Loading...
09-23-2008 Aift I MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 FOR THE 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 City Council Chambers 5 September 23, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. 6 7 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 8 Charles Scholz, Chairman 9 Shawn Evans, Vice Chair 10 Ray Shipley, Member 11 Godfrey Crane, Member 12 Charles Beard, Member 13 14 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 15 Donald Bustos, Secretary 16 Clayton Iserman, Member 17 18 STAFF PRESENT: 19 Cheryl Rodriguez, Development Services Administrator 20 Gary Hembree, Senior Planner 21 Tom Schuster, Senior Planner 22 James White, Planner 23 Jared Abrams, CLC Legal 24 Lt. Robert Gonzales, Fire Department 25 Becky Eich, Recording Secretary 26 Lora Dunlap, CLC 27 28 I. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 29 30 Scholz: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission for 31 Tuesday, September 23, 2008. The first thing on the agenda is always 32 the approval of the minutes, but before we do that, I want to introduce the 33 members of the Planning Commission who are here tonight. On my far 34 right is Commissioner Shipley. He is the mayor's appointment to the 35 Planning and Zoning Commission. Next to him is Commissioner Crane. 36 He represents District 4. Next to him is Commissioner Evans, who 37 represents District 5. On my immediate right is Mr. Beard, who represents 38 District 2, and I'm Charlie Scholz who represents District 6. Commissioner 39 Bustos told us he wouldn't be here because his company is being audited. 40 So he has our deepest sympathy. 41 42 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -August 26, 2008 43 44 Scholz: Any additions or corrections to the minutes of August 26th, 2008. 45 Gentlemen? No. I have two. Page 8, line 3, it should be "slide" not "side" 46 at the end of that sentence, "All you do is read them off the slide." And 1 1 page 20, line 24, Heather Pollard's name is misspelled. I believe it's 2 Pollard. And I know if Heather saw that she'd be upset. Anything else? 3 Okay, I'll entertain a motion to accept the minutes. 4 5 Shipley: So moved. 6 7 Scholz: All those in favor, excuse me, a second? 8 9 Crane: Second. 10 11 Scholz: All those in favor say aye. 12 13 ALL COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS - AYE. 14 15 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. And abstentions. All right, it's passed. Thank 16 you gentlemen. 17 18 111. POSTPONEMENTS 19 20 1. Case Z2766: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 21 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for three (3) distinct properties 22 located at 304, 308, 320 Wyatt Drive and 1160 EI Paseo Drive. The 23 properties have a combined area of 9.660 +/- acres all being utilized as a 24 shopping center. The zone change will bring the property into zoning 25 compliance, based on the overall size of the property exceeding the one (1) 26 acre maximum size for commercial properties within the C-2 (Commercial 27 Medium Intensity) zoning district. Submitted by Bridges: Engineering for EI 28 Paseo Las Cruces Pros Re, LLC. 29 POSTPONED UNTIL OCTOBER 28, 2008. 30 31 2. Case PUD-08-04: A request for a major amendment to the master plan 32 (concept plan) for the Pueblos de Las Alamedas. The subject properties are 33 zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) with underlying zoning of C-2 34 (General Commercial, 1981 Zoning Code) and M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing, 35 1981 Zoning Code). The subject properties consist of 153.578 +/- acres and 36 is generally located south of Bataan Memorial East, north/south of Northrise 37 Drive, east/west of Rinconada Boulevard, and west of Sonoma Ranch 38 Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to modify the intensity of commercial 39 land uses, modify multifamily residential distributions, and alter 40 manufacturing-related land uses within the master planned area. Submitted 41 by Zia Engineering for Alameda Land Investment Corporation. 42 POSTPONE INDEFINITELY. 43 44 Scholz: Okay, our next order of business is the postponements. We have two in 45 case those of you in the audience were here for these particular items. 46 The first is Case Z2766, a request for zone change from C-2 (Commercial 2 0 1 Medium Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for three (3) distinct 2 properties located at 304, 308, 320 Wyatt Drive and 1160 EI Paseo Drive. 3 If anybody is here to speak to those, that's being postponed until our next 4 meeting, October 28, 2008. The next one is Case PUD-08-04, a request 5 for a major amendment to the master plan (concept plan) for the Pueblos 6 de Las Alamedas. That's been postponed until ... it says postponed 7 indefinitely. None of you were here for that. All right. 8 9 White: Chair Scholz, can I inject very briefly? 10 11 Scholz: Yes, Mr. White. 12 13 White: Also in front of you this evening is a request for an additional 14 postponement. It is for item number, under new business, Case number 15 Z2757. 16 17 Scholz: Okay. 18 19 White: The applicant is requesting a postponement until October 28th, 2008. 20 21 Scholz: Okay, and so you're making that postponement? 22 23 White: It's a request for postponement. 24 25 Scholz: Okay, you want us to vote on that? 26 27 White: That is correct sir. 28 29 Scholz: Okay, I'll consider that under new business then. Thank you. 30 31 IV. WITHDRAWALS 32 33 Scholz: Okay, any withdrawals, Staff? 34 35 Rodriguez: No, sir. 36 37 V. CONSENT AGENDA 38 39 Scholz: What we're going to vote on next is the consent agenda and here's how 40 that works. The items on the consent agenda will be voted on by one 41 motion with the exception of the agenda. Any Planning and Zoning 42 Commissioner, Staff, or member of the public may remove an item from 43 the consent agenda for discussion by the Commission. If you intend to do 44 that, please let me know and then what that'll do is we'll put that to the 45 head of the new business. I need to be closer to the microphone. Gee, 1 46 felt my dulcet tones would carry today. Okay. Is that better? 3 Aft 1 2 1. Case Z2767: A request for a zone change from C-2 (Commercial Medium 3 Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) for three (3) distinct properties 4 located at 1765 S. Main Street. The properties have a combined area of 5 5.125 +/- acres. The zone change will bring the property into zoning 6 compliance, based on the overall size of the property exceeding the one (1) 7 acre maximum size for commercial properties within the C-2 (Commercial 8 Medium Intensity) zoning district. Submitted by BRG Engineering for Amar 9 Krishna of New Mexico. 10 11 Scholz: All right. The first item on the consent agenda is Case Z2767. A request 12 for a zone change from C-2 to C-3 for three (3) distinct properties at 1765 13 S. Main Street. Any Commissioner want to speak to that? No. Anyone 14 from the public? Okay, that'll remain on the consent agenda. 15 16 2. Case S-08-026: A request for a dedication plan approval for Sonoma 17 Springs Avenue. The dedication plat proposes to dedicate 21 +/- acres of 18 right-of-way for Sonoma Springs Avenue to the City of Las Cruces. The 19 subject area is generally located in Section 2, Township 23 South, Range 2 20 East and Section 6, Township 23 South, Range 3 East, NMPM of the USGLO 21 Surveys. Submitted by Southwest Engineering for the State of New Mexico 22 Land Office. 23 24 Scholz: The next one is Case S-08-026, a request for a dedication plan approval 25 for Sonoma Springs Avenue. Anyone from the public want to speak to 26 that? 27 28 Crane: Mr. Chairman. 29 30 Scholz: Yes, Commissioner Crane. 31 32 Crane: I would like to make a comment on that. 33 34 Scholz: Okay, well, I'll move that to number one on the new business. 35 36 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman. 37 38 Scholz: Yes. 39 40 Rodriguez: For the dedication plats, they were put together under one Staff report. Do 41 the Commissioners have a question about all five dedication plats or they 42 just this one specific? There are two. 43 44 Scholz: There are at least two. 45 46 Crane: 026 and 023. And Commissioner Shipley has some, too, I think. 4 Ak 1 2 Rodriguez: Then I request that we just go ahead and pull the five dedication plats 3 from consent so we can hear them together since it's considered under 4 one Staff report. 5 6 Scholz: Okay. Good. We'll do that. Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez. 7 8 3. Case S-08-024: A request for dedication plat approval for Mesa Grande 9 Drive. The dedication plat proposes to dedicate 39.17 +/- acres of right-of- 10 way for Mesa Grande Drive to the City of Las Cruces. The subject area is 11 generally located in Section 2, Township 23 South, Range 2 East and 12 Sections 26, 27 and 35, Township 22 South, Range 2 East, NMPM of the 13 USGLO Surveys. Submitted by Southwest Engineering for the State of New 14 Mexico Land Office. 15 16 4. Case S-08-025: A request for dedication plat approval for Lolita Avenue. 17 The dedication plat proposes to dedicate 37.19 +/- acres of right-of-way for 18 Lolita Drive to the City of Las Cruces. The subject area is generally located 19 in Sections 25, 26, and 27, Township 22 South, Range 2 East and Section 20 30, Township 22 South, Range 3 East, NMPM of the USGLO Surveys. 21 Submitted by Southwest Engineering for the State of New Mexico Land 22 Office. 23 24 5. Case S-08-027: A request for dedication plat approval for Dunn Road. The 25 dedication plat proposes to dedicate 30.67 +/- acres of right-of-way for Dunn 26 Road to the City of Las Cruces. The subject area is generally located in 27 Section 25 and 36, Township 22 South, Range 2 East and Section 30 and 28 31, Township 22 South, Range 3 East, Section 1, Township 23 South, Range 29 2 East, and Section 6, Township 23 South, Range 3 East, NMPM of the 30 USGLO Surveys. Submitted by Southwest Engineering for the State of New 31 Mexico Land Office. 32 33 6. Case S-08-023: A request for dedication plat approval for Lohman Avenue. 34 The dedication plat proposes to dedicate 25.32 +/- acres of right-of-way for 35 Lohman Avenue to the City of Las Cruces. The subject area is generally 36 located in Section 2, Township 23 South, Range 2 East, NMPM of the 37 USGLO Surveys. Submitted by Southwest Engineering for the State of New 38 Mexico Land Office. 39 40 Scholz: All right. So all we have to vote on, gentlemen, is the consent Case 41 Z2767. Do I hear a motion to accept the consent agenda? 42 43 Crane: So moved. 44 45 Scholz: A second? 46 5 I Evans: I second. 2 3 Scholz: Okay, all those in favor say aye. 4 5 ALL COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS -AYE. 6 7 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. And abstentions. Okay, the consent agenda 8 is passed. 9 10 VI. OLD BUSINESS 11 12 1. Case PA-08-03: A recommendation to City Council regarding the adoption of 13 the Alameda Depot Neighborhood Plan. 14 REQUESTS POSTPONEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 28, 2008 MEETING. 15 16 Scholz: All right, that brings us to old business. This is case PA-08-03. And 17 here's how this works, folks, in case you haven't been here before. We 18 read the case number, we listen to Staff presentation, then we open it to 19 public discussion, we close it to public discussion, the Commissioners 20 then discuss it among themselves and vote on it. And that's how it works. 21 Okay. Mr. Schuster, you're going to say something about case PA-08-03. 22 23 Schuster: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tom Schuster, Community Development. As you 24 will recall at your last meeting we did have a discussion of this case and it 25 was requested by the neighborhood that it be postponed and the 26 neighborhood has requested of Staff that it be further postponed until the 27 October 28th meeting. We have spoken with leaders of both 28 neighborhood associations and we do feel as though progress is being 29 made in terms of addressing the final issues that they wanted to work out. 30 Unfortunately, because of the timing of the calendar the ability of them to 31 make the changes, run them by Staff for our approval and then distribute it 32 to the neighborhood was not really enough in order for them to make the 33 deadline for the packet. So they are requesting another postponement 34 until the 28th. 35 36 Scholz: Okay. Commissioners? You're shaking your head, Commissioner 37 Shipley. 38 39 Shipley: I think that's fine. 40 41 Scholz: I thought you were shaking your head to say no. Commissioner Evans. 