Loading...
05-22-2012 f City of las Cruces® P E O P L E N E L P I N O P E O P L E PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA The following agenda will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Las Cruces, New Mexico, at a public hearing held on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 beginning at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 700 N. Main Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. The City of Las Cruces does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, color, ancestry, serious medical condition, national origin, age, or disability in the provision of services. The City of Las Cruces will make reasonable accommodation for a qualified individual who wishes to attend this meeting. Please notify the City Community Development Department at least 48 hours before the meeting by calling 528-3043 (voice) or 1-800-659-8331 (TTY) if accommodation is necessary. This document can be made available in alternative formats by calling the same numbers listed above. I. CALL TO ORDER II. CONFLICT OF INTEREST At the opening of each meeting, the chairperson shall ask if any member on the Commission or City staff has any known conflict of interest with any item on the agenda. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. April 24, 2012 Regular Meeting IV. POSTPONEMENTS — NONE V. CONSENT AGENDA Those items on the consent agenda will be voted by one motion with the acceptance of the agenda. Any Planning and Zoning Commissioner, Staff or member of the public may remove an item from the consent agenda for discussion by the commission. 1. Case S-12-005: Application of Area 51, LLC for a preliminary plat known as Sonoma Ranch East 2 Phase 8A on a 5.549 ± acre tract located on the east side of Prado Del Sol Avenue, north of the future extension of Calle Jitas within the Sonoma Ranch East 2 master planned area; part of Parcel ID# 02-37615. Proposed Use: 22 single-family residential lots. Council District 6. 2. Case S-12-006: Application of Area 51, LLC for a preliminary plat known as Sonoma Ranch East 2 Phase 8B on a 7.189 ± acre tract located on the east side of Prado Del Sol Avenue, north of the future extension of Calle Jitas within Page 1 of 2 "s the Sonoma Ranch East 2 master planned area; part of Parcel ID# 02-37615. Proposed Use: 28 single-family residential lots. Council District 6. 3. Case S-12-007: Application of Area 51, LLC for a preliminary plat known as Sonoma Ranch East 2 Phase 9A on a 4.370 ± acre tract located on the east side of Prado Del Sol Avenue, north of the future extension of Calle Jitas within the Sonoma Ranch East 2 master planned area; part of Parcel ID# 02-37615. Proposed Use: 19 single-family residential lots. Council District 6. 4. Case S-12-008: Application of Area 51, LLC for a preliminary plat known as Sonoma Ranch East 2 Phase 9B on a 5.512 ± acre tract located on the east side of Prado Del Sol Avenue, north of the future extension of Calle Jitas within the Sonoma Ranch East 2 master planned area; part of Parcel ID# 02-37615. r Proposed Use: 23 single-family residential lots. Council District 6. 5. Case Z2852: Application of William J. Crawley to rezone from R-4 (Multi- Dwelling High Density & Limited Retail and Office) to C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) on a 0.20 ± acre lot located on the southwest corner of Oasis Avenue and Solano Drive within the North Mesquite Neighborhood Overlay; 1769 N. Solano Drive; Parcel ID# 02-04648. Proposed Use: Limited Commercial Uses; Council District 1. VI. OLD BUSINESS — NONE VII. NEW BUSINESS 1. Case CPB-12-01: A recommendation to City Council regarding the adoption of the EI Paseo Corridor Community Blueprint. Council Districts 2, 3, & 4. 2. Case Z2853: Application of Tom Whatley on behalf of Samra, LLC to rezone from O-2C (Office, Professional-Limited Retail Service-Conditional) to C-3C (Commercial High Intensity-Conditional) on a 1.56 ± acre lot located on the southeast corner of Lohman Avenue and Indian Hollow Road within the Lohman Avenue Overlay; 3830 E. Lohman Avenue; Parcel ID# 02-27849. Proposed Use: A 15,000 square foot retail store; Council District 6. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS — NONE IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION X. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS XI. ADJOURNMENT t Page 2 of 2 3z" City of Las Cruces 1 PEOPLE 0 E L P I N 8 PEOPLE 2 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 FOR THE 5 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 6 City Council Chambers 7 May 22, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. 8 9 10 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 11 Charles Scholz, Chairman 12 Godfrey Crane, Vice Chair 13 Charles Beard, Secretary 14 William Stowe, Member 15 Shawn Evans, Member 16 17 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 18 Donald Bustos, Member 19 Ray Shipley, Member 20 21 STAFF PRESENT: 22 Robert Kyle, Building and Development Administrator, CLC 23 Katherine Harrison-Rogers, Senior Planner, CLC 24 Adam Ochoa, Planner, CLC 25 Susana Montana, Planner, CLC 26 Paul Michaud, Senior Planner, CLC 27 Srijana Basnyat, Planner 28 Mark Dubbin, CLC Fire Department 29 Rusty Babington, CLC Legal Staff 30 Bonnie nnis, or ing ecretary, CLC 31 32 I. CALL TO ORDER (6:00 PM) 33 34 Scholz: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission 35 meeting for Tuesday, May 22"d, 2012. I'm Charles Scholz, the Chair. I'm 36 going to introduce the other members of our Commission and then we'll 37 proceed with a couple of announcements and then we'll go on to the 38 business. On my right is Commissioner Crane. He represents District 4. 39 Next to him is Commissioner Stowe who represents Council District 1. 40 Next to him is Commissioner Evans who represents Council District 5 and 41 1 am the Mayor's appointee to the Commission. We're expecting at least 1 1 one other member of the Commission. He has brake problems right now 2 so I don't know if he'll be here real fast or real slow but we'll find out. 3 4 II. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 5 6 Scholz: We always ask at the beginning or after we have called the meeting to 7 order for a conflict of interest. Gentlemen, after looking at the items on the 8 agenda today, any conflicts of interest? No? Staff, any conflicts of 9 interest? Okay. I assume there will be some from the audience but we'll 10 deal with those in a few minutes. 11 12 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 13 14 1. April 24, 2012 Regular Meeting 15 16 Scholz: Okay, the next item is the approval of the minutes. Gentlemen, any 17 additions or corrections to the minutes of April 24th? Okay, hearing none 18 I'll ask for an approval of the minutes. Someone's got to approve that. 19 20 Crane: So moved. 21 22 Scholz: So Crane moves and... 23 24 Evans and Stowe: Second. 25 26 Scholz: ... Evans seconds...well, actually it's a tie with Stowe. All right? All those 27 in favor say aye. 28 29 All: Aye. 30 31 Scholz: Those opposed same sign? And any abstentions? All right, the minutes 32 are passed as written 33 34 IV. POSTPONEMENTS — NONE 35 36 Scholz: All right, Mr. Ochoa, I see you are hiding out there. Are you going to lead 37 us off today? You don't know. Okay. What I wanted to ask Mr. Ochoa 38 was if there were any postponements. It says "None" on the agenda but 39 you always have the inside track there. 40 41 Ochoa: I apologize about that, sir. No, sir. No postponements tonight. 42 43 Scholz: No postponements. Okay. 44 45 V. CONSENT AGENDA 46 2 1 Scholz: The next item is the Consent Agenda and here's how the Consent Agenda 2 works: these would be voted on by one motion by the Commission but if 3 there's anyone on the Planning and Zoning Commission, a staff or a 4 member of the public that wants to remove an item from the Consent 5 Agenda then we'll make that the first item or the next item on the New 6 Business agenda. So, gentlemen, any concerns about the Consent 7 Agenda? Okay. I have one and that's the case number 5. That's 8 rezoning of a piece on the corner of Solano and Oasis. So I re-elect to 9 move that to that to the first item of New Business. 10 11 1. Case S-12-005: Application of Area 51, LLC for a preliminary plat known as 12 Sonoma Ranch East 2 Phase 8A on a 5.549 ± acre tract located on the east 13 side of Prado Del Sol Avenue, north of the future extension of Calle Jitas 14 within the Sonoma Ranch East 2 master planned area; part of Parcel ID# 02- 15 37615. Proposed Use: 22 single-family residential lots. Council District 6. 