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3C (Commercial High Intensity- 24 Conditional). Anyone want to speak to that one? Commissioners? Okay. 25 26 3. Case Z2764: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 27 Intensity) to C-3C (Commercial High Intensity-Conditional) for 2.69 +/- acres 28 located at 223 E. Idaho Avenue. The zone change will bring the property into 29 zoning compliance, based on the overall size of the property exceeding the 30 one (1) acre maximum size for commercial properties within the C-2 31 (Commercial Medium Intensity) zoning district. Submitted by ASA Architects 32 for First National Bank of Artesia, property owner. 33 34 Scholz: And the third one is Case Z2764, a request for a zone change from C-2 35 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3C (Commercial High Intensity- 36 Conditional). This begins to sound repetitious. Anyone from the audience 37 want to speak to this one? Okay. Commissioners? Okay, I'll entertain a 38 motion then to accept the consent agenda, and that means that one vote 39 accepts the entire agenda. 40 41 Shipley: So moved. 42 43 Scholz: Okay. Do I hear a second? 44 45 Evans: I second. 46 3 I Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. 2 3 ALL COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS -AYE. 4 5 Scholz: Those opposed, same sign. Abstentions? Okay. That's passed. Thank 6 you. 7 8 VI. NEW BUSINESS 9 10 1. Case A1672: A request for a variance from the minimum required 11 landscaping for property located at 201 E. Lohman and within the Central 12 Business District (CBD). The subject property is adjacent to Lohman 13 Avenue, Amador Avenue, Church Street, and Campo Avenue. Section 38- 14 43(I) of the 2001 Zoning Code, as amended, requires a minimum of one (1) 15 tree for every ten (1) parking spaces and one (1) tree for every twenty (20) 16 feet of property adjacent to the street for all new construction and/or any 17 addition or structural modification to existing buildings with a value of$25,000 18 or more. The applicant is requesting to provide landscaping requirements in 19 the amount of twelve (12) trees and ninety-three (93) shrubs in lieu of the 20 required sixty-three (63) trees. Submitted by Resources for Children & 21 Youth, property owners. 22 23 Scholz: Our first piece of new business is Case A1672. It's a request for a 24 variance from the minimum required landscaping for a property located at 25 201 E. Lohman and within the Central Business District. Mr. Rocha, nice 26 to see you. 27 28 Ochoa: Ochoa, Mr. Commissioner. 29 30 Scholz: Ochoa, I'll get it. 31 32 Ochoa: Good evening, Adam Ochoa, for the record. Case A1672 is a request for 33 a variance for the minimum required landscaping for a property located at 34 201 E. Lohman. It is located within the Central Business District and it 35 was submitted by property owner Resources for Children and Youth. The 36 Code requirements under Article 5, section 38-43 under the Central 37 Business District and Main Street Overlay Zone, basically Central 38 Business District landscaping states, "to ensure comfort and shade in the 39 CBD, the following is the minimum required for all new construction and/or 40 any addition or structural modification to existing buildings with a value of 41 $25,000 or more," and that's excluding single-family residences. The 42 requirements for landscaping are for every 10 parking spaces the 43 minimum requirement is one tree between every 10 parking spaces. In 44 addition, for every 20 linear feet of property adjacent to the street, one tree 45 will be placed along the street footage. Secondly, to ensure the 46 commitment to the life of the trees, an irrigation system shall be included. 4 I During the building permit process an irrigation plan and planting plan 2 shall be provided for all new construction and/or any addition or structural 3 modification to existing buildings with a value of $25,000 or more, and 4 again, that's excluding single-family residences. 5 The case specifics: the subject property is a school adjacent to 6 Lohman Avenue, Amador Avenue, Church Street, and Campo Street. The 7 subject property is one street away from being part of the Main Street 8 Plaza Overlay where no landscaping is required at all. Staff has 9 determined that the property owner would need to install 63 trees and an 10 irrigation system to meet requirements of the Central Business District. 11 The applicant proposes instead to install 12 trees and 93 shrubs 12 throughout the property and the public right-of-way with an irrigation 13 system. The applicant has stated that the required landscaping will 14 negatively effect the parking situation for the school Staff, students, and 15 visitors. The applicant has also stated that the required 63 trees are too 16 many and would overwhelm the property. 17 Here's a vicinity map of the location. There's an aerial shot of the 18 property. It's roughly about an acre and a half. North is Amador Avenue, 19 to the south is Lohman Avenue, to the west we got Church Street, and to 20 the east we have Campo Street. Like I said, it's about an acre and a half. 21 The proposed landscaping that would be in the public right-of-way would 22 be found along Campo Street, right over here. That area would actually 23 be maintained by the property owner. 24 Our Staff findings: Staff reviewed this case with the property owner 25 and the City Landscape Architect and a compromise has been reached 26 between the owner and City Staff. The applicant will be required to add 27 an additional seven Chinese pistache trees on the landscaping plan 28 proposed for a total of 19 trees. Of the seven, one additional tree will be 29 added to each of the two planting areas located on the corners of the 30 property at the intersection of Amador Avenue with Church Street and 31 Campo Street. The other five of the additional Chinese pistache trees will 32 run along the street frontage of Amador Avenue. The five trees must also 33 have their planting areas curbed off to prevent automobiles from driving 34 into them and accidentally damaging the tree or the irrigation system. Of 35 course, an irrigation system will be provided for all plant materials. This is 36 the new landscape plan. Additional seven trees, like I said, one will be 37 here, the corner of Church Street and Amador, another one will be here in 38 this other planting area where Campo and Amador, and the other five 39 would be free standing by themselves right here in their own planting 40 areas. As you can see from the irrigation plan all planting material will be 41 irrigated. 42 Staff recommendations: Staff has reviewed the variance request 43 and we recommend approval with conditions based on the following; 44 applicant will provide 19 trees at an adequate trunk caliper and size as 45 required by the City Landscape Architect and as indicated on the 46 Landscaping Plan. The architect will provide curbed planters for the five 5 I freestanding Chinese pistache trees that will be located in the parking 2 area along Amador Avenue. The applicant will also provide 93 shrubs 3 throughout the property and on the public right-of-way as indicated in the 4 landscaping plan as well. All plants and materials will be served by an 5 irrigation system and maintained by the applicant. Options tonight are: 6 approve the variance request with conditions as recommended by Staff; 7 you could approve the variance request as submitted by the applicant; you 8 could approve the variance request with conditions determined 9 appropriate by the Planning and Zoning Commission; or you could deny 10 the variance request. 11 12 Scholz: Okay, any questions for this gentleman? Okay, can we hear from the 13 applicant please? 14 15 Frietze: Good evening. My name's Jose Frietze. I'm the president of Resources 16 for Children and Youth, Incorporated. It's a sister agency to Families and 17 Youth, Incorporated. This property has been improved significantly in the 18 last year. It is housing a charter school, Las Montana's Charter High 19 School. The interior of the buildings have been completely redone, 20 brought up to standard, to Code for all things including electrical, 21 plumbing, and that has all been brought up to Code. The remaining part 22 of the building which is now a restaurant will be converted next year to 23 also be part of Las Montana's Charter school, as well as the building 24 located on the southeast corner of Lohman and Campo. You can see it. 25 It's kind of distinguished by the fact that it's a separate lot and it will remain 26 a separate lot, but we're incorporating the lot with the larger parcel for 27 landscaping purposes. I'll stand for questions, I guess. 28 29 Scholz: Okay, thank you, Mr. Frietze. Questions for Mr. Frietze? Yes, 30 Commissioner Shipley. 31 32 Shipley: Mr. Frietze, I notice that you have five trees along the Lohman Avenue 33 side. Would there also be five trees on the Amador side, to kind of balance 34 that out? There will be water from the irrigation system to do that and 35 you've got basically both sides are boulevard-type streets. Would it not be 36 appropriate to do that as well to kind of make the property in balance? 