42 43 Evans: If that's what they want to do that's good. That's fine with me. 44 45 Scholz: Okay. You have to get closer to the mike. 46 6 0 1 Evans: That's fine. 2 3 Scholz: Okay. Well, I recall Commissioner Iserman mentioned this the last time 4 and he said, "You know how long will it take for them to get unanimity if 5 ever or how long will it take you know for them to agree to disagree." Do 6 you think we can do this by October? 7 8 Schuster: Mr. Chair, it is my opinion that we can. I do think that the neighborhood 9 organizations do seem to be working well together at this time and I think 10 both of them recognize that it's pretty much now or never at this point. 11 12 Scholz: Well, I would think so too. I mean two postponements. You know we 13 don't want to go beyond that. This is not a ... I don't want to see it a 14 continuing thing. I'd like to see it resolved one way or the other. Okay, 15 gentlemen, I'll entertain a motion to postpone Case PA-08-03 until the 16 October 28th meeting. 17 18 Beard: So moved. 19 20 Scholz: Do I hear a second? 21 22 Shipley: Second. 23 24 Scholz: All those in favor say aye. 25 26 ALL COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS -AYE. 27 28 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. And abstentions. Okay. It's postponed. 29 Thank you. 30 31 VII. NEW BUSINESS 32 33 1. Case S-08-026: A request for dedication plat approval for Sonoma Springs 34 Avenue. The dedication plat proposes to dedicate 21 +/- acres of right-of- 35 way for Sonoma Springs Avenue to the City of Las Cruces. The subject area 36 is generally located in Section 2, Township 23 South, Range 2 East and 37 Section 6, Township 23 South, Range 3 East, NMPM of the USGLO Surveys. 38 Submitted by Southwest Engineering for the State of New Mexico Land 39 Office. 40 41 2. Case S-08-024: A request for dedication plat approval for Mesa Grande 42 Drive. The dedication plat proposes to dedicate 39.17 +/- acres of right-of- 43 way for Mesa Grande Drive to the City of Las Cruces. The subject area is 44 generally located in Section 2, Township 23 South, Range 2 East and 45 Sections 26, 27 and 35, Township 22 South, Range 3 East, NMPM of the 7 1 USGLO Surveys. Submitted by Southwest Engineering for the State of New 2 Mexico Land Office. 3 4 3. Case S-08-025: A request for dedication plat approval for Lolita Avenue. 5 The dedication plat proposes to dedicate 37.19 +/- acres of right-of-way for 6 Lolita Drive to the City of Las Cruces. The subject area is generally located 7 in Sections 25, 26, and 27, Township 22 South, Range 2 East and Section 8 30, Township 22 South, Range 3 East, NMPM of the USGLO Surveys. 9 Submitted by Southwest Engineering for the State of New Mexico Land 10 Office. 11 12 4. Case S-08-027: A request for dedication plat approval for Dunn Road. The 13 dedication plat proposes to dedicate 30.67 +/- acres of right-of-way for Dunn 14 Road to the City of Las Cruces. The subject area is generally located in 15 Section 25 and 36, Township 22 South, Range 2 East and Section 30 and 16 31, Township 22 South, Range 3 East, Section 1, Township 23 South, Range 17 2 East, and Section 6, Township 23 South, Range 3 East, NMPM of the 18 USGLO Surveys. Submitted by Southwest Engineering for the State of New 19 Mexico Land Office. 20 21 5. Case S-08-023: A request for dedication plat approval for Lohman Avenue. 22 The dedication plat proposes to dedicate 25.32 +/- acres of right-of-way for 23 Lohman Avenue to the City of Las Cruces. The subject area is generally 24 located in Section 2, Township 23 South, Range 2 East, NMPM of the 25 USGLO Surveys. Submitted by Southwest Engineering for the State of New 26 Mexico Land Office. 27 28 Scholz: All right. Ms. Rodriguez, are you going to speak to the ... what are they, 29 excuse me, to the recommendations for Case S-08-26, and 27, and 24, 30 and things like that? 31 32 Rodriguez: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. 33 34 Scholz: Thank you. 35 36 Rodriguez: Presented before the Commission this evening are five dedication plats 37 that are being ... the State Land Office is the applicant and they are 38 seeking approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission to dedicate 39 right-of-way to the City of Las Cruces for five thoroughfares. These 40 thoroughfares are located in an area that the City recently annexed within 41 the last year known as the Vistas at Presidio. Those thoroughfares are 42 identified as Sonoma Springs, which is identified as a Collector; Mesa 43 Grande Drive which is a Principal Arterial; Lohman Avenue which is a 44 Principal Arterial; Lolita Avenue which is a Collector as I stated; Dunn 45 Road is a Minor Arterial; and Sonoma Springs which is a Collector. 8 0 1 The purpose of the dedication plats are to secure the right-of-way 2 for these five thoroughfares and its being done in accordance with State 3 Statute Section 3-20-7. Specifically, the dedication plat for Mesa Grande 4 comprises approximately 39 acres. It will extend southward from Onate 5 High School and intersect with the extension of Lohman Avenue. Lohman 6 Avenue comprises approximately 25 acres and will extend to the east of 7 Sonoma Ranch Boulevard where presently the City of Las Cruces is 8 currently working on extending Sonoma Ranch Boulevard to intersect with 9 Lohman and then eventually, as development occurs, Lohman Avenue will 10 be extended to the east and will ultimately intersect with Dunn Road. The 11 dedication plat for Lolita Avenue, which is a Collector comprises of 12 approximately 37 acres. It's an east/west Thoroughfare. Currently on the 13 MPO Thoroughfare Plan it's an unnamed Collector so it's now being 14 identified as Lolita Avenue. Dunn Road, which is a Minor Arterial, 15 comprises approximately 30 acres. Presently Dunn Road is built from 16 Highway 70 about a mile or mile and a half south and then, where that 17 road terminates, it's under private development there and it'll eventually 18 pick up where the state lands are, and that road will continue southward 19 and ultimately intersect with Lohman Avenue. Sonoma Springs is a 20 Collector. It's an east/west Thoroughfare and it is essentially existing right 21 now on the Sonoma Ranch Subdivision and will ultimately terminate at 22 Dunn Road. 23 This is an aerial photo of the area. In red you see the City limits. In 24 green. You have here Highway 70. Where my cursor is on the screen you 25 have the Sonoma Ranch Subdivisions. And this area in here is known as 26 Vistas at Presidio 1 and 2. This is the MPO Thoroughfare Plan which 27 shows you the networks of the thoroughfare system that will ultimately be 28 built as development occurs. And the State Land Office is wanting to 29 secure the dedication of right-of-way for five of these numerous 30 thoroughfares. You have here where my cursor is, you have Lohman 31 Avenue at the bottom of your screen. Lohman Avenue will head east and 32 ultimately intersect with Dunn Road located right about here where the 33 cursor is. You have an EI Paso Electric facility out here. The City's new 34 wastewater facility is being constructed right now so Lohman Avenue will 35 come to the south of those facilities and there are some topographic 36 constraints out here with arroyos and what not, and there is the City's old 37 landfill located here at the south. So those roads will be constructed 38 considering those constraints. 39 Mesa Grande currently exists here at Highway 70. You have Onate 40 High School. And as development continues with the Mesa Grande 41 Estates subdivision you will see development of Mesa Grande and then as 42 development continues down into the Vistas at Presidio 2, and with 43 development on these state lands you will start to see construction of 44 Mesa Grande and as subdivisions get built out and Sonoma Ranch, Mesa 45 Grande will continue to be built. Ultimately, that Thoroughfare will connect 46 and intersect with Lohman Avenue. 9 1 Lolita Avenue, which is located here where my cursor is, is an 2 unnamed Collector and ultimately it is identified here on the Thoroughfare 3 Plan. It's proposed to be dedicated as development continues in this half 4 section which is currently state land and I understand that there is a 5 developer who has a business lease agreement. When this parcel gets 6 developed, you will have Lolita Avenue built out and connect in to Sonoma 7 Ranch. We have Dunn Road, which will be essentially extended down 8 into Lohman Avenue. You see here, there's a series of transportation 9 networks in the Vistas at Presidio and, ultimately as development 10 continues, this network system will be built out. 11 DRC action: these cases did go to DRC. They did review the 12 dedication plats from the infrastructure, utilities, and improvement 13 prospective. Each Commissioner got full-sized sheets of your Dedication 14 Plats because we knew it was completely unreasonable for you to read it 15 on an 8.5 x 11. And you'll see on each Dedication Plat there are 16 approximately six to seven general notes. And those general notes range 17 from flood plain information, but also more importantly what the City of Las 18 Cruces will be doing with these Dedication Plats. They are dedicating the 19 right-of-way to the City of Las Cruces, but the City of Las Cruces is not 20 accepting any maintenance or responsibility for these roadway systems 21 until they are built to City of Las Cruces Design Standards. So when 22 development occurs in the Vista at Presidio area and the construction 23 drawings get submitted and they go over an extensive review and the 24 subdivisions get permitted, the road get permitted, and as they get built 25 the City of Las Cruces Staff will ultimately go out and inspect those roads 26 and at that time when they meet City Design Standards then we will 27 accept them into our maintenance program. 28 As I stated with Mesa Grande and Lohman, you have right there at 29 that intersection you have the EI Paso Electric facility and the City's 30 wastewater facility, and there's going to be an intersection there of two 31 thoroughfares. There are a lot of utility lines in that area. If you've been 32 out to the site and we've got note language written in there that it'll be the 33 responsibility of the developer to coordinate with the appropriate utility 34 bodies to move any type of utility lines that EI Paso Electric may have. 35 The State Land Office is aware of this note language and they are actually 36 here and they would be more than happy to answer any questions that 37 this body may have regarding how the State Land Office works with these 38 dedication plats. That concludes my presentation. I'd be more than happy 39 to answer any questions you have. 40 41 Scholz: Okay. Now before I call on Commissioner Shipley and Commissioner 42 Crane, one comment. When we met with the MPO last Tuesday we were 43 all concerned about things like right-of-way for a potential bypass around 44 Las Cruces, a truck route or relief route or something like that. And it 45 occurs to me that doing these dedications in advance of the actual 46 construction makes a lot of sense because the contractors, the builders, 10 1 the developers know where the roads are going to be and they won't build 2 in them. And obviously, they'll take into account what are thoroughfares 3 and what are Minor Arterials and such things. Commissioner Shipley, you 4 had a question or two. 5 6 Shipley: I want to thank you very much, Cheryl. It was very helpful getting the plats 7 and looking at that. Obviously, it raised some questions but you did a very 8 nice job and I want to thank you. 9 10 Rodriguez: Thank you. 11 12 Shipley: One of the questions I had and these are kind of general questions that 13 apply to two or more was when I looked at the right-of-ways some are 14 120-foot, some are 100, some are 85, and that fits the character of either 15 a Major Arterial or Collector or whatever. But some of the maps where 16 they're overlapping over maps to the south is the dedication already been 17 received by the City, or is that land, you know, like the Philippou section? 