16 17 2. Case S-12-006: Application of Area 51, LLC for a preliminary plat known as 18 Sonoma Ranch East 2 Phase 8B on a 7.189 ± acre tract located on the east 19 side of Prado Del Sol Avenue, north of the future extension of Calle Jitas 20 within the Sonoma Ranch East 2 master planned area; part of Parcel ID# 02- 21 37615. Proposed Use: 28 single-family residential lots. Council District 6. 22 23 3. Case S-12-007: Application of Area 51, LLC for a preliminary plat known as 24 Sonoma Ranch East 2 Phase 9A on a 4.370 ± acre tract located on the east 25 side of Prado Del Sol Avenue, north of the future extension of Calle Jitas 26 within the Sonoma Ranch East 2 master planned area; part of Parcel ID# 02- 27 37615. Proposed Use: 19 single-family residential lots. Council District 6. 28 29 4. Case S-12-008: Application of Area 51, LLC for a preliminary plat known as 30 Sonoma Ranch East 2 Phase 9B on a 5.512 ± acre tract located on the east 31 side of Prado Del Sol Avenue, north of the future extension of Calle Jitas 32 within the Sonoma Ranch East 2 master planned area; part of Parcel ID# 02- 33 37615. Proposed Use: 23 single-family residential lots. Council District 6. 34 35 5. Case Z2852: Application of William J. Crawley to rezone from R-4 (Multi- 36 Dwelling High Density & Limited Retail and Office) to C-2 (Commercial 37 Medium Intensity) on a 0.20 ± acre lot located on the southwest corner of 38 Oasis Avenue and Solano Drive within the North Mesquite Neighborhood 39 Overlay; 1769 N. Solano Drive; Parcel ID# 02-04648. Proposed Use: Limited 40 Commercial Uses; Council District 1. (MOVED TO FIRST ITEM UNDER NEW 41 BUSINESS) 42 43 Scholz: Okay, is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to any of the 44 items on the Consent Agenda? Yes, ma'am? Okay. 45 46 P. Crawley: (Speaking from audience — inaudible) 47 3 1 Scholz: Pardon me? 2 3 P. Crawley: (Speaking from audience— inaudible) 4 5 Scholz: Okay, so you want to speak to that. All right. How about anyone who 6 wants to speak, well, let's see... the Sonoma Ranch issues? No one? 7 Okay, then they remain on the Consent Agenda then and I think that's it. 8 Okay, I'll entertain a motion to accept Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the Consent 9 Agenda. 10 11 Stowe: So moved. 12 13 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe moves. Is there a second? 14 15 Evans: I second. 16 17 Scholz: And Evans seconds. All those in favor say aye. 18 19 All: Aye. 20 21 Scholz: And those opposed same sign? All right, Items 1 through 4 on the 22 Consent Agenda are approved. 23 24 VI. OLD BUSINESS — NONE 25 26 Scholz: There's no Old Business, I assume, Mr. Ochoa? 27 28 Ochoa: No, sir. No old business. 29 30 VII. NEW BUSINESS 31 32 Scholz: Okay, fine. Our first item under New Business then is going to be case 33 Z2852 and you're going to present. I see we're having a problem with the 34 computer. 35 36 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, seeing that we have a problem with the computer right now 37 was it just a specific question that you had with staff or the property owner 38 about this or would you like a full presentation on that, sir? 39 40 Scholz: Well, actually, if the property owner is here, yes, I would like to question 41 him or her. 42 43 W. Crawley: Mr. Commissioner Scholz, this is William Crawley. 44 45 Scholz: Okay. My concern, sir, was with the neighborhood. Did you notify the 46 neighbors? Because I noticed there's a house right behind that property. 4 1 2 W. Crawley: Yes, sir. 3 4 Scholz: Was that person notified that you were planning to change the zoning? 5 6 W. Crawley: Yes, sir. 7 8 Scholz: And what was their response. 9 10 W. Crawley: There was no response. 11 12 Scholz: I'm sorry. 13 14 W. Crawley: It didn't seem to bother them. I mean, there's commercial on both sides of 15 them. 16 17 Scholz: Okay. All right, that was my concern. 18 19 W. Crawley: Their only concern was if they were going to get in and to the trash, which 20 we solved that in '08 with the fence. 21 22 Scholz: I was going to say this is a separate property, isn't it 23 24 W. Crawley: Yeah, it's a separate property and it's all fenced off, all four corners. 25 26 Scholz: All right, any questions for this gentleman? All right, thank you very much, 27 sir. Anyone from the public wish to speak to this? 28 29 P. Crawley: (Speaking from audience — inaudible) 30 31 Scholz: I'm sorry, you'll have to come up to the microphone to speak, ma'am, and 32 please identify yourself. 33 34 P. Crawley: I am Patricia Crawley. I am the beneficiary of that property. 35 36 Scholz: Oh, I see. Okay. 37 38 P. Crawley: I just wanted it noted. 39 40 Scholz: Right. 41 42 P. Crawley: Thank you very much. 43 44 Scholz: Okay, thank you very much. All right, anybody else from the public wishes 45 to speak to this? Okay, I am going to close it for public discussion. 5 1 Gentlemen, any concerns? All right, I'll entertain a motion to approve 2 case Z2852. 3 4 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve case Z2852. 5 6 Scholz: Is there a second? 7 8 Stowe: I second. 9 10 Scholz: Okay, Evans moves and Stowe seconds. I'll call the role. Commissioner 11 Crane? 12 13 Crane: Aye, findings and discussion. 14 15 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 16 17 Stowe: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 18 19 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 20 21 Evans: Aye, findings, discussion. 22 23 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion and site visit. 24 25 1. Case CPB-12-01: A recommendation to City Council regarding the adoption 26 of the EI Paseo Corridor Community Blueprint. Council Districts 2, 3, & 4. 27 28 Scholz: Okay, that brings us to our next piece of New Business, which is case 29 CPB-12-01: a recommendation to City Council regarding the adoption of 30 the EI Paseo Corridor Community Blueprint. And who's going to present 31 on this today? 32 33 Kyle: Mr. Chairman? 34 35 Scholz: Yes, Mr. Kyle. 36 37 Kyle: Staff has a presentation prepared for this, as well as the other cases on 38 the agenda. I don't know if the Commission would want to consider taking 39 a recess and see if we can get our technical issues resolved so that we 40 can actually present those; or would the Commission prefer we just move 41 forward with verbal presentation. 42 43 Scholz: Does anybody have any idea how long it will take to correct those? 44 45 Kyle: Not at the moment but they are working on them. 46 6 1 Scholz: Yes, we'll take a recess for...let's say, ten minutes and hope that 2 everything can be corrected in that time. Thank you. 3 4 (TEN MINUTE RECESS) 5 6 Scholz: We took a recess because of IT stuff but Mr. Michaud has told me that 7 he's going to present on the next item, which is a recommendation to the 8 City Council regarding the adoption of the EI Paseo Corridor Community 9 Blueprint. And since we've all seen that...I'm sorry, you probably haven't 10 but I know the Commission has seen it and discussed it so I think we'll 11 proceed on that. All right? 12 13 Michaud: Certainly. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning 14 Commission. Again, for the record, Paul Michaud, Senior Planner with the 15 City; I'll be tag-teaming this presentation with Srijana Basnyat, who is the 16 Planner with the City. We had a work session with this on this; I believe it 17 was on April 17tH 18 19 Scholz: Yes. 20 21 Michaud: This is the EI Paseo Corridor Planning Blueprint. The Blueprints are part 22 of our Comprehensive Plan and if you recall, about a year-or-less ago we 23 adopted the Blueprint Process, which is a shorter-term process, 24 something a little less than an Area Plan, but it is part of our 25 Comprehensive Plan Process and a Long Range Plan. Looking at some 26 of the purposes of that Plan, part of it is to achieve Goals and Objectives 27 of our Comprehensive Plan and Transport 2040 and is also to look at and 28 consider needs and challenges and opportunities in various areas of the 29 city. 30 In this particular case the EI Paseo Corridor was chosen because 31 there's already some initial work that was being done on visioning and 32 some of the grant money and other projects that we were doing in that 33 Corridor. We did receive in 2009 a grant from EPA and that whole grant 34 was for Picturing EI Paseo, which was the tag line for that project and the 35 whole original point of that project was to look at public participation 36 toolkit, various ways that we can engage the public and that was the 37 original intent of that project. It expanded in scope when we received 38 some additional grant funding from the Housing Urban Development 39 Department to look at housing choices in the EI Paseo Corridor area, as 40 well as the Department of Transportation to look at some of the road 41 safety issues on the EI Paseo road itself. 