37 38 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley, you have to get closer to the microphone please. 39 40 Shipley: Pardon me. Should I start all over? 41 42 Ochoa: Excuse me, Commissioner Shipley. The trees, the five trees, are actually 43 along Amador Avenue. 44 45 Shipley: Okay. 46 6 1 Scholz: Does that answer your question then? 2 3 Shipley: So okay, it doesn't work that way. Okay. 4 5 Frietze: The main entrances are on the Lohman side. Both entrance and exit for 6 that main parking lot are on the Lohman side and so what we're trying to 7 do is landscape on the southwest corner where that lends itself more for 8 landscaping as well as on the corners all around, and the trees are on the 9 Amador side. 10 11 Scholz: Any other questions for this gentleman? 12 13 Shipley: No, that's all. 14 15 Crane: Mr. Chairman. 16 17 Scholz: Commissioner Crane, sorry. 18 19 Crane: I see where five trees are, but we have a total of 19 is it? Are the others in 20 the corners? I don't see distinctly on your map where the other trees are. 21 22 Ochoa: I guess I could answer that better, Commissioner Crane. Yes, the other 23 trees are in the other planting areas. The planting areas would be right 24 here in the corner of Lohman and, I believe, that is Church Street right 25 here. There is another planting area right here on the corner of Amador 26 and Church Street. There's another small one right here in the middle of 27 the parking lot, and another like triangle in the parking lot right here, as 28 well as on the public right-of-way along Campo Street and on the corner of 29 Campo and Amador. So 19 trees total. 30 31 Crane: Thank you. 32 33 Scholz: Okay, anyone else? All right, is there anyone from the public? Thank you, 34 Mr. Frietze. 35 36 Frietze: Thank you. 37 38 Scholz: Is there anyone from the public who wants to speak to this? All right. 39 Then we'll close it for public discussion. Gentlemen, what's your 40 pleasure? 41 42 Crane: We seem to have four choices. Do we need four motions? 43 44 Scholz: No, actually we'd only need one motion but the motion would have to 45 include all the conditions. 46 7 1 Crane: I don't know how to do that. 2 3 Scholz: Oh, well, all you do is read them off the slide. 4 5 Bustos: I make a motion to approve Case A1672. 6 7 Scholz: You've been rescued. 8 9 Bustos: With the following conditions: the applicant will provide 19 trees at an 10 adequate trunk caliper and size as required by the City Landscape 11 Architect and as indicated on the attached landscape plan; the applicant 12 will provide curb planters for the five Chinese pistache streets to be 13 located within the parking lot along Amador Avenue frontage of the subject 14 property; the applicant will provide 93 bushes throughout the property and 15 on the public right-of-way as indicated on the attached landscape plan; 16 and all planting materials will be served by an irrigation system and 17 maintained by the applicant. 18 19 Scholz: Is there a second? 20 21 Shipley: I second it. 22 23 Scholz: Okay, we'll call the roll. Commissioner Shipley. 24 25 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 26 27 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 28 29 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 30 31 Scholz: Commissioner Iserman. 32 33 Iserman: Aye. 34 35 Scholz: You'll have to be closer to the microphone, sir. 36 37 Iserman: Okay. Aye for discussion ... what was the other one? Findings and a site 38 visit. 39 40 Scholz: Excellent. Thank you. Commissioner Evans. 41 42 Evans: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 43 44 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 45 46 Bustos: Aye, findings and discussion. 8 1 2 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye as well. Okay. That's passed. 3 4 2. Case PA-08-03: A recommendation to City Council regarding the adoption of 5 the Alameda Depot Neighborhood Plan. 6 7 Scholz: All right. Now our next piece is a recommendation to the City Council 8 regarding the adoption of the Alameda Depot Neighborhood Plan. Ms. 9 McCall, were you going to make a presentation on this? All right. And 10 you told me a few moments before we started that you had some 11 additional e-mails or correspondence from, I assume, the people in the 12 Alameda Neighborhood that you wanted to pass out. So why don't you do 13 that right now. Thank you. 14 15 McCall: Thank you. For the record, Carol McCall, Community Development 16 Department. I'm here to present the Alameda Depot Neighborhood Plan 17 draft, to give you an idea of how it originated and developed, and how we 18 went about creating the plan, and review the goals and policies in the 19 plan. 20 The Alameda Depot Neighborhood, along with Main Street and the 21 Mesquite Neighborhood, form the core of Las Cruces. The oldest 22 buildings date back to the late 1800's, and one of the newest buildings in 23 the neighborhood was completed this summer. There are over 500 24 historic buildings in the area. It has a quiet residential feel to it, mature 25 landscaping. Las Cruces Avenue was, in fact, the first paved street when 26 it was called Depot Avenue. It has been described as one of the most 27 complex and varied neighborhoods in Las Cruces. And as development 28 has increased downtown, property owners and residents have wanted to 29 preserve the qualities of the neighborhood that have made it so special. 30 So the planning process to create a plan that would do this has been in 31 the works for about 10 years. The City's Comprehensive Plan calls for the 32 protection of historic and cultural resources and it calls for creation of 33 neighborhood plans for the Alameda Depot Neighborhood as well as the 34 Mesquite Neighborhood. 35 With the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1999, Staff began 36 a series of neighborhood meetings in the Alameda Depot Neighborhood 37 area to get a sense of what the priorities were for residents and property 38 owners. In 2000, Staff conducted a neighborhood survey to get a better 39 sense of what those priorities would be. Based on the input from those 40 public meetings and the neighborhood survey, Community Development 41 Staff drafted a plan and presented it to the neighborhood in more public 42 meetings. That plan did go to Council but was not approved. It did not 43 have the full support of the neighborhood and from about 2002 until 2005, 44 the project languished. In 2005, the two neighborhood groups, the 45 Alameda Depot Civic Association and the Alameda Depot Neighborhood 46 Organization, came together to draft a new plan and, for the most part, 9 1 there was agreement on the policies and the plan between the two 2 groups. Currently Community Development Staff based our draft on that 3 2005 document. It should be noted that since 2000 there has been a turn 4 over in personnel in the Community Development Department. Our team, 5 Tom Schuster, Susan Lowell, and I are the third group of people in the 6 department to work on this project. 7 In the course of the last 10 years in order to gather public input and 8 to make people aware of what's been going on, typically the process for 9 this sort of project is that the department sends press releases out at least 10 two weeks in advance. Our team tries to put them out about a month in 11 advance and we ask that the newspaper run them a month in advance 12 and then again the week before the meeting. In addition, our Zoning Code 13 calls for a legal notice to be placed in the paper 15 days in advance of a 14 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and property owner notification 15 15 days in advance of a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as well 16 as City Council meetings. We also have a Community Development web 17 page where the meetings are noted and the plan draft has been posted so 18 people can take a look at it. Our department also produces an annual 19 report. In 2001, 2002, and 2003, this process was noted in the 20 Community Development Annual Report. 21 When we put the plan together the first question we ask is: what is 22 it that we want to accomplish? The plan goals are based on these 23 concepts. We want to find out what the neighborhood wants and what its 24 priorities are. The plan should provide a policy framework for planning 25 and zoning decisions and guide the City regarding capital improvements 26 appropriate to the neighborhood. It helps the City, the residents, property 27 owners, developers, and elected officials get a clear picture of 28 development and land use desires by the neighborhood. And it helps 29 ensure that new and existing development is complementary. 