1 18 understand there are two sections in there and it doesn't show the 19 dedication through there. Has that already been given to the City. 20 21 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, that's a good question. Right now 22 in the Vistas at Presidio area you have numerous sections of land. 23 Currently Mr. Philippou owns section one and the rest of them are State 24 Land Office lands. The dedication plats that come up to section one, 25 specifically Dunn Road and Lohman Avenue, will only account for the 26 dedication of right-of-way that's on State Land Office. And as development 27 occurs on this section of land that Mr. Philippou controls, then he will 28 ultimately come in at that point and tie in those dedications. The Vistas at 29 Presidio Annexation, the Master Plan etc, one of the conditions that was 30 tied to it from Council was that when Mr. Philippou develops in section 31 one, the two road networks that needed to be improved upon, initial 32 development was Lohman and Dunn needed to be extended so we could 33 achieve primary and secondary access so you had true connectivity. So 34 when these dedication plats for Lohman will occur in this section of land 35 and in this section of land and for Dunn will take in the full right-of-way of 36 Dunn up to this point here, and then we'll only count it for ... They'll be 37 dedicating the 50-feet of a Minor Arterial on this section. So when Mr. 38 Philippou develops section one, he will ultimately be responsible upon 39 development to finalize the dedication and then ultimately construct a road 40 and achieve full connectivity. 41 42 Shipley: And the same thing on the south section of Lohman. There's a section 43 below that's not ... they only have half right-of-way there. Who has that 44 piece? 45 11 I Rodriguez: Currently these lands here right below ... south of the municipal line is 2 what you're talking about? 3 4 Shipley: Yes. 5 6 Rodriguez: Those are all controlled by BLM. And I understand that the City is looking 7 to acquire the dumpsite back from the BLM. As soon as they do that, it'll 8 come under City control. But this is also right now looking at a possible 9 area for future annexation for the high school sites that this Commission 10 will be looking at here in the next year. 11 12 Shipley: Okay, and one other question, well one more question is that the EI Paso 13 Electric has a 100-foot of right-of-way through there. Can we put in a 14 condition that when that's built that that has to be underground as 15 opposed to the large power lines that are on the east side of the City now? 16 17 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, if you can give me a moment if 1 18 can confer with my legal Staff real quick? 19 Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, I don't think there's anything 20 that the City can do to require or mandate that those lines be buried. 21 22 Shipley: They're in the City aren't they? 23 - 24 Rodriguez: But we have no codes or policies in place that would require or mandate 25 them to bury those overhead lines and I'm sure the cost is astronomical. 26 don't think we have the capability of mandating them right now because 27 we have no codes and policies in place. 28 29 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Crane, you had some questions. 30 31 Crane: Yes, I want to make a comment on the Sonoma Springs Avenue Plat. 32 This is almost picky but I think I have a point. We have Sonoma Springs 33 Avenue running across the three southern sections of this three section by 34 three-section plot, running about half way across and about three-quarters 35 of the way north there is Sonora Springs Avenue. And it seems to me that 36 this is an invitation to great confusion, particularly for strangers or people 37 driving at night trying to pick these places out. You've got three words and 38 they differ by one letter. Is it too late to get somebody to change Sonora 39 Springs Avenue to Scholz' Avenue or something? 40 41 Scholz: Certainly not that. Crane Avenue would be good. 42 43 Crane: Modesty forbids, but thank you. 44 45 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, well, the road ... Sonora Springs and 46 Sonoma Springs are currently dedicated right-of-way to the City of Las 12 I Cruces and we've accepted portions of those roads. As for a name 2 change, Staff is aware that yes it does cause some confusion for Sonoma 3 Springs and Sonora Springs. What could be entertained which would be a 4 huge undertaking would be to initiate a street name change but it's 5 something that we would have to consult with emergency services and etc 6 to see how feasible that would be to change a name. 7 8 Crane: Thank you. And I have another point that is again going to seem rather 9 picky but these are very impressive documents and see they're to be 10 signed in some cases by six people which means they're pretty important. 11 And the title is wrong on the two Lohman Avenue maps, what I'll call the 12 interior ones, the second page. What's happened is that the title's being 13 carried over from another map and not changed. I'm looking at one, it 14 doesn't have a unique number on it, but the bottom right hand corner is 15 one of two and it's just a three section by three-section map. At the top it 16 says Lohman Avenue right-of-way dedication line within the Lands of the 17 State of New Mexico being a 10.46 acres tract of land located section 2, 18 township 23, range 2, and it's not that, it's 623.3 19 20 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, I will have the applicant look into that 21 and upon the approval tonight and if it goes to Mylar we will address that. 22 We will make that change. 23 24 Crane: And similarly with the map on the other half of that sheet. 25 26 Rodriguez: Okay. 27 28 Crane: Sorry to be picky, but I felt somebody had to do it. 29 30 Rodriguez: Thank you very much. 31 32 Scholz: Okay, Commissioner Evans, any questions or comments. 33 34 Evans: No, looks good. 35 36 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 37 38 Beard: No. 39 40 Scholz: Okay, I don't have any additional questions or comments. Who is the 41 gentleman from the State who wishes to speak to us? 42 43 Rodriguez: Mr. King is available. 44 45 Scholz: Mr. King, okay. 46 13 I King: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Jerry King. I'm assistant 2 Commissioner at the State Land Office. Number one, I appreciate your 3 thoroughness in looking at these. You know when I came to the Land 4 Office a few years ago and saw what the MPO and the City and things 5 were doing here and we do a lot of this all over the state, I want to 6 commend you and the City of Las Cruces in some forthright thinking and 7 planning because I see a lot of wrecks other places. Any questions that 8 you might have of us I would be more than glad to answer. Usually I know 9 better than not to have to get up to speak because then somebody has a 10 question. We'll work on that name change, Commissioner Crane. 11 12 Crane: Thank you. 13 14 King: If you have any questions of me of what we did; a couple of things, going 15 through the meetings, we really wanted to try and be flexible with the City. 16 The City has some dire needs right now getting some lines from the wells 17 essentially north of 70 back to the wastewater treatment facility. We want 18 to make sure that the City can build that infrastructure and can get those 19 things in place sort of like you say before, and at the end of the day let's 20 have the developer pay for it. So any questions you might have I'd 21 answer, but thank you for letting me be here. 22 23 Scholz: Okay, questions for Mr. King? Thank you, sir. Okay, I'll entertain a motion 24 to accept ... 25 26 Evans: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I think we have another question. 27 28 Scholz: Sir? 29 30 Ganage: Mr. Chairman, my name is Mr. Ganage, Ganage, Clement, and 31 Associates, Consulting Engineers. (inaudible) about the State Land Office 32 and the City to acquiring this right-of-way. My (inaudible) of historical 33 nature, particularly on Case number S-08-024. That particular alignment 34 goes through a historical artifact which is called Pat Garrett Monument, 35 eventually, and that is the official monument registered in the Historical 36 Society. So, before you go any further there should be some reference 37 being made in that dedication that as time passes by some place along 38 the road. That historical monument should have a proper (inaudible) 39 beneficiary that we do accordingly, what we do with other historical 40 monuments. Otherwise, you will have a dedication made and it is ... when 41 the time comes (inaudible). So I'm raising this question only not as an 42 objection to this dedication, but somewhere or the other, in all this 43 planning, it has missed that particular monument. These questions have 44 been brought before and maybe with other important things that they have 45 not been addressed. So maybe it is your job as the P&Z Commission to 46 make sure that historical monuments are recognized in dedication of these 14 AML I plats. Accordingly, the (inaudible) State Land Office policy is to make 2 appropriate arrangement or appropriate measures to make sure that those 3 are obtained eventually when (inaudible). 4 5 Scholz: Okay, thank you. Questions for this gentleman. All right, Mr. King, you 6 need to speak to this? 7 8 King: One thing Commissioner Lyons has said all along is that we are very 9 familiar with that site and we have said that we will work around that site. 10 So I think as Staff and as everybody goes through that, if we know what 11 the City wants that footprint to be, then we can go ahead and either ask 12 for zoning or do something accordingly. He brought up a good point and 1 13 thought we probably have missed it or whatever, but it is our intent to go 14 and work with the City on what they want to do for that site there, because 15 it is very ... it's a very substantial thing to the people down here. So just to 16 let you know. Let us know what the footprint needs to be, we'll come back 17 and do this again for that footprint. 18 19 Scholz: Okay. Where exactly on the map is this site? 20 21 King: It'll be right ... come on, doctor, you've got to help me. I'm not the 22 archeologist. Right, it's coming down Mesa Grande. Because this is a 23 working document and that's the way we really want to look at it. And 1 24 think you said some things about the other rights-of-ways, as we go 25 forward if those rights-of ways need to be extended, if they need to be 26 widened, we're really open to coming in and looking at those plats and 27 seeing what the MPO and what the City needs to be, because there are a 28 lot of arroyos out there. There's probably ... I don't have to tell you guys 29 about engineering, but there's going to be some things out there where 30 they have to move. 31 32 Scholz: Okay, Ms. Rodriguez, you have a comment? No, okay. Any other input 33 from the public? No. 34 35 Shipley: What was the site again? I didn't, I couldn't understand. The historic site. 36 37 Scholz: What is the technical name for that site? 38 39 Rodriguez: It's the Pat Garrett site and local historians believe that site to be the site 40 where Pat Garrett was murdered. So Staff is aware that this site exists 41 and this did come under consideration with the Dedication Plat. But Staff 42 agreed that we will look at that site when that road is designed and built 43 upon development. If the right-of-way needs to be adjusted to 44 accommodate that, because that's something we'll need to work with State 45 on regarding the historical significance of that site. 46 15 1 Scholz: Okay. I'm aware. Yes, sir, another comment? 2 3 Ganage: My comment is basically if you could just put a ... there are general 4 comments on each sheet. On this particular (inaudible) if you make a 5 general comment when the time comes that appropriate attention should 6 be given to the Pat Garrett Monument, just a small additional comment 7 that you can probably put on there right now. Beyond that I don't think 8 anything we can do right now. When actual thing comes up I'm sure that 9 the beneficiary, the City (inaudible) properly. But if you miss that, then 10 that maybe official (inaudible) issue, and that's what I'm simply trying to 11 avoid. 12 13 Scholz: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay, I'm going to close this to 14 public discussion. Commissioners, what is your pleasure? Mr. Crane is 15 correcting his map again I see. Commissioner Crane. 16 17 Crane: I have no further comments. 18 19 Scholz: Okay. Does someone want to make a ... 20 21 Shipley: Just one other question. 22 23 Scholz: Yes, Commissioner Shipley. 24 25 Shipley: The 10 acres that's the wastewater treatment site is along Lohman, and 26 does this ... it looks like the dedication for Lohman goes through that site. 27 Is that correct, Cheryl? 28 29 Scholz: Staff. 30 31 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, the dedication of the right-of-way, 32 the road does go through the site but will not negatively impact the site. 33 We've reviewed that extensively with the Utilities Department. It will go 34 around the actual physical structure. 