42 The Blueprint itself covers pretty much the boundaries from Main 43 Street over to Espina up to the Main Street down to University. EI Paseo, 44 as you know, is a major corridor, an important link corridor, between the 45 things that are going Downtown here, as well as the University Corridor 46 itself, some of the aspects or characteristics of EI Paseo, the road itself 7 1 and the uses around it. It does provide a large mix of uses, both 2 residential, commercial. It does have some various characteristics for a 3 diverse population. For example, there's a high commercial vacancy rate 4 in that area. There's a large number of people, proportionately compared 5 to the city, below the mean household income. Las Cruces High School is 6 there on the southern portion near University Avenue and there's a lot of 7 auto-oriented businesses, of course, mainly due to when those 8 businesses were constructed. 9 Some of the components that came out of that particular process 10 were a Vision Statement through visioning workshops, the Road Safety 11 Assessment, which is why you are seeing some of the roadwork that's 12 going on there today, and a Brownfield's Assessment. The timeline, as I 13 mentioned before, we started the Picturing EI Paseo Project. During that 14 period, and it was from 2010 to 2011, the Blueprint Initiative, which 15 created the Blueprint process happened in June of 2011. From that 16 sprungboard (sic) the Community Blueprint for EI Paseo itself and we held 17 Stakeholder meetings back in November of 2011 and then had the first 18 draft of the Blueprint itself out in March of 2012. Your work session was 19 held on the 17th and then the Planning and Zoning meeting tonight, which 20 you'll make recommendation. If the recommendation moves forward we 21 tentatively have this going to Council for the June 18th meeting. With that, 22 Srijana Basnyat will give you more of the details of the Plan itself... and it 23 looks like we are sort of working here (computer working again) With that I 24 will let Srijana take over. 25 26 Scholz: Okay, we have video. Is this going out or are we just getting it on our 27 screens here? 28 29 Michaud: It should be up. It's up on our side. Yeah. 30 31 Scholz: Okay. 32 33 Basnyat: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. As you are already familiar 34 with the Blueprint I'll just very briefly go over the outline of the document 35 and a little bit into the heart of the document, which is the Issues, Goals 36 and Actions. 37 The document is divided into seven sections: Background 38 information and maps, Issues, Goals, a list of recommended Actions, 39 we've made some References, Related Plans and Policies, a Graphics 40 page showing pictures and sketches from Picturing El Paseo and a 41 Glossary for definitions with some website references for further 42 information. 43 The purpose of the Blueprint is to act as a brief Policy Plan to guide 44 future projects and planning endeavors in the area. The proposed 45 planning area, as Paul already mentioned, is roughly bounded by the 46 Central Business District and the South Mesquite Overlay to the north, the 8 1 University District to the South, Main to the west and then the eastern 2 boundary is one parcel width east of Espina. 3 The most prominent issues that came up during the public input 4 process had to do with the road conditions and the design of the road 5 itself. EI Paseo is one of the most dangerous corridors in the city. The 6 Corridor is not designed for pedestrians or bicyclists. The Road Safety 7 Assessment identified some issues and made some recommendations, 8 including limiting the number of commercial driveways and median 9 crossovers. Other issues that were identified by the public were related 10 to the built environment, the overall lack of aesthetic appeal, lack of trees, 11 views of parking lots, unappealing architecture, etc. There was also some 12 discussion on the desire for more flexibility in land use to make it more 13 adaptable due to when needed and economic changing conditions. 14 Despite all the issues and, in some cases because of them, there 15 are several Opportunities that either presented themselves or that were 16 identified during the public input process, which are: expanding or 17 supplementing transit, making improvements for cyclists and pedestrians, 18 looking at EI Paseo as a destination creating a unique environment or 19 meaningful civic spaces, expanding the housing stock allowing for higher 20 densities to support transit and affordable housing. And last but not least, 21 the EI Paseo area provides a great opportunity to plan for and invest in 22 healthy community design: trees, green infrastructure, community gardens 23 and just making the area more walkable. 24 So then the issues informed the Goals and I need to point out at 25 this point there is a numbering error on page 4 of the Blueprint. The 26 second number 3 should be a number 4. There are still six Goals in total. 27 The Goals section is followed by a set of recommended Actions that are 28 supportive of the Goals and identify ways to implement them; for example, 29 Goal 1 states "Redevelop EI Paseo Road as a safer and more user- 30 friendly corridor," which is achievable through Actions such as "Design EI 31 Paseo Road as a Complete Street" or "Implement appropriate RSA 32 recommendations," "Incorporate the Institute for Transportation Engineers' 33 Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares" and the recommended 34 practices within it. 35 Then we have the Related Plans and Policies. The Blueprint is 36 supported by other policy documents. And then I believe Paul mentioned 37 we did email out the draft on March 14th to a hundred or so members of 38 the public, mostly those who had been involved in the public input 39 process. The email responses were supportive of the Blueprint, with the 40 exception of one. The revised draft was again mailed out to the same list 41 of people and there has not been any negative response. We did receive 42 one editing comment on an Action statement on page 4: a suggestion to 43 expand RSA to "Road Safety Assessment," which we'll go ahead and do 44 for the final version that goes to City Council. 45 Then there are some revisions. Staff did modify the document 46 based on the input received at the Planning and Zoning Commission work 9 1 session in April. On page 3 we've identified expanses of parking viewed 2 from the Corridor as an Issue, which was brought up during the public 3 process as well; and then on page 5 articulated the role and limitations of 4 the Blueprint as a Policy Plan and also identified the next steps in the 5 planning process. We've also added a definition for Green infrastructure 6 in the glossary. The definition was taken from the recently adopted 7 Regional Plan, One Valley One Vision: 2040. 8 And then we have the Findings. The findings are that the EI Paseo 9 Corridor Community Blueprint is in conformance with the City's 10 Comprehensive Plan, the Community Planning Blueprint Initiative and the 11 City's Strategic Plan. 12 Staff recommendation for this meeting is for the Commission to 13 recommend to the City Council the adoption of the EI Paseo Corridor 14 Community Blueprint. The Options are to: recommend adoption of the 15 proposed Blueprint; recommend adoption of the proposed Blueprint with 16 modifications; recommend denial of the proposed Blueprint, or; postpone 17 action and direct staff accordingly. With that, I end my presentation and 18 am standing by for any questions. 19 20 Scholz: All right, any questions for this woman? Okay. Thank you very much. 21 Anyone from the public wish to speak to this issue? Okay, sir, you are 22 rising to the occasion. Will you come up and identify yourself, please? 