30 There has been some confusion in the course of this process over 31 the differences between a plan and an overlay and an overlay and a local 32 historic district. So although we do cover this in the glossary of the plan, 1 33 just want to go over it very briefly here. In the plan, as I said, the question 34 is where are we and where do we want to be, so it looks at the history of 35 the neighborhood and the description of the neighborhood and then tries 36 to get a sense of what the current issues and problems are. The goals 37 and policies are then shaped to solve those problems and address those 38 issues. The plan then suggests an implementation strategy, the first step 39 being the creation of an overlay that would be the legally binding arm of 40 the whole process. A plan is approved by resolution and it is essentially a 41 general umbrella document that is not necessarily legally binding, but it 42 does provide a guide for future land use policies. An overlay zone district 43 or simply an overlay is a layer that is put on top of a specific geographic 44 area. It generally has its own set of regulations for land use and 45 development standards. In some cases, they are the same as those 46 described in the Zoning Code. In some cases they replace those 10 1 described in the Zoning Code. It carries out the broad policies in the plan 2 in a very detailed way and it's approved by Ordinance, which makes it 3 legally binding. Just to give you an idea of an example of the difference 4 between the two, in a plan there may be one statement related to signs 5 and it may say, "Signs in the neighborhood shall be consistent with the 6 overall look and feel and design of the neighborhood." The overlay may 7 be a page or two pages describing size, setback, type of materials, 8 whether it can be free standing or attached. So those are the detailed 9 ways in which that one simple statement carries out the intent of the plan. 10 A local historic district is a completely different character all 11 together. It is also a geographic area that's superimposed on an area of 12 the City, but it can be an entire community. It can be a neighborhood. It 13 can be a block. It can be a County, and it is an area that is protected by 14 public review through the passage of an Ordinance. It generally 15 establishes design guidelines that can either be mandatory or suggested, 16 and it requires a review board to oversee carrying out those design 17 guidelines. 18 In this particular case, one thing that we learned in the process of 19 public input meetings and getting people's reaction to the plan drafts is 20 that a local historic district was not something that the neighborhood was 21 interested in. They found it to be too narrow, too regulatory, and so one of 22 the earlier drafts of the plan did include suggesting a local historic district 23 and we have removed that subsequently. 24 The first goal is related to neighborhood character. And again, the 25 idea of historic preservation and helping to maintain the quality of the 26 characteristics that make the Alameda Depot Neighborhood so special. 27 As I said, there was support for the plan but the property owners and 28 residents didn't want the restrictions that a local historic district would 29 place on them. They did want some guidelines that would help preserve 30 the neighborhood as it grew and changed as a result of development in 31 the downtown area. Policy 1.1 describes the neighborhood boundaries. It 32 includes approximately 260 acres and is located west of the Central 33 Business District. The boundaries are based roughly on boundaries 34 described in the 2005 plan that I mentioned earlier and roughly follows the 35 boundaries that are set out as a result of the State and National Historic 36 registers and the location of the historic buildings that are on those 37 registers. In general, the neighborhood boundary is Alameda Depot and 38 Main Street on the east side, the railroad tracks on the west, Parker Road 39 and Chestnut on the north, and Amador on the south. 40 Other policies in Goal 1, 1.1 suggests updating the historic building 41 inventory. The last one was done in 1995, 15 years ago, and we suspect 42 that there are some buildings that may qualify for historic status now if the 43 building inventory were to be done again. It suggests a 60-day 44 moratorium on demolition of historic structures. This is to give interested 45 parties time to present a counter proposal to an individual who may want 46 to tear down a historic building. He would go into the Community 11 I Development Department and ask for a demolition permit and there would 2 automatically be a 60-day waiting period that would then be publicized and 3 gives people a chance to do something different with the property other 4 than tear the building down. 5 It encourages infill of vacant properties and adaptive reuse of 6 abandoned or obsolete structures. Again, to help save historic buildings 7 that can be saved rather than tearing them down. It provides design 8 guidelines for public spaces that are in keeping with the character of the 9 neighborhood through street furniture, signs, etc. It also could include 10 improvements to public spaces that could be accomplished by both the 11 neighborhood and the City. It proposes the creation of a resource guide 12 for property owners who are interested in historic preservation. There are 13 a lot of opportunities and funding resources out there for people who care 14 to take advantage of them through tax credit programs and grants, that 15 sort of thing, and so a resource guide would point those out, help describe 16 historic styles and some of the architectural features for various 17 architectural styles in the neighborhood. It also provides sign guidelines 18 that would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. And 19 since the neighborhood is directly west of downtown and is influenced by 20 downtown development, it encourages the neighborhood groups to 21 participate in downtown revitalization efforts. 22 The age of the Alameda Depot Neighborhood means that most of 23 the structures predate the establishment of the first development 24 standards that were created in 1955 so building heights, setbacks, lot 25 sizes, wall heights, that sort of thing don't conform to the current Zoning 26 Code and probably didn't conform to the 1981 Code or the 1955 Code. 27 The policies under this goal aim to relax those development standards 28 found in the current Zoning Code by allowing inconsistencies to be 29 addressed through flex standards, variances, special use permits, 30 nonconforming use certificates, and other measures. It also provides 31 ways that reduce setback and lot size requirements can be accomplished 32 rather than having to conform to those in the current Zoning Code. If the 33 plan is adopted and a subsequent overlay is passed, the standards called 34 out in the overlay would address these issues in much greater detail. It 35 also calls for the adoption of the 2006 International Existing Building Code. 36 That is something that our department is in the process of doing right now. 37 The existing Building Code provides a certain amount of flexibility for 38 repairing or remodeling or adding onto existing buildings that wouldn't 39 necessarily exist for new construction. It provides some flexibility for 40 historic buildings and for ADA compliance as well. It's used across the 41 country. It's been adopted in all 50 states, although not all jurisdictions 42 have adopted the International Existing Building Code individually, but it is 43 used nationwide. Next, I'll turn it over to Tom Schuster who will talk about 44 Goal 3 and land use. 45 12 1 Schuster: Thank you, Carol. Tom Schuster, Community Development. Goal 3 has a 2 suite of policies that are designed to provide a certain amount of 3 predictability to land use conversions in the neighborhood. This graph 4 shows kind of a comparison between two of the maps that are in the plan. 5 There is a map that shows existing land use and one that shows current 6 zoning. There are currently quite a number of properties who have land 7 uses other than what they are zoned for. As this graph shows, in many 8 cases you have areas that are zoned for multifamily residential or 9 commercial that actually have a single-family use on them. So according 10 to current zoning there is quite a bit of potential for a reduction in the 11 amount of single-family uses and an increase in other uses. 12 What Policy 3.1 does is it calls for an Alameda Depot 13 Neighborhood Overlay. What that overlay would do is divide up the 14 neighborhood into seven different areas and within each area there would 15 be a list of uses that would be allowed within those area, and a set of 16 development standards associated with them. Basically, what the plan 17 does is in broad terms define the types of uses that should be allowed in 18 each area and the anticipation is that if the plan is adopted and we move 19 onto the overlay stage, that document would list the specific uses and 20 provide a greater amount of detail. 21 So I'm going to go through each of the areas right now. As you see 22 with the blue circle here Area 1 is the Alameda Boulevard Corridor 23 extending north to Picacho Avenue. This is the intersection of Alameda 24 and Picacho, east to the boundaries of the Central Business District, and 25 to the west, it's basically one property deep on Alameda. Area 2 is the 26 properties along Griggs Avenue up to Organ Avenue. These two areas 27 would be treated in a fairly similar way. It would allow for single-family and 28 multifamily residential units up to 20 units per acre. It would encourage 29 low intensity office and commercial uses. The idea is that we don't want 30 uses in these areas that would necessarily generate a large amount of 31 traffic so these are intended to be relatively small businesses, which is in 32 keeping with the historic uses that have gone on in the area through time. 33 Basically, the intent would be to regulate that through limiting the floor 34 area at the building permit or business registration stage. 