35 36 Shipley: And if we were to make ... if we move to approve this we can add a 37 condition that the Pat Garrett site would be considered during the final ... 38 I'm looking for some help ... through the final ... you know plans or 39 construction drawings or what? 40 41 Scholz: I just scribbled something down here. I wrote, "Appropriate attention 42 should be paid, will be paid to the Pat Garrett site." 43 44 Shipley: That should be just a condition. Is that all right? 45 16 0 1 Evans: Well, I believe that they were talking about ... well, I mean putting a note 2 on the actual drawings, were they not or is that ... ? 3 4 Rodriguez: Yeah. I've got some language. 5 6 Scholz: Okay. We'll know in a moment. 7 8 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I offer the following note "Dedication of this right-of-way by 9 this plat does not absolve the property owner or his or her successors 10 from having to coordinate the siting of the Pat Garrett monument upon 11 development of Mesa Grande Drive." 12 13 Scholz: Okay. Can you read that to me again? 14 15 Rodriguez: Hold on. Dedication of this right-of-way by this plat does not absolve the 16 property owner or his/her successors from having to coordinate the siting 17 of the Pat Garrett monument upon development of Mesa Grande Drive. 18 19 Scholz: Okay, I'm two-thirds of the way through now. Dedication of this right-of- 20 way by this plat does not absolve the property owner of ... ? 21 22 Rodriguez: Or his/her successors ... 23 24 Scholz: Thank you. 25 26 Rodriguez: From having to coordinate the siting of the Pat Garret monument upon 27 development of Mesa Grande Drive. 28 29 Scholz: Upon the ... 30 31 Rodriguez: Development. 32 33 Scholz: There you go. The development of Mesa Grande Drive. I used to be able 34 to write a lot faster. 35 36 Rodriguez: And I would add that as a condition with the Mesa Grande Drive 37 dedication plat. 38 39 Scholz: Okay. All right, gentlemen, any other comments, questions? Okay, I'll 40 entertain a motion to accept Cases S-08-026, S-08-024, S-08-025, S-08- 41 027, and S-08-023, with the following condition which applies to S-08-024, 42 "The dedication of this right-of-way by this plat does not absolve the 43 property owner or his or her successors from having to ... I'm missing a 44 word here ... 45 46 Evans: Coordinate. 17 1 2 Scholz: Thank you. "Coordinate the siting of the Pat Garrett monument upon the 3 development of Mesa Grande Drive." 4 5 Shipley: I so move. 6 7 Crane: Second. 8 9 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Let's call the role. Commissioner 10 Shipley. 11 12 Shipley: Aye, findings and site visit. 13 14 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 15 16 Crane: Aye, findings and discussion. 17 18 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 19 20 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 21 22 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 23 24 Beard: Aye, findings and discussions. 25 26 Scholz: And the chair votes aye. So it's passed 5-0. Thank you very much 27 gentlemen, appreciate it. 28 29 6. Case Z2757: A request for a zone change from C-1 (Commercial Low 30 Intensity) to C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) for 0.31 +/- acres located at 31 1190 Foster Road. Submitted by Southwest Engineering, Inc. for Families 32 and Youth, Inc. 33 34 Scholz: Okay, our next item is a request for a postponement. Mr. White. This is 35 for case Z2757. 36 37 White: For the record, James White, Community Development Department. This 38 case, Z2757 has been requested for a postponement until October 28th, 39 2008. The copy of the letter that's been submitted by the applicant's 40 agent, Southwest Engineering, is in front of you with a request for 41 postponement. 42 43 Scholz: Okay. Any questions for Mr. White? All right. 44 45 Shipley: 1 have one question for Mr. White. 46 18 Aft I Scholz: Certainly. 2 3 Shipley: If we postpone action on this, should we also postpone the second part? 4 Aren't they somewhat interrelated? 5 6 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Shipley, that's a very good question. The 7 answer is no because they are two separate issues: one is a variance 8 request for the site, the other is a zone change. 9 10 Scholz: Okay, any other questions for Mr. White? All right. Is there anyone from 11 the public who wants to speak to this? Okay. I'll ask for somebody to 12 move that we postpone this until October 28th? 13 14 Crane: So moved. 15 16 Scholz: Is there a second? 17 18 Shipley: Second. 19 20 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. 21 22 ALL COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS - AYE. 23 24 Scholz: Those opposed same sign, and abstentions. Okay. It passes. Case 25 Z2757 will be postponed until October 28th. 26 27 7. Case A1679: A request for a variance from the required fifteen (15) foot or 28 zero (0) foot rear yard setback for a property located at 1190 Foster Road. 29 The subject property is currently zoned C-1 (Commercial Low Intensity) 30 encompassing 0.31 +/- acres. The applicant is requesting for a western rear 31 yard setback of three (3) feet, (5) five inches for an existing 5,000 square foot 32 office building. The second variance request is for the allowance of an 33 additional 2,500 square feet of gross floor area beyond the maximum 34 allowance of 2,500 square feet for properties zoned C-1 (Commercial Low 35 Intensity). The additional square footage allotment will facilitate the existing 36 office building on the property. Submitted by Southwest Engineering for 37 Families and Youth, Inc. 38 39 Scholz: Okay, our next case is Case A1679, a request for variance from the 40 required 15-foot or zero-foot rear yard setback. And Mr. White you're 41 going to speak to this too. 42 43 White: Sure, I sure will. Case A1679 is a request for a variance from the required 44 15-foot or zero-foot rear yard setback for a property located at 1190 Foster 45 Road. The applicant is requesting for a western rear yard setback of three 46 feet and five inches. The second variance request is for the allowance of 19 I an additional 2,500 square foot beyond the maximum allowance of 2,500 2 square feet for a property zoned C-1. What that means is the building is 3 actually 5,000 square foot in size. I just want to discuss a couple of things 4 here in the actual blurb. If you notice here, it has 15 or zero feet. That 5 was based upon the zoning of the property. C-1 zoning requires a 15-foot 6 rear yard setback. In event the zone change was being pursued this 7 evening and it was either zoned to C-2 or 0-2 respectively, the 0-2 zoning 8 district or C-2 zoning district allows also for a zero-foot setback. So this 9 evening the actual request is for ... the actual rear yard setback is for a 10 15-foot rear yard setback request. 11 Here's a site plan submitted regarding the property. It's located at 12 1190 Foster Road. If you identify the property here, here's Chaparro 13 Street and Foster Road. The property has double frontage. Double 14 frontage lots, based upon a 2001 Zoning Code, requires that one of the 15 two front yards have a 20-foot front yard setback and the secondary front 16 yard setback is 15-feet. The property is in compliance with both set back 17 requirements of Foster and Chaparro respectively. The side yard setback 18 requires a five-foot side yard setback. The property, if you notice here, is 19 actually in compliance. What we're evaluating this evening is in respect to 20 the western and rear yard setback which is located here. Currently the 21 structure is roughly three-feet five-inches from the actual western rear 22 yard property boundary. You have a building that was constructed circa 23 1983 which is roughly 5,000 square feet. Based upon the existing zoning 24 of C-1 on the property, which is commercial low intensity, the applicant is 25 pursuing two variance applications. One is in respect to the western rear 26 yard setback and the second is regarding the square footage of the 27 property or the building being 5,000 square feet. 28 Here is from the 2001 Zoning Code illustrating exactly what's 29 transpiring this evening. As shown here since the property is zoned C-1, 30 the requirement is for a 15-foot rear yard setback. Maximum building 31 gross floor area based upon the code is restricted to 2,500 square feet. 32 What I was alluding to earlier this evening, but it's been postponed, in the 33 event this property seeks a rezoning application to either 0-2 or C-2 34 respectively. If you notice here there are little variations in the zero-foot 35 setbacks in relation to the rear yard and side yard setbacks. But what 36 we're actually requesting this evening or the applicant is pursuing is for a 37 variance from the 15-foot rear yard setback and also for the maximum 38 building gross floor area. Zoning map showing the property is zoned C-1, 39 commercial low intensity. As you move to the west you have apartment 40 complexes with a sporadic mixture of Single-Family Residential. Most of 41 the commercial development is located actually east of Chaparro in this 42 area located in here. Roughly two months ago you heard another zoning 43 conversion case for the Resources and Family Youth Inc. on this property 44 here which is 1320 S. Solano. Foster Road is actually a dedicated local 45 roadway. The closest Major Thoroughfare is going to be Solano Drive, 46 which is located here. 20 I Case specifics: as stipulated earlier the building was built in 1983. 2 The gross floor area of the building is roughly 5,000 square feet. The rear 3 yard setback existing is three-feet five-inches. It is in compliance with all 4 of the setback requirements and parking requirements for the property. 5 MPO Thoroughfare Plan: just kind of zooming out from the general tract of 6 land. Subject property is located here. Major street networks: Solano is 7 located in this area right here, Espina is located in this area here, and 8 Idaho is located to the north. Aerial view actually depicts very well the 9 issue we have here regarding the western rear yard setback located in this 10 area right here. Site photo: parking is in compliance with the 2001 Zoning 11 Code. This shot is looking back out towards Chaparro Street, which is 12 located in this area here. 13 I'd just like to recap it again: the variance request is for the western 14 rear yard setback to establish a three-foot five-inch setback versus the 15- 15 foot requirement. Also, in addition to that is an additional square footage 16 of roughly 2,500 square feet for the existing building. Staff recommends 17 approval on both variance requests. And P&Z has final action regarding 18 this variance request. And that will end Staff presentation this evening. 19 20 Scholz: Okay, any questions for this gentleman? 21 22 Shipley: Just one. 23 24 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley. 25 26 Shipley: On the site plan, Mr. White, it shows ... I mean I'm sure that was provided 27 by Southwest Engineering, but they already have it zoned as C-2. 28 29 White: That was the request for it to be zoned C-2. What you're looking at there 30 is a diagram of the request. So the property is currently zoned C-1, 31 Commercial Low Intensity. 32 33 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Beard. 34 35 Beard: So what if we ... what does the property owner have to do, if anything, if 36 we don't approve the request? 37 38 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Beard, if the variance was not approved this 39 evening you would have a non-conforming tract of land. The issue that we 40 have currently based upon the property is that there are two different 41 avenues you can pursue. One avenue you can pursue is to seek a zone 42 change. The zone change would bring the property into compliance 43 based upon the square footage. The issues of the variance of the rear 44 yard setback would still have to be addressed. So it's kind of confusing. If 45 the variance was not pursued or approved by this body this evening, the 46 applicant would probably be required to seek a zone change for the 21 Q 0 1 square footage, but then we'll have to do some historical data and look at 2 the evaluation of how that building was permitted in 1983. And more than 3 likely the City would be issuing a non-conforming certificate for the 4 western rear yard property boundary. I don't know if I confused you or not. 5 6 Scholz: Well, it is a little complex. Yes, Commissioner Shipley. 