23 24 Cervantes: I am Renaldo Cervantes and I have some property right there on EI 25 Paseo. You might be familiar with it right there behind the Wells Fargo 26 Bank. 27 28 Scholz: Okay. 29 30 Cervantes: And I come before you to speak on the Blueprint and the process that has 31 been taking place. The EI Paseo Corridor connection between Downtown 32 and the University is certainly worthy of a major planning effort. I have 33 attended the sessions that have been presented by your staff and I have 34 found them very interesting. I have enjoyed them and happy to 35 participate. 36 But it seems to me that at this point a more serious effort from the 37 Planning should be taken up. Even if we wanted to, those of us in the 38 public do not have the information to engage in a Plan of this type. It 39 takes somebody from staff, somebody that knows where the infrastructure 40 and understands the traffic. There's a lot of work to be done yet before 41 this thing is advanced to another stage: the traffic counts have to be taken 42 and presented, widening of the street has to be considered, how much 43 property is going to be taken up by the Corridor. There is a canal there 44 and I don't know if anybody has mentioned that but there's a canal there 45 that needs to be considered. I don't know what they're going to do with 46 that. 10 1 The intersection between the Corridor and University is going to be 2 a major issue and a lot of consideration has to be given to that. That 3 intersection right now is already been taken: three of the corners have 4 already been taken by building the Convention Center and then the 5 development of the bank on the northeast corner and then there's a Glen 6 store there. So the only corner that's available right now for any kind of 7 planning will be the corner on the southeast of the intersection. I don't 8 know if anybody has looked into that in detail but I think it certainly has to 9 be done. 10 In that regard, you know I have offered a connection between 11 Espina and the Corridor. There isn't a cross-connection from University all 12 the way down to Frenger. There isn't a connection from University to 13 Frenger, I think, is the street, and I have offered that consideration be 14 given to a connecting street. And the plan that I have developed or 15 proposed would accommodate such a street and I have offered it to staff 16 for their consideration and I certainly wish that it was considered. 17 And possibly, in conclusion I think that the approach that I would 18 like to see taken is whereby the staff, instead of coming to the public and 19 asking us to design or do that...take into consideration of those things that 20 we want. It seems to me more appropriate that the staff should develop a 21 Plan with the detail that they have at their disposal, which is the traffic 22 infrastructures, widening, connecting streets, intersections; that they 23 develop the Plan and then bring it to the public for us to review and to 24 comment. We are not planners and we cannot actually design a master 25 plan of that magnitude. We know what we want: we want trees and 26 marked paths and all the nicest outdoor eating facilities and all that. But I 27 think that a planner has to be the one that develops the Plan and then 28 bring it to the public for their input and consideration. 29 And, of course, there is always the issue, I think, that was 30 mentioned: the issue of how is this going to be paid for and a time frame. 31 1 haven't heard a time frame or where the money's going to come from. 1 32 am in the process of developing my property and I certainly have an 33 interest in understanding or at least getting an idea about the time frame 34 of when any of this is going to be taken up and whether any of my 35 property is going to be used or taken up. And certainly we have to look at 36 the costs that are going to be involved and maybe start looking towards 37 our Legislators and seeing if there's funding available for a project of this 38 magnitude. 39 40 Scholz: Okay. 41 42 Cervantes: Thank you. 43 44 Scholz: Any questions for this gentleman? Sir? Questions from the Commission? 45 No? Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else from the public wish to 46 speak to this? Mr. Michaud, some of these questions were asked at the 11 1 last meeting, as I recall. I don't know if you were here. (To Ms. Basnyat) 2 know you were here. Do you recall how we dealt with them? Because I 3 know the question of the cost came up and also the question of the time 4 table. Would you care to speak to that? 5 6 Basnyat: Mr. Chair, the reason why costs and time frames are not included in the 7 Blueprint, is not because they were not considered but because at this 8 stage we are simply presenting a Policy Plan. We don't necessarily have 9 the resources, or at least we don't have the framework to begin a major 10 redevelopment plan for the Corridor. But that would be part of the next 11 steps and so, if you notice in the last section of the Blueprint we do talk 12 about coordination between Public Works and the Finance Department 13 and researching funding. So that would come at a later stage but that 14 would be the logical next step. 15 16 Scholz: Okay. So what we're talking about here is the approval of Policy rather 17 than the approval of a specific Plan? 18 19 Basnyat: That is correct. 20 21 Scholz: Okay, thank you. Any other comments, gentlemen? I will close this to 22 public discussion. I will entertain a motion to approve. 23 24 Crane: So moved. 25 26 Scholz: Okay, Crane moves. 27 28 Evans: Second. 29 30 Scholz: And Evans seconds. All right, I'll call the role. Commissioner Crane. 31 32 Crane: Aye, findings and discussion. 33 34 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 35 36 Stowe: Aye, findings and discussion. 37 38 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 39 40 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 41 42 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 43 44 Beard: Aye, findings and discussions. 45 46 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings and discussion. All right. 47 12 1 2. Case Z2853: Application of Tom Whatley on behalf of Samra, LLC to rezone 2 from O-2C (Office, Professional-Limited Retail Service-Conditional) to C-3C 3 (Commercial High Intensity-Conditional) on a 1.56 t acre lot located on the 4 southeast corner of Lohman Avenue and Indian Hollow Road within the 5 Lohman Avenue Overlay; 3830 E. Lohman Avenue; Parcel ID# 02-27849. 6 Proposed Use: A 15,000 square foot retail store; Council District 6. 7 8 Scholz: Okay, our next case, then is case Z2853 and Mr. Ochoa, you're up. 9 10 Ochoa: For the record: Adam Ochoa, Development Services. Our final case 11 tonight, gentlemen, is case Z2853. It is a request for a zone change from 12 O-2C, which is Office, Professional and Limited Retail Service-Conditional, 13 to C-3C, which is Commercial High Intensity-Conditional. 14 The subject property located south of Lohman Avenue, here where 15 my cursor is, on the corner of Indian Hollow and Lohman Avenue. As you 16 can see here and just to give you an idea where it's at: to the east is 17 Roadrunner Parkway and to the northwest there we have the Dam. As I 18 said, it is located in the southeast corner of Lohman Avenue and Indian 19 Hollow Roadway. Currently the subject property is zoned O-2C and 20 encompasses approximately 1.56 acres and is currently undeveloped or 21 vacant. The subject property is also located within the Lohman Avenue 22 Overlay. The proposed C-3C or Commercial High intensity-Conditional 23 proposed zoning on the subject property will facilitate the use of the 24 property for a new retail store, which is kind of in the works right now by 25 the applicant to be brought to fruition. The subject property is located on 26 Lohman Avenue, which is designated as a Principal Arterial roadway by 27 the MPO or the Metropolitan Planning Organization here at the City. 28 Just to give you a little bit more background than what the staff 29 report goes into on the property; it was initially zoned 0-1C, which is 30 Office from the 1981 Zoning Code. This was done around the time when 31 the Lohman Avenue extension occurred. This zone change was highly 32 contentious with the area and a number of conditions were placed on that 33 zoning designation. Later, in 2002 another zone change came up for the 34 subject property from 0-11C, Office, from the 1981 Zoning Code to O-2C, 35 the current zoning designation of Office, Professional and Limited Retail 36 Service-Conditional, from the 2001 Zoning Code. This zoning change was 37 essentially done to bring the property into compliance with the 2001 38 Zoning Code. Staff at the time knowing that the previous zoning changes 39 were so highly contentious kept the conditions from the original zone 40 change for this zoning designation of O-2C. To go a little deeper into 41 some of the history on the property, in 2005 there actually was a previous 42 attempt to do a zone change on the subject property from its current O-2C 43 designation to a C-3C, Commercial High Intensity-Conditional zoning 44 designation that is being requested as of now. The zone change request 45 was actually recommended for approved by the Planning and Zoning 13 1 Commission and later denied by the City Council at a City Council 2 meeting. 