35 Area 3 is the area that is surrounding Pioneer Park. The plan calls 36 for essentially maintaining the current character around that area as 37 closely as possible. So anything more intense than single-family 38 residential that exists today would be allowed to remain. There are 39 several multifamily or attached dwellings, but no additional conversions 40 would be allowed by right in this area. 41 Areas 4 and 5 are the Picacho Avenue Corridor to the north and the 42 Amador Avenue Corridor to the south. These would be treated similarly. 43 In many ways they're similar to Areas 1 and 2, except that because the 44 transportation corridors have a higher capacity for accommodating traffic, 45 the minimum intensity or size of the business or nonresidential use that 46 would be allowed there would be higher somewhat than in Areas 1 or 2. 13 I Area 6 is the area along Mesilla Avenue and the railroad tracks. 2 Currently this area is mostly zoned industrial or manufacturing and many 3 of the uses there are those types of uses and also warehouses. We 4 would intend to keep that pretty much the same as well. Low intensity 5 manufacturing, warehouse uses, low to medium intensity office and 6 commercial uses would be allowed. Multifamily residential uses on a 7 case-by-case basis would be considered in this area; however, we would 8 discourage additional single-family detached housing in this area. 9 The remaining areas are Areas 7 and 8 and the dividing line 10 between the two, outlining here, it follows Armijo Avenue north and south, 11 Court Street. This is the Court Youth Center right here then it goes along 12 Hadley to Pittsburg. Basically, everything south of that line is in Area 8. 13 Everything to the north that's not included in other already identified areas 14 would be in Area 7. These two areas are the residential core of the 15 neighborhood. Largely, we'd like them to remain residential according to 16 this plan. Area 7 would essentially be single-family residential. Anything 17 other than that would require a special use permit. Area 8 would allow 18 multifamily by right up to 15 dwelling units per acre. That would be the 19 main difference between Area 7 and Area 8. Area 8 would have a limit of 20 four attached units allowed per building. We would also allow low intensity 21 office and neighborhood commercial uses, but there would have to be a 22 residential component maintained on the property, sort of a live/work 23 situation. 24 Just to illustrate the point, the existing zoning as represented on the 25 left would essentially be replaced by this new zoning and each of these 26 areas with the numbers would constitute a new zoning district and the 27 overlay would define the specific details related to what would be allowed 28 uses within those districts. 29 As an example, I'm going to run through two examples, and these 30 are not property specific, but I do want to talk about how this concept 31 would affect development in the area. In the first example, someone 32 wants to open a cafe on Alameda Boulevard. That would be within Area 33 1. If the plan and overlay were not adopted, assuming that this was an R- 34 3 parcel, there is a significant amount of R-3 zoning. There are also some 35 neighborhood commercial zoning and single-family residential zoning, 36 office zoning, in that area. But if this particular development were on an 37 R-3 parcel despite the fact that there's mixed uses in the area, this use 38 would not be allowed and in order for them to get approval to do this, 39 they'd have to seek a zone change and it would have to go to City Council 40 for approval before a building permit could be issued. When City Council 41 considers a zone change, we look to the Comprehensive Plan and any 42 other planning documents for guidance and if this plan were not adopted, 43 the Comprehensive Plan would be it. There is very little in terms of policy 44 guidance for this area in particular and so there's really not a lot to base a 45 decision on when it comes to this type of request. Now with the plan and 46 overlay, if the caf6 is on the allowed use list in Area 1 once the overlay is 14 1 adopted, and there's nothing in the plan to suggest that it wouldn't be, then 2 it would be allowed by right in area and the person could proceed to a 3 building permit or simply get their business registration if it's a building 4 that's already existing. If the overlay were not adopted, but the plan was, 5 at the very least it would provide then policy guidance as to whether the 6 zone change request should be approved or not. 7 The second example I'm going to go through is in Area 8 and in this 8 hypothetical situation someone buys several adjacent lots to total an acre 9 and they want to build a 15-unit apartment building in that area. Most of 10 the land in Area 8 is currently zoned R-2 so without the plan and overlay 11 the zoning would allow this by right and they could proceed to the building 12 permit. With the plan and overlay it wouldn't be quite so easy to do that. 13 Area 8 does allow for that density that they're requesting; however, it limits 14 it to four units per building and so they would have to break it down into 15 several buildings that would be more on a scale with the surrounding 16 buildings in the neighborhood. It would also be subject to the demolition 17 moratorium if it included houses that are listed on the historic register. So 18 that wouldn't mean that they can't demolish it, but it would mean that 19 they'd have to wait 60 days before the permit was issued, which gives 20 anyone interested in historic preservation the opportunity to put together a 21 counter proposal. 22 Just a few more policies under Goal 3: we provide for an expedited 23 process for granting legal nonconforming status because anytime you do 24 a Zoning Code amendment of this nature you inevitably, despite all your 25 best efforts, create some situations that are nonconforming now that 26 would've been conforming before, so we don't want to create an undue 27 headache for those folks. We discourage uses that would create noise 28 and noxious odors. We try to discourage uses that would create a great 29 amount of heavy truck traffic in the area. Actually, Policy 3.11 is not 30 correct. It was changed back to 35-feet. The maximum building height in 31 the plan is proposed to be 35-feet. This was something that was changed 32 during the different innervations. Policy 3.12 basically controls the 33 intensity of nonresidential uses. The last one is something that we spent a 34 lot of time on, there was a case particular to this neighborhood involving 35 the placement of a manufactured home. We cannot, as the City, regulate 36 the placement of manufactured homes. We can, however, regulate the 37 placement of mobile homes, which fall under a different category in the 38 state statute and so that's what we intend to do with this plan. That 39 concludes Goal 3 and so I'm going to turn it back over to Carol to finish up 40 the presentation. 41 42 McCall: Thank you. The next section of the plan closing out what the plan 43 components are, is plan implementation. In order to carry out the policies 44 in the plan, an overlay would be drafted and essentially would go through 45 the same process that the plan has gone through. There would be public 46 review and then a revision of the draft that would go back to the public for 15 1 review again and then it would come before the Planning and Zoning 2 Commission for a recommendation to Council and presented to Council 3 for adoption. At that point, it would become part of the Municipal Code 4 and following that more specific implementation steps and plans that are 5 part of the Municipal Code would also then have to be changed. The plan 6 describes the comprehensive planning framework and at the top the most 7 general of all is the Comprehensive Plan and then under that, all of the 8 various elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Alameda Depot Plan is 9 described as a Level Four document, but even more specific than that, the 10 Level Five documents really do carry out the plan implementation, and 11 that would be things like the Design Standards, the Building Bode, those 12 are all part of the Municipal Code that would be impacted by the passage 13 of the overlay. Then some of the other steps that are listed in the plan, of 14 course, any other policy that requires carrying out by either the 15 neighborhood groups or the City would be prioritized and implemented. 16 As I said, the 2006 International Existing Building Code is in the process of 17 being adopted at the moment. 18 Then the last section of the plan is the glossary of terms and list of 19 historic properties. The list of historic properties are taken from the 20 National and State Historic Registers from their most recent surveys. That 21 concludes my presentation. I apologize. I didn't put a slide up that says 22 what your options are but they are: to recommend adoption of the plan; 23 recommend denial of the plan; recommend adoption of the plan with 24 modification, or postpone your recommendation and direct Staff 25 accordingly. 