7 8 Shipley: But if it went to 0-2, it can have a zero setback. Is that correct on both rear 9 and side? 10 11 White: Correct. It's an either or kind of premise. So the issue that you have is 12 15-feet or zero. So based upon the location being three-foot five-inches, 13 the applicant would actually have to extend the building by roughly one- 14 foot, whatever the difference is, one-foot seven-inches for it to be in 15 compliance. 16 17 Crane: Did you say extend the building? 18 19 White: Correct. What's complicated about it is when you look at 15 or zero. It's 20 not a range. It's either 15-feet or its zero-feet. 21 22 Shipley: Why was the Code written that way? 23 24 Scholz: That's a great question. 25 26 White: Commissioner Scholz, Commissioner Shipley, I can't answer that. That's 27 how the Code reads. 28 29 Crane: I thought however you started off by saying that the zero applied to I think 30 it was 0-1 and the 15-feet, the five-feet applied to C-1. And so these two 31 requests, the one that's being postponed and this are intertwined. Maybe 32 in extricably. 33 34 Scholz: Well, actually it was 0-2 he was referring to, not 0-1. 35 36 Crane: I beg your pardon, 0-2, yeah. 37 38 Scholz: Right. 39 40 White: Commissioner Scholz, Commissioner Crane, what transpires here ... 1 41 don't know why this transpires, is that if you look at the 0-2 zoning district 42 or C-2. It has that premise for the zero-foot side and rear yard setback. 43 But if you look at C-1 it jumps it. You don't have that zero-foot for the rear 44 yard or side yard. So this is how it reads, this is the way we actually have 45 to enforce the document and go forward with it. 46 22 I Crane: Okay, it's C-1 right now. 2 3 White: That is correct. 4 5 Crane: And it requires a 15-foot rear yard setback. 6 7 White: That is correct. 8 9 Crane: But they've only got three and a half-feet on the west and five feet on the 10 south. 11 12 White: Correct. Commissioner Scholz, Commissioner Crane, I think what we 13 have to really evaluate is ... this was actually constructed based upon the 14 1981 Zoning Code. It was zoned based upon the previous Zoning Code. 15 So what happens sometime when you adopt a new Code like in 2001, you 16 have structures that were built 20 years prior to it and they're not in the 17 zoning compliance. So that's what we're really trying now through the 18 variance request is to make these structures in zoning compliance with the 19 2001 Zoning Code. 20 21 Crane: By grandfathering them in essentially, right. 22 23 White: No, sir. 24 25 Crane: You're not going to ask that they cut the building back. 26 27 White: Commissioner Scholz, Commissioner Crane, no, what you're talking about 28 is non-conforming land use. And non-conforming land use is when you do 29 absolutely nothing to the property. The variance would give a legal 30 document that stipulates that that three-foot five-inch rear yard setback 31 and the 2,500 square foot addition to the structure is legal. So it's a legal 32 document that the variance request is being submitted to say that this has 33 been ... is legal based upon the issuance of the variance request. Just 34 like when you see a variance for an encroachment to a rear yard is 35 granted. It's a very similar premise to what we're talking about this 36 evening. 37 38 Crane: Okay. Thank you. 39 40 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 41 42 Beard: If we approve the variance and then he goes to ... and he leaves it at 43 three-feet, then he goes to 0-2, does he have to get another variance? 44 45 White: Commissioner Scholz, Commissioner Beard, no. What we're looking at 46 are two issues. One issue is regarding the setback. Regardless of what 23 I the property is zoned, a setback variance is required for the three-foot 2 five-inch. The applicant has not decided if he wants to pursue the zone 3 change next month or he may postpone it or withdraw it. We don't know 4 at this juncture. But the variance request would actually solidify the 5 square footage and the setback on the tract of land at 1190 Foster Road. 6 7 Scholz: Exactly. 8 9 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I think that it's reasonable. I mean we're in a sense 10 grandfathering it in. I mean it was built in '82 and we're just bringing it up 11 to the standards of the new Codes, so I don't have a problem with this. 12 13 Scholz: I've noticed too that there's an alley right on the west side, so there is 14 some separation between the buildings, physical separation between the 15 building and the apartments which are across the way. So we're not 16 talking about encroachment, you know, or a lack of space around those 17 other buildings because there are apartments and driveways. All right, is 18 there anyone from the public who wants to speak to this? 19 20 Pompeo: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Paul Pompeo 21 with Southwest Engineering. Staff has done an excellent job presenting 22 this case. I don't think there's anything I can add, however. I would be 23 happy to answer any questions you might have about this. 24 25 Scholz: Any questions for Mr. Pompeo? Yes, Commissioner Beard. 26 27 Beard: If we approve the variance are you going to leave it at three-feet five- 28 inches? 29 30 Pompeo: There are no plans to demolish or add on to that building right now. It's 31 the intent of the property owner to just bring it into legal compliance with 32 the Zoning Code via the variance request to give the property owner in the 33 future the maximum use they can on the property by having that issue 34 resolved. 35 36 Scholz: Okay. All right, thank you, Mr. Pompeo. Anyone from the public who 37 wants to comment on this? All right, I'm going to close it to public 38 discussion. Commissioners, what is your pleasure? 39 40 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Case A1679. 41 42 Scholz: Okay, is there a second? 43 44 Crane: Second. 45 24 1 Scholz: Okay, it's been approved and seconded. I'll call the role. Commissioner 2 Shipley. 3 4 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 5 6 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 7 8 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 9 10 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 11 12 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 13 14 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 15 16 Beard: Aye, based on findings and discussions. 17 18 Scholz: And the chair votes aye. So that's passed and approved. 19 20 8. Case ZCA-08-03: A request to amend Chapter 38, 43 (C) of the Municipal 21 Code, to include 1.76 +/- acres of land located at the southwestern 22 intersection of S. Alameda and Lohman Avenue. The subject property will be 23 rezoned from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to CBD (Central Business 24 District) in order to facilitate an Intermodal Facility. The amendment to 25 Chapter 38, 43 (C) will also include Central Business District (CBD) zoning 26 map amendments correcting previous errors within Areas "A," "B," and "C" 27 respectively. Area "D" will be included into the Central Business District 28 (CBD) based on the aforementioned zone change for the intermodal facility. 29 The zoning map amendments are as follows: 30 31 • Area "A" - The properties located at 887, 867, 717, 709, and 706 N. 32 Main Street existing parcel boundaries will coincide with the Central 33 Business District (CBD) zoning boundaries. 34 35 Area "B" - The properties located at 339, 337, 331 N. Alameda and 36 331, 334 W. Griggs will be removed from within the Central Business 37 District (CBD zoning District. 38 39 • Area "C" - The properties located at 224 S. Alameda, 390 S. Alameda 40 existing parcel boundaries will coincide with the Central Business 41 District (CBD) zoning district. The properties located due south of 405 42 W. Griggs (no physical address-property owner Darby) and 230 S. 43 Alameda will be placed within the Central Business District (CBD). 44 45 • Area "D" - Proposed Intermodal Facility located at the southwestern 46 intersection of S. Alameda and Lohman Avenue to be rezoned form C-2 25 1 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to CBD (Central Business District). The 2 property will be placed within the Central Business District (CBD). 3 4 Submitted by the City of Las Cruces 5 6 Scholz: All right. Our last case is Case ZCA-08-03, a request to amend Chapter 7 38, 43 (C) of the Municipal Code and, Mr. White, you're going to present 8 this? 9 10 White: I shall. 11 12 Scholz: You're busy tonight. 13 14 White: Before we begin in the packet there's a general note there that this 15 evening there were a couple of advertising errors. The only thing we're 16 going to discuss this evening is going to be regarding Area "D", which is 17 specific to the Intermodal Center. In respect to that what you're looking for 18 is a request to amend Chapter 38, section 43 of the 2001 Zoning Code as 19 amended. The proposed Zoning Code Amendment will rezone 1.76 acres 20 located at the southwestern intersection of South Alameda Boulevard and 21 Lohman Avenue from C-2 commercial medium intensity to CBD, Central 22 Business District. The rezone will facilitate the proposed construction of 23 the Intermodal Facility. Currently, this is the Central Business District 24 boundary. The northern boundary is roughly Picacho Avenue, which is 25 located up in this area here. You also have various street segments here. 26 This area in the middle here is the Main Street Overlay Plaza. This is 27 pretty much the Downtown Mall and this encompasses this general area 28 right here. Of course, you have Church Street, Main Street, Amador, 29 Griggs, South Alameda. What we're speaking about this evening is for the 30 expansion of the Central Business District, which is roughly 1.76 acres. 31 This is directly west of the City Office Center. It was previously owned by 32 the state of New Mexico. The City of Las Cruces has recently received 33 land title on this tract of land here. What the amendment would do is two 34 fold: number one, it would actually rezone the property from C-2 35 commercial medium intensity to CBD. The second portion, if you look at 36 the zoning code of 2001 the Central Business District, there is a zoning 37 boundary map of the Central Business District map. So what Staff would 38 have to do, is Staff would actually have to include this 1.76 acres into this 39 area that's integrated as Central Business District. So what you'll be 40 seeing with the revised map, if it's approved, is you'll be seeing the Central 41 Business District to move this way, and also include the Intermodal 42 Facility, which is located here. Next month you would see some additional 43 zone change ... not zone change but next month you'll see some various 44 map amendments for the Central Business District around and along the 45 western boundary. But we can discuss that next month as it comes 46 forward to the P&Z Commission. 26 I First we need to discuss is what is the Central Business District. 2 The Central Business District has a maximum height of 50-feet. The 3 permitted uses are without conditions for all commercial, office, residential 4 zoning districts unless expressly prohibited. If you look in the Central 5 Business District Zoning Categories there is a list of specific uses that are 6 not permitted within the Central Business District. What Staff first 7 evaluated was intermodal facility. Intermodal facility is very similar to what 8 you see in other parts of the City which requires C-3 zoning, Commercial- 9 High-Intensity zoning such as a bus terminal. There is no specific 10 mentioning that an Intermodal Facility or bus terminal is restricted from the 11 Central Business District. Based upon that, some of the design elements 12 are that a public building such as the Intermodal Facility requires one 13 parking stall for every 1,000 square foot of gross floor area. There is a 14 preliminary design that's been submitted by the City of Las Cruces. It's 15 conceptual in nature right now and it's showing the building being roughly 16 6,000 to 8,000 square feet so there it is stipulating that between six and 17 eight parking stalls will be required on site. 18 In respect to landscaping: it's required to have one tree for every 10 19 parking stalls. Based upon the preliminary design you'd be looking at one 20 tree to be actually integrated within the parking lot. There are also 21 requirements along street frontages. The property has direct frontage on 22 two Thoroughfares: Lohman Avenue and South Alameda Boulevard 23 respectively. Based upon the calculations Staff did, you roughly have 700 24 linear feet on Lohman Avenue and 100 linear feet on Alameda Boulevard, 25 so the combined count for additional trees that would be required to tree- 26 scape would be 40 trees combined. 