3 To kind of keep within what was previously approved with 4 conditions the applicant is proposing to keep a majority of the conditions 5 on the property minus one. There is a current condition on the property 6 limiting the maximum height of any proposed building on the property to 7 25 feet. The applicant is proposing to raise that elevation to 30 feet so as 8 to screen or shield for the purpose of screening any type of accessory 9 utility units or air conditioning units and so forth on the roof of the new 10 building that will be built for the retail store. This is actually a requirement 11 of the Lohman Avenue Overlay requiring of the shielding of these types of 12 accessory utility units on the roof. 13 Adding to that staff is recommending additional conditions for the 14 proposed zone change. We are continuing the requirement of limiting the 15 maximum building height on the subject property. Currently the C-3 16 zoning designation allows up to a 65-foot building in height. We are 17 restricting that to 30 feet and restricting it to a maximum of one story in 18 height. We are also bringing from the previous zone change a condition 19 requiring a 30-foot wide landscape buffer to be provided along the 20 southern boundary of the subject property. We are also bringing along a 21 prohibition of any temporary uses on the subject property except for a 22 temporary construction yard, of course, when construction of the building 23 is taking place on the property. 24 Some newer conditions we are placing on this proposed zone 25 change is that the permitted uses on the subject property shall be limited a 26 kind of general retail uses of the C-3 Zoning District, which are in 27 attachments to your packets. You can see the general, more retail-related 28 specialty shops type of thing, retail-based and keeping away from the 29 service-based and a little more, I guess, intensity-type of uses on the 30 property. 31 With this zone change request staff is also requiring that the 32 applicant dedicate his or her section of the property that makes up Indian 33 Hollow. That section of Indian Hollow, which I will show on the next map, 34 is actually part of the subject property and not public right-of-way. We will 35 require that be dedicated to the City. Along with that they will also be 36 required to provide any improvements at Indian Hollow Road, including 37 curb, gutter and sidewalk at the time of development of the new property. 38 We continue to the aerial here. Here is the vacant, subject property 39 we are speaking about now. This is the section of Indian Hollow that is 40 not dedicated to the City, which would be required, and where those 41 improvements will be required; and the southern property line where the 42 30-foot landscape buffer would be required with the development of the 43 property. 44 Here's kind of a proposed site plan of what the applicant is 45 proposing, showing roughly, a little under 14,000 square foot building with 46 the designated parking and the 30-foot landscape buffer the rear of the 14 1 property. Again, this is just a proposed, conceptual plan. Anything that 2 they build on the property would have to follow not only the 2001 Zoning 3 Code Requirements as well as conditions placed on the property, but also 4 the Lohman Avenue Overlay as well. 5 With that, staff recommends that this proposed zone change be 6 recommended for approval with conditions for the proposed zone change 7 based on the findings outlined in the staff report. The conditions are: 1) 8 again, the building height shall be limited to 30 feet and restricted to a 9 maximum of one story; 2) a 30-foot wide landscape buffer shall be 10 provided along the southern boundary of the subject property; 3) the 11 subject property shall be prohibited from any temporary uses except for a 12 temporary construction yard; 4) permitted uses on the subject property 13 shall be limited to those general retail uses outlined in Attachment #4 of 14 the staff report; 5) the applicant shall be required to dedicate that section 15 of Indian Hollow that is located on their property, and; 6) the applicant 16 shall be required to provide any and all improvements to Indian Hollow, 17 including curb, gutter and sidewalk at the time of development of the 18 property. 19 With that, gentlemen, your options tonight for case Z2853 are: 1) to 20 vote "yes" to approve the request as recommended by staff; 2) to vote 21 "yes" to approve the request with additional or modified conditions; 3) to 22 vote "no" and recommend denial for the proposed zone change, and; 4) to 23 table/postpone the proposed zone change and direct staff accordingly. 24 You have been handed an email, I believe, and a formal letter from 25 a neighborhood association relatively close to the subject property in 26 protest to the proposed zone change. As well, our staff has received a 27 number of phone calls against the proposed zone change. With that, the 28 applicant is here for any questions you might have of him and staff stands 29 for questions as well. 30 31 Scholz: Okay, questions for this gentleman? I just have one, Mr. Ochoa, and that 32 is...would you go back to the close up of the site plan? Yeah, there it is. 33 Are we thinking that there is going to be an exit or an entrance off of 34 Indian Hollow, as well as one off of Lohman or is this just a speculative 35 plan? 36 37 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, when this was given to me it was just a speculative plan as 38 of now. That would be taken care of during the construction phase. As 39 you can see under the staff report as well the Traffic Engineer did require 40 that a Traffic Impact Analysis be required at the time of construction or 41 development of the property. So at that time, I assume, is when they 42 would decide on where accesses would be granted to this property. 43 44 Scholz: Okay. Any other questions? May we hear from the applicant, please? 45 46 Watley: Tom Watley with Steinborn. For full disclosure I do represent the current 47 landowner and the potential buyer of this. I was surprised. We've been 15 1 on about a two-year project with these people that are from Colorado that 2 building stores across the Southwest and we've done many site surveys 3 and we've looked at Lohman Avenue. Lohman Avenue is always what 4 they've come back to: being at the way corner you have Walgreen's and 5 it's just progressing that Lohman has become a very popular retail 6 corridor. So when we decided to move forward with the possible purchase 7 of this corner we were all quite surprised that it was an 0-2 zoning, 8 considering that everything else along that corridor on both sides of the 9 street and all the way behind Foothills is all C-3. 10 1 am fully aware of the 2002 Ordinance. I am also aware of the 11 2005 and at that time it was very contentious and a lot of objections but I 12 think a lot of it had to do with the developer at the time and what was 13 going on with him. This site is a retail site, I mean, the corner of it what it's 14 designed. 0-2 zoning does allow high traffic areas. If you look at it you 15 can go back and build medical facilities, which are...you know, you could 16 do in-and-out for patient or home healthcare. There is still that possibility 17 of having high traffic. 