26 27 Scholz: Okay. Gentlemen, questions for Ms. McCall? Yes, Commissioner Crane. 28 29 Crane: I have a couple of questions. Number one, I'm not clear what the height 30 limitation is that's in the plan. Is it still 35 as what was printed, or is it 28? 31 32 McCall: No, it's 35. 33 34 Crane: So that's three stories. 35 36 McCall: Actually, it would be two. 37 38 Crane: Really, okay. Second question: if this passes us tonight, goes to City 39 Council and passes and the Overlay Ordinance is devised and passed, 40 will any property owner be required to make any immediate changes to his 41 property if it doesn't conform with the overlay? 42 43 McCall: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I believe that the plan does allow grace 44 periods. I think two years is suggested. 45 46 Crane: Two? 16 1 2 McCall: I think. 3 4 Crane: Yes, it's in Policy 3.8, but we didn't go into that in detail. 5 6 McCall: Okay. What would happen is that for properties and structures that would 7 be considered nonconforming there would be an expedited process by 8 which those properties could receive Nonconforming Use Certificates and 9 there would be a grace period. When the overlay is in place and more 10 relaxed Design Standards are put into place then if anyone comes to get a 11 building permit for some sort of activity on the property, they would not 12 have to comply to current Development Standards that are in the Zoning 13 Code. So I think it would be on a case-by-case basis. But, no, there would 14 not be immediate compliance required. 15 16 Crane: Thank you. 17 18 Scholz: Other questions. Okay, I have a couple. You're not asking then for a local 19 historic district, right? I think you made that clear at the beginning but 20 want to emphasize that. 21 22 McCall: That's right. 23 24 Scholz: Okay. Secondly, are there overlay districts in the City and what are their 25 purpose? Can you just give us an example? 26 27 McCall: There are several. The Lohman Avenue Overlay, South Mesquite 28 Overlay, the Avenida de Mesilla Overlay. Those are primarily design 29 related. They suggest design guidelines that pertain to the initial look of 30 the corridors when you enter them, with the exception of the South 31 Mesquite Overlay. There are design guidelines for that and there is a 32 review board that looks at new construction, additions to property, and 33 makes sure that those projects adhere to the design requirements in the 34 overlay itself. The Lohman Avenue Overlay has specific language for 35 types of signs, where they can be placed, how big they can be, what types 36 of materials, that sort of thing. 37 38 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. And so the overlay then that we're talking about is a 39 zoning code? 40 41 McCall: That's right. 42 43 Scholz: Right. 44 45 McCall: It would be passed by ordinance and would become part of the Municipal 46 Code. 17 1 2 Scholz: Right. As Mr. Schuster pointed out it would replace the existing zoning in 3 that area. 4 5 McCall: Right. 6 7 Scholz: Now, what we're being asked to do tonight then is, as you said, to approve 8 the plan. We're not approving the overlay. 9 10 McCall: That's right. To recommend, make a recommendation to Council on the 11 plan. The overlay would come next. 12 13 Scholz: Okay. 14 15 McCall: If the plan is adopted by Council we would get to work on drafting an 16 overlay. 17 18 Scholz: Okay. And the overlay will allow as much input as the plan has? 19 20 McCall: Yes. 21 22 Scholz: Okay. Because I know a lot of people have been concerned about the 23 details. 24 25 McCall: And it's very detailed so it will be very important to get public input at that 26 point. 27 28 Scholz: Okay. Any other questions for Ms. McCall? Questions for Mr. Schuster? 29 All right. We'll open it to public input. What I'd like you to do if you want to 30 speak to this is come up to the microphone, state your name, and tell us 31 what you think, what your concern is. 32 33 Fuller: How much time do I have? 34 35 Scholz: We have, let's see, usually we go until 9:00 so I'd say about two hours and 36 five minutes right now. I'm not going to give you two hours and five 37 minutes. 38 39 Fuller: I'd like more than three please. 40 41 Scholz: Okay. 42 43 Fuller: My name is Joseph Fuller. I have three points I wish to make. The first 44 one is that I feel that due process has been trampled on here. 45 46 Scholz: You're going to have to speak a little closer to the microphone, please. 18 1 2 Fuller: I feel that due process has been trampled on here. I got the letter of this 3 meeting in the mail dated the 14th. I went to the website like it suggested 4 and I saw that the limit for written inputs was the 15th and I don't know 5 how many people that shut down, but something is seriously wrong with 6 the way this is being conducted. The plan was put forth by advocacy 7 groups from the neighborhood and they worked closely with Staff. It 8 wasn't until I got the notice of this meeting that I knew anything was going 9 on. When I inquired about public notices, all I got was, oh we put out 10 press releases. This is not a legal notice. This is not a public notice that 11 gets posted at City Hall and the library. This is not a mailing that goes to 12 everybody. The advocates of this plan have had a whole lot of time to get 13 their input in and the rest of us have had one day. You need to redo 14 starting with the neighborhood meeting with a notice sent to everybody in 15 the area and start over so that everybody has an equitable opportunity to 16 provide input. 17 My second point, the boundaries of this neighborhood are 18 inappropriate and carelessly drawn. Let me give you an example very 19 close to where I live. If you go to the intersection of Mesilla and Parker, 20 the two lots at the northeast and northwest corner, they face Mesilla. 21 Their side lot lines are on Parker. They have high walls along Parker after 22 the setback. They are part of the development to the north. They have no 23 business being in this plan. You go to the lots along Mesilla north of 24 Picacho, these properties have no business being in this plan. As a 25 matter of fact, practically all of the lots west of Melendres, north of Picacho 26 do not belong in this plan because they are multifamily. Contrary to the 27 way you've got the thing set up for Area 7. Lions Park and Laabs Pool do 28 not belong in this plan. Circle K on Picacho across Melendres from Lions 29 Park does not belong in this plan. The lot that the log cabin used to sit on 30 next to Main Street that's now vacant, it does not belong in this plan 31 because that would conflict with the plan to open up Main Street and build 32 the roundabout in there. The land south of May, west of Melendres, does 33 not belong in this plan. The intersection of Melendres and Amador to the 34 northeast where the telephone company has their, I guess motor pool lot, 35 that does not belong in this plan. There's just too much straight line and 36 laziness going into drawing the boundaries. It just goes straight up the 37 railroad track, squares off, takes everything along Parker whether it 38 belongs there or not. West of Melendres doesn't belong in there. You 39 need a whole lot more care on choosing which lots go in, as opposed to 40 just taking everything you can get. The stuff in the Pioneer Park area has 41 got a whole lot of merit. There are a whole lot of other areas with a lot 42 less merit that are piggybacking on them, and that's not appropriate. 43 The third point I want to make is that you need to have a big, big 44 view. This plan needs to be looked at as to its impact on the entire City. 45 Don't take your parochial narrow view of what's going on here. If any of 46 you have driven up Valley, Dona Ana Road, Del Rey, you'll know there's a 19 I whole lot of construction going on up there and a whole lot of families 2 moving in up there and all that traffic coming south has to have some 3 place to go. If the Space Port takes off you're going to have 100,000 4 people living between north City limits and Radium Springs, and you're 5 going to have to open up Valley, Dona Ana Road, Del Rey, and Elks all 6 the way just to carry that traffic. If that happens, you're going have to align 7 North Alameda with Dona Ana Road just like you did Spruce and Picacho. 8 And you can't take all that traffic and combine it with Del Rey and dump it 9 onto North Main and Solano. It just won't handle it. You're going to have 10 to open up Alameda big time. What you need to do and I don't think it's 11 been done is have the City Traffic Engineer take a hard look at this plan 12 and see if its compatible with the long-range traffic needs of the City. And 13 if he can't sign off on it and say that it's compatible, you got no business 14 approving it. I thank you for your time. 15 16 Scholz: Thank you, Mr. Fuller. Someone else? 17 18 Sarvo: I'm Monte Sarvo and I'm executive director of the Alameda Depot 19 Neighborhood Civic Association one of the, I guess, advocacy groups the 20 gentleman was referring to. And I just want to start off with just a quick 21 overview of what's happened for the last four or five years since I've been 22 involved. When I started the Alameda Depot Neighborhood group there 23 was currently at the time no group meeting. People from the former group 24 Heather Pollard, Lilly Haines, Brian Haines' wife and other people 25 approached me and said we need a group in the area. We started 26 something and I talked with Melinda and Marianne Ustick, at the time the 27 Assistant City Manager, approached me and said we need somebody to 28 help bring the people together because we almost had something, then it 29 got thrown off kilter. 