27 Here is the MPO Thoroughfare Plan showing the Intermodal 28 Facility. As stipulated here, the Intermodal Facility, what is actually 29 shaded here is the existing Central Business District. What you're seeing 30 here is these circles you have here are actually identifying different bus 31 stops that we have around the City of Las Cruces. And anywhere you see 32 a black area here it means there is signage. Where you see the green, it 33 means you actually have a bench. And where you see the mixture of the 34 black and green, it means there is actually a bus shelter. Currently the 35 temporary, I guess, bus depot is located at 180 West Amador which used 36 to be the County Manager's Complex. So the plan is, is that upon the 37 completion and the building of the Intermodal Facility located here, you will 38 see a ceasing of operation for the 180 West Amador location. Again, 39 you're looking at the Thoroughfare Plan for the area. You have Principal 40 Arterials such as Alameda ... I mean such as Lohman Avenue located 41 here. You have Collector status roadways which are identified here in 42 orange. And you have South Alameda which actually runs north/south 43 located here. Proposed site is right here. 44 Here's an aerial photo of the actual site in question this evening. 45 Subject property as stipulated earlier is zoned C-2. To the west, you have 46 a religious institution. To the north, you have a financial institution. And 27 W W 1 as shown earlier, this is the City Office Center located here at 575 South 2 Alameda. To the south here, you had a recent zone change that was 3 brought fourth to the actual P&Z Commission regarding overlapping 4 zoning of C-2 and R-1a. Currently it is a residential home, but what I read 5 through the transcripts for the City Council ordinance there's a potential 6 that there may be some type of mixed use development on the property. 7 In the event that the Intermodal Center is built, after it becomes, let's say 8 mixed use development, or if it's commercial related, the City would not be 9 required to landscape buffer the southern boundary. If the property 10 remains as a single-family residential structure, then the City would have 11 to comply with buffering requirements between a commercial tract of land, 12 Intermodal Facility, and in relation to a residential tract of land to the 13 south. 14 Site photos: interesting enough subject tract of land is located here. 15 As stipulated earlier to the west you have the religious institution, this is 16 Lohman Avenue located here, and you have South Alameda Boulevard 17 located here. 18 Staff recommendation for this Zoning Code Amendment is for 19 approval without conditions. And of course, since this is actually going to 20 be a Zoning Code Amendment which it would actually have to be adopted 21 by City Council, the Zone Change and the Map Amendment would have to 22 go forward to City Council at a date to be determined. That will end Staff 23 presentation. I'd be glad to entertain any questions you have. We do 24 have another Staff member here, we do have Mr. Bartholomew from the 25 transportation ... from the Transit Department that wants to give a brief 26 overview regarding it from a transit perspective. 27 28 Scholz: Okay, before you leave, Mr. White, questions for him? Okay. 29 30 Bartholomew: I was here tonight just to talk a little bit about the history of how this ... 31 32 Scholz: Tell us your name again please. 33 34 Bartholomew: I'm sorry. My name is Michael Bartholomew. I'm the Transit 35 Administrator for the City of Las Cruces. The Intermodal Center ... 36 basically, what the Intermodal Center is, is a federally funded project that 37 is going to create a facility that will connect multiple modes of basically 38 non-single occupancy vehicle transportation. So it would be a single point 39 where the City transit system, over the road buses such as Greyhound or 40 EI Paso Limousine, could have a base there as well. There could be stalls 41 for taxi services or airport shuttles to park and meet passengers and 42 connect there. So it's a connection point for various modes of 43 transportation. And the City, as Mr. White mentioned, is requesting this be 44 rezoned from C-2 to Central Business District. 45 Just a little history of how we got this project started. Back in 2001 46 the City approached our United States Congressional Representatives 28 1 about an Intermodal Center. And in 2002, we got an earmark 2 appropriation of 1.98 million dollars and that could be used up to 80% of 3 the cost of a federally funded project. Allowable expenses for that funding 4 was for planning, land acquisition, design, construction, and business 5 relocation. So, for example, if we had selected a site that there were 6 already businesses on and we needed to move them, that we could use 7 that grant funding to do that. You can't fund environmental cleanups so 8 prior to collecting or getting the grant obligated, we actually had to make 9 sure that there were no environmental issues that would be of concern to 10 the Federal Transit Administration before this site was even brought 11 forward to City Council for approval. 12 We got the appropriation in 2002. It had to be obligated into a 13 project within three years so by September 2005, and I'm going to kind of 14 continue with the history of the process, but we were getting into 2005 and 15 still there was a lot of wrangling over where the site was going to be and 16 we actually risked losing that appropriation because of the issues. We 17 actually had two site selection studies done: one was by Parsons- 18 Brinkerhoff in 2004, and then the second one was by Nelson Nygaard 19 beginning in late 2005 going into 2006. The first one was only a site 20 selection study to select a site for the Intermodal Center and then the 21 second one had multiple phases and I'll just talk about that in a moment. 22 In the Parsons-Brinkerhoff study I have up there the criteria that they used 23 for the site selection study, basically they needed a space for a minimum 24 of 12 buses, direct access to arterial streets, 5,000 square foot facility, 25 3,000 passengers a day, acquisition costs of the property, what it would 26 cost us. It was located at a major destination area such as the downtown. 27 Site should have visibility and intermodal capabilities and they looked at 28 21 sites, primarily in the downtown area. And basically, their 29 recommendation, what they were narrowing it down to was a site where 30 the former Welcome Inn was located and also Expert Tires. There was 31 considerable opposition when that recommendation came up at the time 32 from the owners of the Welcome Inn and that lead to a second study 33 needing to be done, was something that would have more background on 34 how it would help the overall transit system and so that led to the second 35 study. I might note that on the study that Parsons-Brinkerhoff did, they 36 actually looked at even areas along where the depot is along the railroad 37 tracks there, but that was quickly ... there was even more opposition to 38 that area because it is in a highly residential area. The only access to it 39 would have been off of Amador both in and out of that intermodal facility. 40 It would've been very difficult to develop routes that went through that 41 neighborhood to approach it. 42 Nelson Nygaard was a three part study and so we went about it, 43 saying, well, we know we need to redesign our bus routes which we 44 actually finally implemented the new design that was substantially based 45 on their recommendation this past March. Those routes kind of got rid of 46 a lot of the looping nature of the routes. The fact that routes just went one 29 1 direction on a big loop and sometimes riders had to travel a lot of ways out 2 of their ... where they really needed to go just to get there because the 3 bus was on that looping nature. It also put the routes on what we call the 4 clock-face headway. The former routes were on a 40-minute loop. It was 5 really difficult for customers to understand the schedule and when the bus 6 would be there. The idea of a clock-face headway is if you catch a bus at 7 10 minutes after the hour at this location it's going to be there 10 minutes 8 after every hour is when you should be waiting for that bus. 9 Anyway, based on the recommended service plan, then the second 10 phase was to recommend an Intermodal site. Once that was done 11 recommend some conceptual designs for that site. This is just a map of 12 what the new routes were that were substantially based on the 13 recommendations by Parsons-Brinkerhoff. This is where we currently are 14 right now with the Amador ... at the Amador Hotel. This is our downtown 15 transfer area and the subject property would be just about right in here. 16 We have another transfer area over at Mesilla Valley Mall, and we have a 17 very minor transfer area up by Peter Piper Pizza at Venus and Northrise in 18 the system. 19 For the location study Nelson Nygaard looked at the proximity to 20 planned commercial and governmental cores, proximity to the major trip 21 generators. It was compatible with neighboring uses, access to major 22 arterials, and it was a potential enhancement for economic development in 23 the area. The site requirements, it could meet the facility needs. 24 Basically, it was very similar to the needs that were outlined in the 25 Parsons-Brinkerhoff plan: accommodates future growth, has the ability to 26 provide passenger amenities, and the efficiency or shape of the site was 27 looked at. For operational considerations, it would enable the 28 convergence of routes easily into one point and address the 29 implementation of the phase one which was the route plan. 30 For circulation criteria, they looked at safe and easy access to the 31 site, low potential for bus and auto conflicts, low potential for pedestrian 32 and bus conflicts, and they also looked to see if additional traffic control 33 would be needed if an intermodal center was located there. The cost and 34 ownership of criteria were also considered because it was a grant funded 35 project so we were limited on what we could do in the scope of a project. 36 Because the willingness of current owners to sell; the acquisition costs 37 and the site preparation costs. 38 Basically, Nelson Nygaard came down and said, "Well, there are 39 two areas that probably should have developed facilities," and they said 40 the downtown area, they defined the area, and then the area of the Mesilla 41 Valley Mall. And their recommendation was first to develop the downtown 42 area that's more in the center of town and the center of the operations; to 43 develop that one first with the project money that we had. They looked at, 44 1 forget, 15, 18 sites, somewhere in there and they ended up bringing to 45 City Council three of their top recommendations. The one 46 recommendation was subject site here at Alameda and Lohman, the next 30 AIR%& Aft I was using part of the County complex. At the time the County was trying 2 to sell the property where the courthouse is right now and we weren't 3 really interested in the courthouse itself, but more of the eastern side of 4 the property where the newer buildings were. There were issues with that 5 site in that there was a former gas station on the corner that was still 6 private property with an auto tinting place right now and it's actually an 7 environmental clean up site, so that was an issue in getting that site in 8 terms of the Federal funding because we couldn't use the Federal funding 9 to help mitigate that environmental cleanup that was going on at that site. 10 Also, there is the 911 MVRDA center that would've probably not been able 11 to be moved without extreme expense with that. So that would've have 12 had to stay where it was. And then the other one was what's commonly 13 called the Lohmador Center and I think it's been purchased now and 14 there's a charter school there, Las Montanas School, and that was a little 15 strip mall area in there and the big problem with that one in terms of what 16 Council was looking at is that the owner was basically willing to sell the 17 site and everything, but the cost would have pretty much used up all of the 18 grant money just to purchase the land. 19 So this is basically the site then that Council looked at they chose. 