18 When we looked at it, the site proposal, that you saw is just a 19 concept. We have lived with the 30-foot buffer, we've asked for the 20 increase in height from 25 feet to 30; but really the only purpose of that 21 was to hide the HVAC, because that's part of the Lohman Avenue 22 Corridor Plan of Lohman so we really haven't changed all that. And also 23 when you look at the buffer, and we've got some questions on the 24 property lines itself from the ALTA survey that buffer may be even more 25 than 30 by the time we get done; it may be almost closer to 40. The 26 building height, 30-foot is just to hide the HVAC. It's not going to build a 27 30-foot building. It'll have parapets on it. We think this is a good design. 28 We still have a lot of work to do with staff and we're hoping that 29 staff...staff has been helpful in helping us with this. I do have somebody 30 here from Colorado that is with the developer that if she would like to...her 31 name is Monee Ragsdale; if she wants to tell a little bit about the 32 company. It's still kind of a hush-hush but that's her option so I will stand 33 for questions for now. 34 35 Scholz: Okay, questions for this gentleman? I have just one and that is: this lot is 36 the only that is 0-2 right now in a line of C-3s... 37 38 Watley: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and it is the corner lot which it's...you know, the 39 interesting thing, if you go up there, and I'm sure you've done your site 40 checks, that lot has been just deteriorating now for ten years. The water 41 comes down and crosses Indian Hollow, I mean, it's just a big open area 42 and if you go one lot over that's still a vacant lot that's owned by Dr. 43 Hesser and then you have Millennium Chiropractic so it just kind of stair- 44 steps. So it's kind of a low point...and then right there across Indian 45 Hollow you have Compass Bank, Keller Williams, another realtor and then 46 at Foothills that corner, which is also 0-2, which I find kind of intriguing, 16 1 US Bank is going to be building and I think they've already put their 2 construction trailer out there. They're going to be building a new bank 3 branch. So it's just part of the retail traffic going up Lohman. 4 5 Scholz: Okay. No questions for this gentleman? Okay. We'll open this to public 6 discussion. Now I understand from the letter I got, it says, "We request 7 that our spokesman, Board Member Rob Wood be placed on the agenda." 8 Is Rob Wood here? There you are, Mr. Wood? Are you going to speak 9 for the whole group? 10 11 (Mr. Wood speaking from audience— inaudible) 12 13 Scholz: Okay, well, if there are other people who want to speak then we're going 14 to limit the time. Okay? And what we usually do is limit everybody to 15 three minutes. Okay? So can you do three minutes? 16 17 (Mr. Wood speaking from audience— inaudible) 18 19 Scholz: Well, hold on then. How many others want to speak? 20 21 (Mr. Wood speaking from audience— inaudible) 22 23 Scholz: Okay, and you, ma'am? 24 25 (Woman speaking from audience— inaudible) 26 27 Scholz: Okay, fine. I'll include you. Yeah. Thank you. Anybody else want to 28 speak to this? Yes. Okay. There's a fourth person. I'll give you your five 29 and then I'm going to limit the other people to three. 30 31 Wood: Thank you very much. 32 33 Scholz: Okay, go ahead. 34 35 Wood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. My 36 name is Robert Wood. I am a resident of the Northeast Foothills 37 Neighborhood. There used to be a television show on a long time ago 38 called Dragnet and Sergeant Friday used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am. 39 Just the facts," and that's what I'm going to give you today is just the facts, 40 not a pie-in-the-sky plan or what somebody proposes they're going to 41 build there. 42 The Northeast Foothills Neighborhood Association Board 43 unanimously opposes case Z2853, which proposes to change the zoning 44 of 3830 East Lohman Avenue, located at the corner of Lohman and Indian 45 Hollow from 0-2C to C-3C. That location is directly adjacent to a 46 residential area and is inappropriate for a Commercial High Intensity 17 1 designation. The Northeast Foothills Neighborhood consists of about a 2 hundred single-family homes on Indian Hollow, Chimney Rock Road and 3 Squaw Mountain Drive. The neighborhood begins about 175-feet from the 4 subject property. The report by the City staff does not acknowledge the 5 existence of these single-family homes, which are the very reason buffer 6 zoning was established for the subject property. The Lohman Avenue 7 Overlay Code, which was designed over a decade ago, outlined urban 8 design criteria for this important city gateway. 9 The current zone of O-2C is consistent with the spirit and intent of 10 the LAO Code. Application to change the zoning to C-3C is not. The 11 recent construction of medical offices across Lohman from the subject 12 property in a district near a hospital demonstrates that there is still a 13 market for offices, so market conditions continue to make the existing 14 zoning viable. A high amount of traffic already exists in the area. Indian 15 Hollow Road is the main access road for residents in the Foothills 16 Subdivision. Many non-residents use Indian Hollow and Chimney Rock as 17 a shortcut to and from Missouri to avoid traffic on Telshor. 18 The proposed zoning indicates that and additional seven hundred- 19 fifty trips will be added to the already high traffic count. The City's report 20 inaccurately states that no on-street parking is permitted on Indian Hollow. 21 In reality, parking is allowed on both sides of Indian Hollow in the subject 22 area. The high level of existing traffic near the property in question is a 23 safety concern to the residents in the Foothills Subdivision. Since June of 24 2010 a total of fourteen traffic accidents have documented in the area; 25 eleven occurring at the intersection of Lohman and Indian Hollow, 26 precisely where the property in question is located and the remainder 27 occurring at streets that intersect Indian Hollow within two blocks from that 28 location. One of the accidents at Lohman and Indian Hollow resulted in 29 the death of an off-duty police officer. Residents of Northeast Foothills are 30 already at risk and the proposed rezoning will increase that risk. 31 Recognizing the problems traffic represents to our area, Foothill 32 residents have worked to improve the safety conditions of the Subdivision. 33. In the last twelve months the residents have removed trees on their 34 property that impeded visibility and have worked with the City to introduce 35 traffic-calming devices, such as street paint and property signs that 36 indicate the speed limit, in addition to the speed bumps that exist on 37 Chimney Rock. 38 A change in the zoning of the property in question would reverse 39 the effects of these efforts and introduce new and increased set of traffic 40 issues. The proximity of the property in question to a school bus stop is 41 about a half-block distance poses an additional safety concern. The light 42 and noise pollution that would be introduced into the residential areas as a 43 result of the proposed rezoning are equally troublesome. Both light and 44 noise pollution can distract drivers, disrupt sleep patterns and affect the 45 overall health and well-being of area residents. Regarding noise pollution 46 in particular, the World Health Organization links exposure to excessive 18 1 noise with numerous health risks, such as stress, hypertension and 2 cardio-vascular issues. They note that children are particularly 3 susceptible to the physiological and cognitive effect of noise pollution. 4 The Las Cruces Development Code indicates that 0-2C zoning 5 serves as a transition between commercial and residential uses. The 6 current 0-2C zoning is consistent with the purpose of that Code; while the 7 application to change the zoning to C-3C is not. The Las Cruces 8 Development Code further indicates that 0-2C zoning includes business, 9 personal and professional services that can function without generating 10 large volumes of vehicular traffic. Development of the property with the 11 current 0-2C zoning would noticeably increase traffic along both Lohman 12 and Indian Hollow; however, development of the property under a C-3C 13 zoning would generate and excessive increase in traffic, it would 14 negatively impact both the residential neighborhoods that border the 15 property in question, as well as others whose principal access is gained 16 via Indian Hollow. 