30 We really believe as a City that this neighborhood needs something 31 that sets it aside as different. Would you help? Boy, I didn't know what 32 that would involve but, after many bruises, bumps, and healing in 33 between, what we did as a group back then and worked with the other 34 group and came together on was the plan that we presented in 2005 35 which was adopted by the City as a draft plan to work on because they felt 36 comfortable after many, many, many, many public meetings, many, many, 37 way back from ... in fact it didn't show up there from 2002, 2003, and into 38 2005 the City itself advertised well in advance many public meetings that 39 were attended at Court Youth Center. They did mailouts directly. I know 40 that because I went to the County and asked Gary Perez, our County, you 41 know who Gary Perez is, okay, the Assessor's Office, to correct the 42 misnomer in the zip code because this whole area had 88001 still and it 43 was all 88005. He did that correction, so that the City could then as 44 required by law, get the list from him and it be correct. We went through 45 incredible efforts to make sure everybody was getting their mailouts. We 46 have walked door to door and plenty of people in this room will tell you, for 20 I years now, for the last four or five years putting a little flyer on doors 2 almost every month of the year, advertising that we were working on this 3 plan. We want your input. Please give us your input. We've done 4 questionnaires. We've done flyers. We've done our only fully advertised 5 meetings. I know Melinda's group has done the same. We've reached 6 out and reached out and advertised and door-to-door and done everything 7 we can to make people aware that this was going on. The City itself took 8 over the process in 2005 and still kept communication with our groups and 9 with people directly. There is no doubt and I have petitions of 100 and 10 some people now that we got in just the last two, three days. We intend to 11 have by the time it goes to the City hundreds of signatures attesting to the 12 statements I just made so that we can countermand any misunderstanding 13 or unfortunate case where one or two individuals might not have heard 14 about this over the last many years. That is the main point I would like to 15 express here. 16 1 have a letter from Las Esperanzas, who has had, you know, 17 getting the Mesquite neighborhood document together. You know it says, 18 "Would like to express our enthusiastic support for the Alameda Depot 19 Civic Association, the residents of our neighborhood, which are only a few 20 blocks from each other downtown. Look forward to the day when our 21 neighborhoods in downtown are once again vibrant districts." And so forth 22 and so on. You're going to get copies of this. We have, as I said, many, 23 many people who have reviewed this, hashed it out, discussed their 24 concerns over a long time. And I spoke with Ms. Whitley before the 25 meeting and, actually, do you mind coming up? We came to an idea 26 because our concern was that, yeah, there are just a few little things left 27 that we want to make sure people are comfortable with. Sure, there's time 28 to work on the actual overlay and get those details ironed out. Yes, that's 29 true. But there are some people who are concerned about a few of the 30 mistakes in here and it's been brought up in the last few days and we're 31 both willing to ask that you hear everybody, but give us a couple of weeks. 32 We talked with the City a few moments before the meeting. They were not 33 opposed to this. And that her and I as, you know, leaders of these two 34 groups can get with them over the next two weeks, iron out that minutia, 35 make sure it's on track, and come back to you next month and ask you to 36 hold your vote until then. And I am willing to do that. And Melinda? And 37 we feel that just so people are comfortable. Even though there is time 38 before the actual overlay is done. We would like to ask you to do that so 39 everybody's comfortable. This gentleman, anyone else has any further 40 input. We don't want anybody to feel ... it's never been our intentions to 41 make people not feel good. We both reached out and tried everything we 42 can to make everybody, and you can't just make everybody do it. And so 43 that's ... I'm willing to do that as a compromise because we still have until 44 October before the City Council would meet for it. If you all are willing to 45 do it and I'll just leave it to Melinda. 46 21 AVN I Schuster: Okay. Ms. Whitley. 2 3 Whitley: My name is Melinda Whitley. I live at 838 North Miranda. I was very 4 interested in Mr. Fuller's remarks because that ... he said some of the 5 things that I have been trying to say to Staff and others about notifications. 6 There were a couple of misstatements, not intentional of course, but I've 7 been involved in this process since 2000. And I was part of a committee 8 that sat down and beat out the plan that was submitted to City Council line 9 by line. And that plan was submitted to the neighborhood on two 10 occasions for a vote. It was a compromise plan. And nobody was 100% 11 pleased with it but it was one that we felt we could live with and so we took 12 it to Planning and Zoning. It went though. Went to City Council but they 13 choose to table it. I have my own ideas about why, but that's neither here 14 nor there. The fact of the matter is that all our work went down the drain. 15 But, in connection with that plan and why we were able to get two votes of 16 the entire neighborhood in favor of that compromise plan is we insisted. 17 We, the committee, insisted that every single property owner, every 18 resident in that neighborhood which was smaller at that time. The 19 boundaries of this district have been expanded tremendously over the 20 years. It started out just practically the state and Federal historic 21 neighborhood, and now it's much larger. And that's probably all right, but 22 we said everybody has got to have a copy of this in their hand to read to 23 know what they're getting into because this affects their huge investment. 24 This affects their property, their home, their livelihood. And so very 25 reluctantly the City did mail out a copy of the Plan to everybody. And that's 26 when the people who had submitted surveys that said, "Oh, yeah. We like 27 the idea of a historic district," suddenly realized what that meant and then 28 they came and said, "Oh no. We didn't know this is what this entailed. We 29 didn't know that we would be handing over so much control over our 30 property." 31 At any rate, I feel that proper notification is absolutely essential and 32 1 do ask for a little more time. We are very close to agreement on this 33 thing. We have ... a lot of the things that were objectionable to one side 34 or another and it's regrettable but sometimes it has come down to that, 35 that there's one side and then another side. But we've been able to take 36 out things and add other things and we're really quite close. And I just join 37 with Mr. Sarvo in a request that you just give us a little more time and then 38 let us all come together after we've given everybody proper notice. Given 39 everybody an opportunity to speak and be heard and let them know what 40 they're in for. Because I just feel that there are a lot of people who don't 41 use the internet. Lot of people who don't go down to City Hall to get hard 42 copies of documents and they don't really understand the scope of this 43 thing and what the zoning overlay would mean. So that's all I have to say 44 and I just hope that you will take these remarks into consideration and 45 understand that we really are trying to work together to come up with a 22 1 good solution because this neighborhood is very important to all of us. 2 Thank you very kindly. 3 4 Scholz: So, Ms. Whitley, what you and Mr. Sarvo are asking for is a postponement 5 to the next meeting? 6 7 Whitley: Yes. 8 9 Scholz: Okay. Anyone else from the audience want to speak to this? Yes, sir. 10 11 Barela: Hello. My name is Joe Barela. And we own some property on Griggs 12 Street; 413 West Griggs. I originally got started with this Plan and I was 13 part of all the meetings. I think I've missed one meeting over the last five 14 years. One of the reasons why I originally got started was because of our 15 commercial property. And I just feel that the commercial people are not 16 aware of ... the commercial property owners are not aware of everything 17 that's going down here and we just need to get them a little bit more 18 involved. My family has owned property in this area since 1955 and this is 19 a mix of residential and commercial properties. I believe that the 20 commercial property is very important to the community. There's life in 21 commercial property. That what has brought life to this community before. 