20 The advantages again: it's on a good east/west access although it has got 21 this one way stretch of Lohman in here, it is close to the Amador couplet, 22 too, so good east/west access and through there for our bus routes. It 23 complemented the service plan that they designed. The property was 24 owned by the state of New Mexico which would make the sale or the 25 transfer of the property much easier than in many ways from the private 26 sector. It was also essentially a vacant lot. These aren't buildings here, 27 these are just former foundations of buildings in that area. It's about three 28 blocks away from the planned redevelopment of the downtown area. 29 One of the issues was how buses would get in and out of traffic and 30 I'll show on the conceptual site plan how that would be, but it was brought 31 up in the study that there would probably have to be, and the Federal 32 funding, the fun part of this would have to redesign the light, the traffic light 33 system here so that there was some signal preemption capabilities for the 34 buses to get out easily out of that area. It is adjacent to the Alameda 35 Historic District and, in fact, I think the Historic District kind of cuts this fifth 36 ... actually it's more this little corner over here is in the Historic District, but 37 because of that we actually had to have all of the cultural studies ... we 38 had to have the State Historic Preservation Office sign off ... give us a 39 Finding of Effect so that we could continue with the project as well. 40 There was a public meeting on the 15 sites in the summer of 2005 41 and then July of 2005 Council selected this site at Alameda and Lohman 42 and we immediately began working to obligate that funding and get a 43 categorical exclusion which the Federal Transit Administration also 44 required on the site and we were able to do that. FDA requires that the 45 site had to be selected. We couldn't just say we want to build an 46 intermodal center somewhere. To obligate the funding we had to tell them 31 Aft I what site it was and about that site. We had to get approval by the New 2 Mexico Historic Preservation Department and we received the finding of 3 effect. Mr. White had talked about some of the tree barriers and 4 everything that had to be there. They actually brought that up because 5 that house ... the property to the south, I believe, was shortly afterwards 6 put on the Historic Register, if I recall, just shortly after we were doing this, 7 or as we were working on this it was put on the Historic Register. So 8 basically, they were talking about creating a buffer with trees there as well. 9 It couldn't be over two stories high and that was pretty much the 10 restrictions that the Historic Preservation Department gave us. We had to 11 demonstrate to FTA that it applied with the Transportation, the MPO's 12 Transportation Improvement Plan being included in that. We had to do 13 Environmental (inaudible) and Historical Impacts in our argument for 14 getting the categorical exclusion, traffic and noise analysis, and there was 15 a variety of other things in there. FTA did sign the categorical exclusion 16 and we were able to obligate the grant before it expired in September of 17 2005. 18 The final phase conceptual design was the third part of that study. 19 This is basically a view of the site plan of how they envisioned it. This is 20 Lohman coming along in here. It'll be a one-way street. It'll be Alameda 21 coming this way. They envisioned it having basically a bay that would be 22 out of the lane of traffic where some buses will come in here in addition to 23 another flow through for buses here closer to the building, plus there were 24 some bays over here. This would be for over the road type buses, 25 Greyhound type buses and everything in here and they would flow through 26 out this way, Alameda. I mentioned about the Signal Preemption Design 27 at the ... we needed to have a way because of the short distance to 28 Alameda especially to get buses heading north up Alameda and their 29 recommendation was to look at a signal preemption that basically it would 30 ... could be triggered mainly for these buses here on the ones closer to 31 the building, they would be the ones that would ... out of that queue of 32 buses, one of those would be going north on Alameda. It would come out 33 here and this would be where the signal preemption was triggered. It 34 would for about 10 seconds stop traffic in all directions so that it would be 35 clear for the buses to safely get through the intersection. Again, it shows 36 the barrier to the property to the south with trees. 37 It's a two-story building, roughly ... the footprint was 3,000 square 38 feet, I think, and then two stories so, if I recall, 6,000 to 8,000 feet. I don't 39 have those numbers right off the top of my head right now in the 40 conceptual design. A little bit of parking on the back side as well. These 41 are some of the elevational sketches that they did. This is the north 42 elevation just kind of showing how the two stories would look. South 43 elevation. And, Mr. White, you put these in their packet correct? Okay. 44 So you've seen these. East elevations and west elevations of the facility. 45 What's happening now: the property was owned by the New Mexico 46 Workers Comp Division. We recently purchased the land from them. It 32 I took quite an ordeal just to buy that land. Any state property that had to 2 be sold had to receive legislative approval so we went first for legislative 3 approval in 2006. It didn't get off the floor at that time as many things in 4 the New Mexico Legislature. It died along with everything else. Not that 5 there was serious opposition, it just was one of the many actions that 6 didn't get acted on. Then it came up again the next year. Both times it 7 was sponsored by Senator Papen. Then there was a legislative action 8 then to permit selling of the land. Then we had to work with the state land 9 office to purchase that and that was a lot of back and forth and it's a 10 difficult office to work with, but we finally got it done for just under 11 $400,000 just this past month we purchased the site. Now we're doing 12 this rezoning application. We're getting requests for proposal together for 13 the architectural design. It's going to go to the City's Selection Advisory 14 Committee at their October 2nd meeting, next week. And we're also 15 getting a few other of our ducks in a row to get that out to meet the 16 Federal requirements such as getting a disadvantage business enterprise 17 program put together as well. 18 19 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Bartholomew? Commissioner 20 Crane. 21 22 Crane: The plan of the building which I realize is conceptual seemed to show 23 about 20 parking spaces. It doesn't strike me as very many for employees 24 who are going to have to park somewhere and for people dropping off 25 people and waiting to see them go and people parking to wait for people 26 coming in. And I assume many long distance travelers are not going to be 27 allowed to park their cars there while they go out of town for several days. 28 29 Bartholomew: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Crane, that is a ... one of the concerns that's 30 with the over the road buses is that they do have people that park there, 31 for example, to go do business in Albuquerque and take the bus up to 32 Albuquerque, for example. So there is the parking over here. This 33 actually could also be parking but it was just left undeveloped at this time 34 with potential expansion for parking in this location. As far as for 35 employees, again being part of the Central Business District there would 36 be an expectation that they'd have to use some of the public parking areas 37 and you can probably use as an example of the Intermodal Center that 38 was developed in Albuquerque along the railroad tracks there right off of 39 Central. There is no parking for employees there. They have to actually 40 use the pay parking in the parking garages and everything across the 41 street for their Intermodal Center. 42 43 Crane: Thank you. 44 45 Scholz: Okay, any other questions? Commissioner Shipley. 46 33 I Shipley: When I looked at this site plan and I looked at the traffic pattern, of course 2 1 looked at the existing street structure and how it was laid out and it was 3 difficult for me to understand that the buses were going to have do a right 4 out and go south as opposed to going north and do around the block or 5 around a U-turn. Even the way it's laid out there you've got an area where 6 people are going to be pulling up on the right and it looks like your buses 7 are going to be turning in front of those folks and I think that you know that 8 from a safety perspective the left arrow as you come out onto Alameda at 9 the top up there, right up there. 10 11 Bartholomew: Okay, so where they're turning right here. 12 13 Shipley: No. You're going to have people ... the bus is going to be coming straight 14 out that entrance ... No. 15 16 Bartholomew: Right here. 17 18 Shipley: Yes, right there. 19 20 Bartholomew: Right. 21 22 Shipley: And then you're going to have to stop the traffic on the right hand two 23 lanes on the east side of Alameda so that the bus can go in front of them. 24 25 Bartholomew: Right. 26 27 Shipley: You're saying right there. 28 29 Bartholomew: Right. 30 31 Shipley: There's a clear zone there. 32 33 Bartholomew: Right. And that's where the discussion was, was looking at a signal 34 preemption system to get the buses out of there. 35 36 Shipley: The other thing was I wasn't sure from the site views and the elevation 37 how it's going to tie with the neighborhood. Is it possible, and I don't know 38 what the plans are for the new City Hall, when that's going to be exactly 39 completed and whether Community Development is going to move to the 40 new City Hall. We haven't been told that or at least I haven't been told 41 that. You know you have that property across the street which is in the 42 Central Business District. 43 44 Bartholomew: There over where the Community office area. 45 34 I Shipley: Community Development is now. And again we're looking at ... you're 2 saying a year and a half before it starts construction. And I was just 3 wondering is this the best site. I mean ... and again not having all this 4 history that you just gave us, this is the first time I've seen all of that 5 history, so it would've been nice to have that in the packet so I could've at 6 least had an idea of where we were today because everything that I did in 7 preparation for this has been you know, it's not applicable based upon all 8 the decisions that have been made in the past. 9 10 Bartholomew: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, the land over here, my 11 understanding is that the City wishes to, when they move to the new City 12 Hall building, wishes to sell that land and that wasn't basically raised as an 13 option for us to even look at that when we were doing our site selection 14 study. 15 16 Scholz: And I think that would probably cause more problems with traffic flow 17 since Lohman is a one way east bound. There would be a great deal of 18 difficulty getting people to the west. Right now they can get on, you know, 19 Alameda. Do you understand the principal of the ... what did you call it, 20 traffic ... 21 22 Shipley: Traffic interrupter. 23 24 Scholz: Traffic interrupter. 25 26 Shipley: Yeah, I understood it but it didn't ... it wasn't clear in the thing that I had to 27 read. I was looking at ... and I went to look at the intersection and was 28 trying to figure out how you're going to make a bus turn to cross four lanes 29 of traffic. 30 31 Scholz: Right. 32 33 Shipley: Because that's basically what you're doing. 34 35 Scholz: Sure. 36 37 Shipley: You know and so I mean it's looks better now that you've explained where 38 buses are going to be and those kinds of things, but it was difficult for me 39 to comprehend. Of course, the obvious thing for me when you say 40 intermodal is more than one mode of transportation. And rail is always ... 41 has been one that you know we think we need to look at from going to EI 42 Paso to Albuquerque ... eventually high speed rail up through that area 43 and would be, you know, again I recognize what's going on with the 44 Alameda District and the neighborhood and how they're going to object to 45 that, but that's all open through there and would be very applicable as 35 Aft 1 well. From a long-term standing that would be probably the best site to 2 have that. 3 4 Scholz: Well, as Mr. Bartholomew mentioned, the possibility of putting something 5 in the mall still exists. There are still areas out there. 6 7 Shipley: At the uh ... 