17 Because of the concerns for the safety, health and welfare of the 18 Foothills Subdivision and for our interest in preserving the character of the 19 area all of which would be directly and adversely affected by a zoning 20 change we request that the application of zoning from 0-2C to 0-3C be 21 denied and that the current zoning designation be retained. I see no 22 reason to allow a decision in favor of the rezoning to go on to City Council 23 from this point for them to waste their time in making their decision on 24 what has already been denied. Thank you and I hope your decision will 25 be made in favor of the residential residents. 26 27 Scholz: All right, questions for this gentleman? Commissioner Crane. 28 29 Crane: It seems to me that the majority of the objections are based on expected 30 traffic changes. Am I right? The street traffic? 31 32 Wood: That's part of it. The main objection is the fact that you're changing the 33 zoning of this piece of property that was zoned as an entrance to a 34 residential area. So the traffic pattern is that, from your traffic studies, 35 which the City will have to do; if that's a result of that then, yes, then that is 36 part of our issue. 37 38 Crane: I'm thinking of the impact of a single retail store on a C-3C, such as we've 39 seen planned versus 0-2C, which could have, I imagine on a lot that size 40 several offices, which could have at some time of the day more traffic than 41 a retail location. I'm wondering how firm your concern is that you're going 42 to have a much more impact of traffic in a C-3C situation than an 0-3C. 43 44 Wood: Mr. Commissioner, from Mr. Watley's presentation he said, that I've read, 45 that there will potentially be fifty employees working at the retail store that 46 will be located there and there will be seven hundred-fifty cars a day 19 1 leaving and coming there. There aren't fifty people working in a doctor's 2 office. That requires a very large-sized store to have the manpower of fifty 3 people. 4 5 Crane: But you could have more than one office on that location? Could it be a 6 strip of offices? 7 8 Wood: I don't know. I'm not an expert on the original zoning. I know that that 9 was zoned for a low-use...whatever the C-2C...the 2C?...is less volume 10 than the 3, 1 mean, that's a known. That's a fact and so the only way 11 when you drive out of that said piece of property there's only two ways out 12 of it: you can either go out onto Lohman, which you can only turn right 13 and go east. The other direction is you have to go onto Indian Hollow and 14 you try and cross onto Lohman or you go up through the residential area. 15 So it's a bad situation; (inaudible) nothing but incredible congestion of 16 traffic there at the Indian Hollow and Lohman intersection, which is already 17 super-bad. 18 19 Crane: Thank you. 20 21 Scholz: All right, other questions? I just have one: you talked about the light and 22 noise pollution. Obviously there's a C-3C zoning already in one, two, 23 three, four properties surrounding this property and you folks knew that, I 24 assume, when you moved there right? When you bought property there? 25 26 Wood: Yes. 27 28 Scholz: Yeah. Okay. Well, I was just wondering. 29 30 Wood: And I knew that this was zoned a 2C at the corner there. 31 32 Scholz: Um-hmm. Okay. 33 34 Wood: Which made it the entrance to our area more acceptable than having 35 some type of store there, which...whatever they're proposing at this point 36 has no bearing on the reality of what will be built there. He can 37 say....draw it, put his little picture up all day long; but the reality is the 38 owner of that piece of property will want to maximize his return on 39 investment and he's going to put in the biggest thing he can put in there 40 under those zoning restrictions. 41 42 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. There were three other people who wanted to speak; 43 the gentleman down front first. I'm going to ask the Secretary of our 44 Commission, Commissioner Beard... nice to see you, Mr. 45 Commissioner...and he will be our timekeeper tonight. 46 20 1 Warner: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Russ Warner. In 2004 and 2005 1 chaired the City 2 Infrastructure Committee. It was the very part of the Strategic Plan that 3 was being established at that time. Our Committee was charged, were 4 looking at all the infrastructure in this city and we were asked to make 5 recommendations on infrastructure that would cover the next five, ten, 6 fifteen, twenty years. And during our Committee we talked about one of 7 the things that really had to be taken care of in this city and that was the 8 importance of not establishing areas that are congested and to reduce the 9 areas that were already congested. 10 Now I think that fits in pretty well with what you're talking about 11 here. I had a lot of people on that Committee and we worked very hard 12 and long. I had developers on that Committee and everybody talked 13 about, "We have to do this sensibly. We haven't done it sensibly in a lot of 14 areas in the past and it's time that we did it." Now there's no question that 15 if you go ahead and make this zone change you are going to add to the 16 congestion that already exists in the immediate area of Lohman and 17 Indian Hollow. Now I'll tell you: go ahead and do it if you want to and I'll 18 be at City Council and I'll talk to those folks about it and those folks sitting 19 there know darn well what I did on that Infrastructure Committee. So 1 20 urge you not to do this. Thank you. 21 22 Scholz: All right. Questions for this gentleman? Okay, ma'am, come down and 23 identify yourself, please. 24 25 Taylor: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Thank you for hearing me and thank 26 you, Mr. Ochoa, for...I spoke with you today and thank you for doing the 27 research that I asked you to do. 28 29 Scholz: Say on mike, please. 30 31 Taylor: I asked Mr. Ochoa... 32 33 Scholz: And would you identify yourself, please? 34 35 Taylor: Pardon? 36 37 Scholz: Tell us who you are. 38 39 Taylor: I'm Armenia Taylor. 40 41 Scholz: Thank you very much. 42 43 Taylor: And we live right next door to where this is supposed to take place. We 44 did have a very contentious meeting with the City Council in 2005 over this 45 same thing and it had nothing to do with the developer at that time. It had 46 to do with exactly what's happening right now. We live in a complex that 21 1 has twelve units: each one of those are individually owned and we pay 2 taxes. And we were not notified by anybody that this was taking place. I 3 happened to find out from Mr. Wood that took a flyer around to us about 4 this. We are individually owned and we're hoping that you do not have 5 this happen to us. We have had so much noise pollution in our area. We 6 have people there...the woman that lives right on the end of where this is 7 being built is disabled. She's going to have all that noise. Some young 8 man that bought the place next to her just recently would not have bought. 9 He just signed the papers about two weeks ago...would not have bought 10 that had he known this was taking place. We will have trouble selling our 11 units if we want to. We have had problems with that since all of this has 12 happened. Originally that was supposed to be a cul-de-sac. 13 We were not notified: all of a sudden there was Indian Hollow 14 Road went into Lohman. There's a lot of things that have happened. I 15 would ask you and I asked the City Manager in 2005 and the Community 16 Development person in 2005 to please notify us. You know how they 17 notified us this time? They sent it to the same person...they sent it to the 18 man who has since has deceased that built those places. Nobody has 19 notified any of us, any of the twelve units, the individually owned twelve 20 units there and we would request that that is a change that is made 21 immediately. I asked that before and we were told that that would take 22 place and it hasn't taken place. I'm very disturbed. We found out about 23 this three days ago...about this meeting three days ago. 24 I'm asking that you do not approve this or at least you table it 25 because this is a very, very serious thing for us who live in that complex 26 and the people across the street. The bank is not a problem. It is a C-2, 27 it's not a problem. They are only there for a couple hours. There's also a 28 doctor's office in there and when you talk about doctors' offices people 29 make appointments and there's not that many people that come to the 30 doctors' offices. But the noise that's over there is terrible and the traffic is 31 terrible because they do use that as a cut-through to go to Missouri. 