22 There used to be a Piggly Wiggly. There used to be Able Glass 23 Company. There were businesses throughout our area. I am in favor of 24 having the commercial businesses having their flexibility to have a 25 business because I think that's what has given our area some life. We 26 have lost life. We lost life downtown and you all know what happened to 27 downtown. I think we need to open downtown up and let some 28 businesses come back in. My father rode a horse down Main Street when 29 it was dirt. That's how far we go back. But I'm just saying that I got 30 involved because of the commercial business and I just feel that 31 commercial businesses need to be more aware of what's happening here. 32 Thank you all very much. 33 34 Scholz: Thank you. Someone else like to speak to this? Yes, sir. 35 36 Magallanez: Good evening. My name is Henry Magallanez. I'm with Elephant Butte 37 Irrigation District. One of the things on this Plan here we need to consider 38 is the affects of the irrigation system and the irrigation that goes along in 39 this particular area. We have two canals here that are within the plan 40 here; the Armijo Lateral and the Las Cruces Lateral. The Las Cruces 41 Lateral is only a small portion. It is buried on there so that is not as critical 42 other than it delivers still a lot of irrigating areas within this Plan. Now one 43 of the things that's happening in this particular thing is that we are having 44 people being isolated from irrigation. They still have water rights but 45 through the construction, through processes, people are being isolated 46 from irrigation. 23 AV% took I Second, the Armijo Lateral is our main flood line to our irrigated 2 acres down south. If you look at, we have probably about 3,000 acres of 3 irrigated land which is farmland south of the City of Las Cruces that is fed 4 by the Armijo Lateral. Additionally, one of the things that we are working 5 on is through, with the City of Las Cruces and MPO and the MPO 6 Technical Advisory Committee, is a trail system. And one of the trail 7 systems that they're looking at is the Armijo Lateral. So changes to that 8 may be coordinated with the Plan that you have. I have not seen anything 9 associated, discussed about some of the water issues related to this here. 10 The planning of the trail system on the Armijo Lateral, see these are the 11 kinds of things that are happening right now and, like I said, we're real 12 close with agreement with the City of Las Cruces on a trail system. The 13 Armijo Lateral there next to the railroad is our property. That is on the 14 State Historic Registry already, the Armijo Lateral is. And we still have 15 irrigation on there from that Armijo Lateral to some of these areas, in 16 particular, around Melendes, Reymond, some of those streets up there. 17 And, like I said, we're having difficulty meeting our obligations because of 18 some of the things that are happening in terms of people changing the ... 19 covering up the ditches or doing these kind of things that are happening 20 up there. Also, maintenance on these facilities are deteriorating. There 21 are issues with pipelines under City streets. There are issues with these 22 community ditches. You know one of the things that maybe as this Plan 23 on here, people need to organize and establish community associations to 24 regulate and to control the water. How do you irrigate it? Because what 25 we wind up having is, since most of these are flat raters which are gauging 26 every few weeks or so, they tend to flood each other. They flood the 27 neighbors, they flood the streets. So these are the kinds of things that 28 have not been addressed or considered under this Plan. I'd be very happy 29 to talk to any of these groups and your Staff and whatever maybe 30 necessary to give recommendations, changes or what we can do with our 31 system. We have an obligation to deliver this water and we are asking 32 that if you should approve this Plan or go forward with it that we make 33 sure that we ask for conditions to look at the irrigation system and our 34 canal system, how it will effect on this process. Thank you very much. 35 36 Scholz: Thank you. I'm glad you brought that up. I didn't realize there was a 37 water engineering component to this. And I don't know, is there anyone 38 from Staff who wants to speak to this? Mr. Schuster. 39 40 Schuster: Mr. Magallanez is correct in that the plan as written right now does not 41 address EBID facilities. I was wondering if it might benefit the audience 42 and the Commission if you could just fill in a map. If I bring the map up 43 can you show the laterals that you're talking about? I guess you could ... 44 will this map work or should I ... 45 24 I Magallanez: This is our lateral coming in here from the north. And this is our major 2 bloodline, as I said, to the deliveries of downstream irrigation. It comes 3 down and parallels the railroad down here and then it T's off here. Now 4 one of the things that we're working on, this canal here also is 5 revitalization of Burn Lake. Okay, there's another program that we're 6 working with City of Las Cruces and the water to revitalize Burn Lake, we 7 have worked conjunctively will be coming from this canal system here. 8 What we're trying to do is deliver water to Burn Lake and recirculate that 9 water to make it a better quality. But, again, it's running right through 10 here. 11 12 Scholz: That's the western boundary of this district. 13 14 Magallanez: Well, Carol said that we went to the railroad. I think we're east of the 15 railroad. 16 17 Scholz: Okay, you're on this side of the railroad. Thank you. 18 19 Magallanez: Yes. The other canal system that we have is the Las Cruces Lateral and 20 that only affects this portion right here. This is where you're building the 21 new Activities Center. The canal is buried right through here. It comes 22 down, buried here, then it comes open again right through here. Okay, 23 and this system is not as actively used but we do have a lot of irrigation 24 coming from this canal towards these ways over here and then from this 25 irrigation we irrigate these properties, ownerships over here. 26 27 Scholz: Okay. Thank you very much. 28 29 Magallanez: Thank you. Thank you for your time. 30 31 Scholz: Is there anyone else who wants to speak to this? Anyone else from the 32 public? Yes, sir. 33 34 Pearson: My name's George Pearson. I live at 405 West Las Cruces. I've been 35 there for about 22 years now. There's a lot of details and a lot of, heard a 36 lot of the overall plan and where we're at with it. I'd like to address some 37 specifics and hopefully I could hear some amendments on this or if you 38 table this that these could be addressed before the plan's brought back. 39 One issue that I've heard over and over again is the issue of trucks on 40 Alameda Boulevard. 41 42 Scholz: Excuse me, what? 43 44 Pearson: Trucks, truck traffic on Alameda Boulevard. 45 46 Scholz: Thank you very much. 25 ON 1 2 Pearson: Currently trucks are prohibited north from Picacho, but over meeting and 3 meeting and meeting that I've been to, the neighbors in that area of the 4 neighborhood want to also extend that and probably at Las Cruces 5 Avenue would be the furthest point south, because then they can have 6 access to Central Elementary. For other access, there's Water and 7 Church. Another area that I'd like to talk about is Area 3 that's designated 8 in the Plan. This is the area immediately around Pioneer Women's Park. 9 It affects about 14 private property owners. If this Plan is implemented it 10 will result in an overlay zone that will add additional restrictions to 14 11 property owners. I don't believe that those additional restrictions are 12 needed. That what would be planned already in the surrounding, what's 13 now currently Area 8, would address the needs. Some of the properties 14 are already built out so much in that area that they couldn't do anything 15 with it anyways. They'd be immediately out of conformance by adding any 16 changes, so I'd like to see Area 3 deleted from the plan. 17 The boundary areas for the plans need to more closely meet some 18 of the zoning, underlying zoning. For the most part, its okay, but when 19 you get to the edges there are some that don't match up quite right and so 20 you're affecting the property rights of individual property owners. So I'd 21 like to see those boundaries more closely conform with the underlying 22 zoning. Another suggestion I'd like to make that I think would address the 23 problem or the issue where people feel that they're getting this plan driven 24 down their throats is add some wording to Policy 3.1 where the overlay 25 zone is implemented no sooner than say 5 years after the adoption of the 26 plan. That would allow the plan itself to be in place, be used as a planning 27 document, a Level Four planning document. That means that if any 28 issues come up in the neighborhood they come to this Commission for 29 decisions, that the plan would be used for those decisions and that the 30 neighborhood could then get a real good feel of what this plan means 31 before an overlay zone has the force of law. Thank you. 32 33 Scholz: Thank you, sir. Anyone else from the audience want to speak to this? 34 Yes, ma'am. 35 36 Rindge: My Debra Rindge. I'm a homeowner at 226 West Picacho Avenue. So 37 we're right on the northern edge of Area 1. And I just wanted to say that 38 we're absolutely thrilled to be living in an area with historic homes and lots 39 of businesses and we're very grateful to be included on the northern edge 40 of this Plan. And I hope we get to stay there. Thank you. 41 42 Scholz: Thank you ma'am. Okay, anyone else from the audience want to speak to 43 this? Okay, we'll close this then to public discussion. Gentlemen, you've 44 heard the people, what do you have to say? Commissioner Shipley. 