8 9 Scholz: At the Mesilla Valley Mall. 10 11 Bartholomew: Well, eventually we're going to have to have more than one transfer 12 facility. But as far as connectivity with rail as Commissioner Shipley 13 mentioned, well, I would love to see rail here and everything too. I think 14 realistically it's going to be a long time before we have a regular public 15 transportation rail because of the astronomical costs of bringing it down 16 here. But we do feel that ... we are ... even with this particular site be in 17 close proximity and if that is able to get developed, a rail service, the few 18 times that a rail would come to Las Cruces it would certainly be easy to 19 create a little connector shuttle that would connect the depot to this facility. 20 21 Shipley: And that's a good plan. 22 23 Scholz: Okay, any other questions or comments? Commissioner Beard. 24 25 Beard: I don't object to the Intermodal Facility but it does look awful small. It 26 doesn't look like you can expand very much. I mean as the City expands 27 and the City's growing quite a bit. And that location just, it really does 28 bother me. It just looks like you're going to be interrupting traffic an awful 29 lot. It looks like it's not all that safe. Going around the block to go the 30 other direction doesn't bother me at all. Being right there on that corner, 31 that is a pretty busy corner right there. Traffic really moves when the 32 lights are green. So I really don't think it's the best location but I haven't 33 really studied for what is the best location. 34 35 Bartholomew: And Mr. Chair, Commissioner Beard, it certainly does have some 36 challenges with that site, I would have to admit, but it does meet a lot of 37 the other criteria with being easy access to a major east/west corridor for 38 transit service and everything and again, we're also very constrained by 39 what we can afford to build too and this was an opportunity to have a site 40 that would meet our needs and be potentially within a budget for us to 41 make reasonable building. 42 43 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 44 45 Crane: I realize that the Federal money will probably evaporate if we don't put it at 46 this site, but I'm beginning to think that if this City Office Center site 36 I becomes available that's got to be bigger and I think from the traffic view 2 point it's got to be easier for the buses to get out. While there may not be 3 an exit at present, one could be built to take buses north on Alameda and 4 give them plenty of time to wiggle over to make a left on Amador and go 5 west, plus they could get out and make a right onto Lohman and a fairly 6 good turn south onto Alameda. And it seems to me there must be more 7 space and you've got a building which, I imagine, could be converted, 8 though it's probably a moot point. 9 10 Scholz: Okay, any other questions or comments? Thank you very much for that 11 very enlightening view of your process and your plan. 12 13 Bartholomew: Thank you. 14 15 Scholz: Anyone from the public want to speak to this? Okay, we'll close it for 16 public discussion. Gentlemen, what's your pleasure? 17 18 Crane: Well, I suppose it must go forward so 1 guess we should vote to make the 19 zoning change which enables that to happen. 20 21 Scholz: Okay, if you make a motion here this is for ZCA-08-03 Area "D" only. 22 Okay, we're not correcting Areas "A", "B", or "C". 23 24 Shipley: One other question. 25 26 Scholz: Yes, Commissioner Shipley. 27 28 Shipley: On page three of the Staff report under Zoning Map Amendments, is there 29 a typo, is that supposed to be ordinance ... it says in the first sentence 30 Ordinance 1161, and then it says Ordinance 1611. Is that ... I assume 31 that's a typo but ... 32 33 Scholz: Mr. White, can you enlighten us. 34 35 White: Sure. 36 37 Shipley: Ordinance 1611 deleted. 38 39 White: Chair Scholz, Commissioner Shipley, that is a typo. I believe its 1161 and 40 1162. That's the way it should read. 41 42 Scholz: So on the second line it should be ordinance 1162? 43 44 White: That is correct. 45 37 1 Scholz: Thank you. We'll make that change. Okay, do I hear a motion to accept 2 ZCA-08-03 Area "D"? Commissioner Shipley. 3 4 Shipley: Before we go, I just turned the page and I had two more notes I wanted to 5 clarify. 6 7 Scholz: Okay. 8 9 Shipley: The other thing, Mr. Bartholomew, I wanted to say two things ... number 10 one, you have a great tie for a Transportation Planner and I thought that 11 was very appropriate. And I really like it. Number two is that I notice there 12 is no where on the site plan and again, I didn't have a real good clear site 13 plan before, if you can show me that again. Is there any place that has a 14 covered either canopy or whatever for like over the road buses when they 15 load ... sometimes when we have inclement weather and we get our nine 16 inches of rain every once in a while, is there any place for people ... you 17 know you've got handicapped people that are going to have to have 18 access and that and don't need to be drenched? And I guess that was the 19 other thing. I couldn't tell from this site plan if there was any cover or 20 everything was out in the wide open. 21 22 Bartholomew: Mr. Chair and Commissioner Shipley, I don't believe ... this is again only 23 a conceptual design and I don't believe it was showing a canopy of any 24 kind, but that's a good point that as we move forward with the formal 25 architectural design it might be something good to incorporate into the 26 plan. Of course, the Facility itself is going to have a lobby inside, outside 27 of the weather for passengers to wait and everything inside the facility. 28 29 Shipley: Yeah, but loading ... if you've got luggage and you're going on the 30 Greyhound, you know to get there you've got no place except standing 31 outside in the rain when you're getting on. 32 33 Bartholomew: And it may be just something as easy as putting a shelter like what we 34 have here, we're showing trees here and everything and here is putting a 35 shelter for them to wait under outside as well. But again, they're going to 36 be able to ... I understand what you're saying as far as a canopy from the 37 building to the ... 38 39 Shipley: It might only just cover the first portion of the bus where the entrance is. 40 41 Bartholomew: Right. 42 43 Shipley: You know and then they can back out or whatever and move out. 44 45 Scholz: Okay. All right. I'll entertain a motion for approval of ZCA-08-03 Area "D". 46 38 1 Shipley: So moved. 2 3 Scholz: Is there a second? 4 5 Evans: I second. 6 7 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. I'll call the role. Commissioner 8 Shipley. 9 10 Shipley: Aye, conditions discussion ... excuse me. Aye, with findings, discussion, 11 and site visit. 12 13 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 14 15 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 16 17 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 18 19 Evans: Aye, based on 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. So that's passed. 26 27 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS 28 29 Scholz: Ms. Rodriguez, other business. 30 31 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to let the Commissioners know, last week at 32 the work session I did inform everybody about the Commissioner training 33 at the NMAPA Conference. We were just notified today that that training 34 is going to be canceled and so they are going to reschedule it for another 35 time for a date to be determined. As soon we get specifics about that I will 36 notify you so that there will be an opportunity to attend the training session 37 at a later date. 38 39 Scholz: Thank you very much. 40 41 Crane: That was the one in Ruidoso? 42 43 Scholz: Yes. 44 45 Rodriguez: Yes, sir. 46 39 I Shipley: I heard the fellow broke his leg. 2 3 Rodriguez: That's what we hear. 4 5 Scholz: They'll probably have to shoot him then. That's too bad. 6 7 Shipley: Mr. Chairman. 8 9 Scholz: Yes. 10 11 Shipley: I have one other thing under other business I'd like to bring up if I might. 12 13 Scholz: Please. 14 15 Shipley: Since being on the Commission, since January, I've been asked by 16 several people about the policy of how do we do medians in the City of 17 Las Cruces. And so what I'd like to ask if we could get at some time in the 18 future as an agenda item is the Median Policy. In other words, for Las 19 Cruces. And what I'm basically looking for is regarding the ... when do we 20 finish medians, you know, we got some medians in the City that haven't 21 had any kind of landscaping or anything done to them for years and every 22 time it rains they wash out and down the streets and there are deposits of 23 debris. Standards for road construction, whose responsibility is it to finish 24 the medians, what are the time limits for medians., whether or not we 25 could get a monthly progress report on that. Secondly, is there a 26 moratorium ... could we request or require a moratorium on construction 27 for developers that don't comply and don't build the medians and withhold 28 permits for future development until they finish their project. Are there 29 realistic standards for design and maintenance of medians, such as 30 xeroscaping so we don't have to put trees in and lots of water? Can we 31 put in more appropriate plants that are here, cactus and things of that 32 nature? Can we use rock and designs and borders and things of that 33 nature to make things look attractive that require very little maintenance? 34 Can we have themes? In other words, can we take an area of the City 35 that we want to have and develop a theme and let the citizens participate 36 in doing that so that we create things that are very pleasing to our City and 37 make our City ... dress up our City and clean up our City. And I think that 38 you know it's something that I can't find anything in any of the literature 39 that I read and I'd like to know if Staff can help us do something to make 40 the City a little better. 41 42 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley. Wow! Those are a lot of questions 43 and concerns there, but Staff shares those concerns. It is my 44 understanding that the Facilities Department ... right now the Landscape 45 Architect, Kathy Matthews, is working on an Amendment to the City 46 Design Standards regarding landscaping requirements for both medians 40 AIRk I and parkways. I understand that about two weeks ago there was a public 2 meeting held in regards to that so what I will do is I will follow-up with 3 Kathy Matthews and report back to the Commission at your October 4 meeting. Right now current City policy does not require developers to 5 landscape medians. They are required to build the medians with the 6 development so the roads that traverse their property, but they are not 7 required to landscape the medians. Municipal Code also does not require 8 developers to landscape parkways that are adjacent. Landscaping 9 requirements are for the adjacent property owners, is how the current 10 Municipal Code reads. So those are items that I will pass along to Kathy 11 Matthews as part of her work with amending the Design Standards. But if 12 you could e-mail me that entire list of questions and let me see if I can 13 follow back up with you with a status report at our October meeting. 14 15 Shipley: Okay. I'd be happy to do that. 16 17 Scholz: I was also going to say, this might be a good topic for a work session. 18 You know, once we get some answers you know we can talk to Kathy or 19 Kathy can talk to us, tell us where we're going. 20 21 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I will definitely look into that. I don't anticipate having a 22 work session scheduled for October. There is a conflict with the meeting 23 room I believe that evening. So we will look at probably a work session in 24 November. 25 26 Scholz: Okay. 27 28 Rodriguez: Okay. 29 30 Scholz: Good. Thank you. And I see Mr. Schuster is anxious to get to the 31 microphone. Mr. Schuster, you have some other business for us. 32 33 Schuster: Yeah, Mr. Chair, just to follow-up on Cheryl's comment, the day that you 34 would have had your work session in October, there is scheduled an 35 Advisory Committee meeting for Vision 2040 and so I'd like to invite any 36 members of the Commission who may have that night free to attend that 37 meeting instead. 38 39 Scholz: Well I'm on the Advisory Committee so I'm sure I'll be there, yes. 40 41 IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 42 43 Scholz: Okay, any other public participation? 44 45 X. STAFF COMMENT 46 41 I Scholz: Staff announcements. 2 3 XI. ADJOURNMENT 7:38 4 5 Scholz: All right, we are adjourned at 7:38. Thank you very much gentlemen. 6 Thank you Staff. 7 8 9 10 11 ld I Aq (� 12 Chairperson 13 42