32 Something needs to happen over there in terms of the traffic even if 33 this... I mean, this goes through maybe they should make that a cul-de- 34 sac again and then we wouldn't have a problem. Thank you. 35 36 Scholz: Okay, questions for this lady? Okay, thank you very much. 37 38 Taylor: Thank you. 39 40 Scholz: There was a lady over here also wanted to speak. 41 42 Boles: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Pamela Boles. My husband and I are 43 fairly new residents to Chimney Rock. We enjoy the neighborhood 44 immensely. We will not do so if the traffic impact is as proposed. I would 45 also like to point out to Mr. Watley, when he pointed out that the 46 Walgreen's also sits at Roadrunner and Lohman and that it has not 22 1 impacted that neighborhood. I might want to point out that Roadrunner 2 does not go through to any residential units at that end of Roadrunner. 3 Everybody with those businesses uses Lohman. We are very upset that 4 you are planning on changing the zoning and I can only support Mr. Wood 5 in his presentation that this is not the right plan for the neighborhood. 6 Thank you. 7 8 Scholz: Okay. Questions? All right, thank you very much. Anyone else in the 9 public wish to speak to this? Go ahead. 10 11 Beerman: I'm William Beerman. I live on Squaw Mountain Drive, a short distance 12 from this proposed rezoning area and I didn't plan to speak but when I 13 heard the references to the existing commercial not impacting the 14 neighborhood, I just thought that I should mention that we bought our 15 house in 2007 before Walgreen's was built and, with all the talk by the City 16 government about light controls, Walgreen's absolutely lit up our 17 neighborhood and there's talk about that going twenty-four hours. Then 18 as someone else said, we have no problem with the existing property on 19 the other side of Indian Hollow that's zoned for Office, with the bank and 20 lawyers' office and the physicians' office. So I would hate to see the 21 character of our neighborhood change, our property values decline further 22 and traffic hazards increased. That's all I have. 23 24 Scholz: Okay. Any questions here, gentlemen? Okay, anyone else from the 25 public want to speak to this? I'll close it for public discussion. Gentlemen, 26 you have questions, comments? Commissioner Crane. 27 28 Crane: I'm impressed by the fact that there's only two patches of O-2C on the 29 zoning map and everything else on Lohman is C-3C or C-3. That makes 30 me rather sympathetic to the neighborhood residents; because as C-3C is 31 built out and about half the lots right now are vacant I think they will have 32 an impact on their lives. And if they would prefer to keep the O-2C I'm 33 sympathetic to that. 34 35 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Stowe, I see you reaching for your button. 36 37 Stowe: A number of people have mentioned that currently there are noise issues 38 for people using Indian Hollow as a shortcut instead of using Telshor so 39 you are already experiencing a problem with noise. I am not sure how 40 much more noise would be the result of a retail outlet in that lot. That's it. 41 42 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Beard. 43 44 Beard: I think it's important that there is an 0-2 buffer between the C-3s and the 45 other residential properties and this property that we're talking about today 46 actually has that major thoroughfare that cuts through there and I can see 23 1 where the traffic would be a problem if that were upgraded to a C-3 and 2 allowed to go to its maximum traffic density. So I do have a concern of 3 changing that coding right there. I do like the ideas of having buffers there 4 to the south a little bit. There's an 0-11C buffer between the C-3. That's 5 put there for a reason and I like it. 6 7 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Evans, any comments? 8 9 Evans: I think, ultimately, when all the C-3 is developed, I mean, you're going to 10 feel that development and one thing to consider is that if they were to ever 11 develop that corner lot they may put in a traffic light, which would control 12 some of the traffic and reduce some of the flow going back and forth. So, 13 ultimately, I don't see a big change one way or the other, whether it's 0- 14 2C or C-3. 15 16 Scholz: All right, if there's no additional discussion, gentlemen, I'll entertain a 17 motion to approve. 18 19 Beard and Crane: So moved. 20 21 Scholz: It was a tie between Crane and Beard so actually...Beard moved and 22 Crane seconded. Okay, that's good. All right, I'll call the role. 23 Commissioner Crane. 24 25 Evans: Do we need to have conditions? 26 27 Scholz: Conditions read? Well, Mr. Ochoa read the conditions. If you would bring 28 it back to the screen, Commissioner Beard you are going to read the 29 conditions for us. 30 31 Beard: The conditions shall include: 1) the building height shall be limited to 30 32 feet and restricted to a maximum of one story per Ordinance 1954; 2) a 33 30-foot wide landscape buffer shall be provided along the southern 34 boundary of the subject property per Ordinance 1954; 3) the subject 35 property shall prohibit any temporary uses except for a temporary 36 construction yard per Ordinance 1954; 4) permitted uses on the subject 37 property shall be limited to general retail uses listed in Attachment #4; 5) 38 the applicant shall be required to dedicate the section of the subject 39 property that makes up Indian Hollow Road,1999 Comprehensive Plan 40 Goal 2, Objective 1, Policy 6f; 6) the applicant shall be required to provide 41 improvements to Indian Hollow road including curb, gutter and sidewalk at 42 the time of development of the property, 1999 Comprehensive Plan goal 43 2, Objective 1, Policy 6f. 44 45 Scholz: All right. So you are moving approval of this with the conditions as read. 46 Okay, I'll call the role. Commissioner Crane. 24 1 2 Crane: Nay, findings and discussion. 3 4 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 5 6 Stowe: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 7 8 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 9 10 Evans: Aye, findings, discussion. 11 12 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 13 14 Beard: No, findings and discussions. 15 16 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye, findings, discussion and site visit. So it passes 3 17 to 2. Okay, thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, folks. 18 19 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS — NONE 20 21 Scholz: All right, any other business, Mr. Ochoa? 22 23 Ochoa: No, sir, none tonight. 24 25 IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 26 27 No public left in the audience. 28 29 X. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS 30 31 Scholz: Any staff announcements? I see someone rising to staff. Yes. 32 33 Harrison-Rogers: Yes, we have a few announcements this evening. This is Katherine 34 Harrison-Rogers for staff, Mr. Commissioner, Members of the Planning 35 Commission. We would like to introduce a new Planner, Susana 36 Montana. She's hiding over in the corner right there. We are really 37 excited to have her on board. She has a wealth of experience and we 38 look forward to her working with us. 39 40 Scholz: Great! Thank you. 41 42 Harrison-Rogers: Additionally, I just wanted to note that Mr. Paul Michaud did hand 43 out the final version of Vision 2040 as was approved by the County and 44 City Council. 45 46 Scholz: Right! That's the bound version we have on our desk. 25 1 2 Harrison-Rogers: Correct, and then one last item: there have been some recent staff 3 report modifications that we've been working on. They weren't 4 representative in this evening's packet; however in June we hope to 5 implement those. They are relatively minor. It's more of a re-shuffling of 6 the information that you have within the staff report just for easier reading. 7 8 Scholz: Okay. Good. Thank you very much. 9 10 XI. ADJOURNMENT (7:21 PM) 11 12 Scholz: Okay, if there's no other business before us then I'm going to say we are 13 ourned at 7:21. 14 15 kftct 16 Chairperson 17 26