45 26 I Shipley: I'd say given that the request to postpone it is probably the most 2 appropriate measure to take at this time. So I'd like to introduce a motion 3 to postpone this item until the next meeting. 4 5 Scholz: Okay, before you do that, I want to see if there's any other discussion 6 among the Commissioners. Commissioner Crane. 7 8 Crane: I agree that this is something that's certainly should not be hurried. If 9 there are any people at all affected by this proposed plan have any 10 misgivings, we should give them adequate time to have them considered. 11 So I approve Commissioner Shipley's idea. 12 13 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Evans, I see you deliberating there. 14 15 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I have a ... you know we talk about giving folks adequate 16 time. So what are we going to do to ensure that everybody, you know, 17 this gets out to the full community? I mean, we've heard a couple of 18 conflicting points of view and, well, maybe Staff can clarify that for us. 19 20 Scholz: I don't know that this is our responsibility, but, yes, Mr. Banegas. 21 22 Banegas: Mr. Chairman. Vincent Banegas from City of Las Cruces. Commissioner 23 Evans, that's a good point. I wanted to point out that from the City's 24 perspective the coordination efforts between City and neighborhood 25 associations and/or civic associations, that kind of thing, when they're 26 registered with the City, it's kind of a give and take, if you will. The City 27 relies on those associations to help notify its membership and to 28 disseminate information as applicable. The City certainly makes available 29 copies as applicable when individuals come into the offices and request 30 information about a given case or in this case the plan. We're certainly 31 willing to make available that information. Someone had raised the issue 32 of mailing out plans to everybody in the neighborhood. I don't know quite 33 honestly whether that has happened in the past prior to this latest effort 34 but I'm concerned, number one, from a perspective of missing individuals 35 who we would otherwise notify in any given case because we follow the 36 assessors information. That's our charge pursuant to ordinance. And so 37 we would once again rely on the neighborhood groups to get this 38 information out. We are certainly willing to make copies of the plan if 39 copies are still needed so that that can be accomplished. But I did want to 40 reiterate that fact. Also, from the notification perspective in terms of if we 41 do postpone this case or if the Commission postpones this case to the 42 next month's meeting, we would be doing so until the September 23rd, 43 and we'd ask that that be, you know, stated as part of the motion. What 44 that action does is kind of removes the effort on Staff or the reliance on 45 Staff to provide additional notification of that meeting because it's 46 mentioned here, it's time certain, and so we do not have to go through the 27 I formal process of doing another mailout. So again, once again, reliance 2 on the neighborhood groups to get the information out as applicable. The 3 200-foot boundary issue, you know, at this point in time I think it was 4 mentioned that we've been working quite a bit with the Neighborhood 5 Association and the Civic Association and the individuals affected, directly 6 affected by the plan. We've attempted to kind of get a generic notice out 7 that encourages any and all parties to participate in the process. It's only 8 until we get to this body where the 200-foot boundary around the subject 9 plan area comes into play. And so it's very likely that, you know, in the 10 instance of Mr. Fuller that he did not receive specific notification 11 previously, but certainly because of this body's review of the plan, of the 12 document, he did. And he's likely to receive another one when it gets up 13 to City Council should it go that direction. So I kind of wanted to give you 14 that insight, let you know that it'd be time-certain postponement if you so 15 choose, and let you know that we'd be more than happy to make available 16 copies of the plan, but we would not mail them out to each and every 17 individual. 18 19 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley. 20 21 Shipley: Just one question. Could we do two things? Could we put something in 22 the press that ... in coordination with the groups that are working here, 23 that states what's happened and that we're in postponement and there's 24 an announcement that goes out in the, you know both the Bulletin and the 25 Sun? 26 27 Banegas: I guess ... 28 29 Shipley: So that if there's interest in the community that hasn't been notified, if they 30 read a newspaper then that's a plus. 31 32 Banegas: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, I think we can work with Public 33 Information Office to do something similar to what we've been doing. It 34 maybe modified as applicable. I don't think that's out of the question, out 35 of the ordinary. 36 37 Shipley: 1 mean, I think it's something that needs to be done with the people here 38 so that we can get as much participation before the next meeting as 39 possible, and that we can iron those things out. 40 41 Banegas: Right. It should also be noted that, I know there was reference to our 42 website. Not everyone has access to a web and I understand that, but we 43 do try to keep updates to various cases that have been identified through 44 that process there, or that resource. 45 28 1 Shipley: I think just a blurb about how long it's been going on and that would be 2 very helpful. 3 4 Scholz: Okay, gentlemen, any other comments, questions? 5 6 Iserman: I'd like to be kind of a devils' advocate here. 7 8 Scholz: Go ahead. 9 10 Iserman: This has been going on for numerous years. My question is, oh they 11 asked for like a couple of weeks and they're saying December now for ... 12 13 Scholz: No, we're talking September. 14 15 Iserman: September, okay, I'm sorry. 16 17 Scholz: The next meeting. 18 19 Iserman: Now I have attended some of their meetings that they've had previously 20 and these same things came up there each time about, we need to find 21 three more people or 10 more people or whatever. What assurances are 22 there going to be ever that come September we're not going to just do the 23 same thing again, and again? 24 25 Scholz: Well, I don't encourage postponements unless I feel that there's a good 26 reason for it. And I think the members of these groups have presented a 27 good reason for it. But you know if they can't resolve this by September, 1 28 suspect that they won't be able to resolve it at all. 29 30 Iserman: I would like to see something like that. 31 32 Scholz: And I think we'll have to make a decision at that time. 33 34 Iserman: Yeah, okay. 35 36 Scholz: Any other questions or comments? Okay, Commissioner Shipley, your 37 motion. 38 39 Shipley: So I move that we postpone this item until September the 23rd. So date 40 certain, September the 23rd. 41 42 Scholz: Okay, so that's item PA-08-03. Postponed until September 23rd. All right, 43 is there a second for that? 44 45 Crane: Second. 46 29 D 1 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I'm going to call the roll. 2 Commissioner Shipley. 3 4 Shipley: Aye. 5 6 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 7 8 Crane: Aye. 9 10 Scholz: Commissioner Iserman. 11 12 Iserman: Aye. 13 14 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 15 16 Evans: Aye. 17 18 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 19 20 Bustos: Aye. 21 22 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye. Okay, the approval up or down of this will be 23 postponed until the September 23rd meeting of the Planning and Zoning 24 Commission. Ms. McCall? Oh, I thought ... you're just clearing your 25 docket. 26 27 VII. OTHER BUSINESS 28 29 Scholz: Finally, any other business from the Staff? No other business. 30 31 VIII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 32 33 Scholz: Any other public participation? Hearing none. 34 35 IX. STAFF COMMENT 36 37 Scholz: And Staff comment? Hearing none. 38 39 X. ADJOURNMENT 7:32 40 41 Scholz: We are adjourned at 7:32. Thank you very much folks. Thank you, 42 gentlemen. 43 44 45 46 Chairperson 30