Loading...
07-24-2012 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, July 24, 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 17, 2012 —Work Session 2. June 26, 2012 — Regular Meeting IV. POSTPONEMENTS — NONE V. CONSENT AGENDA — NONE VI. OLD BUSINESS — NONE VII. NEW BUSINESS 1. Case S-11-028: Application of Sierra Glymph and Charles H. Glymph for a subdivision known as Sierra Tracts Subdivision on a 2.384 t acre lot located on the southeast corner of Wilt Avenue and Jefferson Lane; 4840 Wilt Avenue; Parcel ID# 02-19301. Proposed Use: A single-family residential subdivision of one (1) lot into two (2). Council District 6. 2. Case S-11-028W: Application of Sierra Glymph and Charles H. Glymph to waive 100% of the requirements for road improvements to Wilt Avenue, a Page 1 of 2 Collector roadway, for a distance of 316.47 + feet of roadway along the western boundary line of a proposed subdivision known as Sierra Tracts Subdivision. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Wilt Avenue and Jefferson Lane; 4840 Wilt Avenue; Parcel ID# 02-19301. Proposed Use: A single-family residential subdivision of one (1) lot into two (2). Council District 6. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS — NONE IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION X. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS XI. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 YM City of Las Cruces 1 PEOPLE NELPIN0 PEOPLE 2 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 FOR THE 5 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 6 City Council Chambers 7 July 24, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. 8 9 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 10 Charles Scholz, Chairman 11 Godfrey Crane, Vice Chair 12 William Stowe, Member 13 Ray Shipley, Member 14 Shawn Evans, Member 15 Donald Bustos, Member 16 17 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 18 Charles Beard, Secretary 19 20 STAFF PRESENT: 21 Robert Kyle, Building and Development Administrator, CLC 22 Katherine Harrison-Rogers, Senior Planner, CLC 23 Adam Ochoa, Planner, CLC 24 Susana Montana, Planner, CLC 25 Mark Dubbin, CLC Fire Department 26 Bonnie Ennis, Recording Secretary, CLC 27 28 I. CALL TO ORDER (6:00 PM) 29 30 Scholz: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission for 31 July 24, 2012. I'm Charles Scholz, the Chair, and in just a moment we'll 32 begin our hearing; but I want to introduce the members of our Commission 33 first. On the far right is Commissioner Shipley. He represents District 6. 34 Next to him is Commissioner Crane, Council District 4; Commissioner 35 Stowe, District 1; Commissioner Evans, District 5, Commissioner Bustos; 36 District 3 and; I am the Mayor's appointee to the Commission. 37 38 II. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 39 40 Scholz: Gentlemen, any conflict of interest here with the things that we are going 41 to be doing today? No? Staff, any conflict of interest that you see? All 42 right. 1 1 2 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3 4 1. April 17, 2012 —Work Session 5 6 Scholz: Okay, our first order of business then is the approval of the minutes and 7 we actually have two sets of minutes today. One is from the April 17th 8 work session. Are there any additions or corrections to the April 17th work 9 session minutes? Commissioner Shipley. 10 11 Shipley: Page 7 on line 33 the second word should be ...it says, blueprint "I," and it 12 should be "is". 13 14 Scholz: That's line 33, you said? 15 16 Shipley: Yes. 17 18 Scholz: Blueprint "is." Okay. Thank you. Any other additions or corrections? 19 Yes, Commissioner Crane. 20 21 Crane: Also on page 7, one of my usual small points: line 15, if the organization is 22 the Institute of Transportation Engineers, plural, then that apostrophe 23 belongs after the "s." 24 25 Scholz: Thank you. 26 27 Crane: We just can't have this. (laughing) 28 29 Scholz: We'll make that correction. I don't know. (inaudible) Anythinelse? All 30 right, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes of April 17t , the work 31 session, as amended. 32 33 Shipley: So moved. 34 35 Scholz: Is there a second? 36 37 Bustos: Second. 38 39 Scholz: Okay, Shipley moved and Bustos seconded. All those in favor say aye. 40 41 All except Evans: Aye. 42 43 Scholz: Those opposed same sign? And any abstentions? 44 45 Evans: Abstain. 46 47 Scholz: One abstention. Okay, thank you very much. Evans was the abstention. 2 1 2 2. June 26, 2012 — Regular Meeting 3 4 Scholz: Okay, that brings us to the minutes of the last meeting and I read these 5 very thoroughly but, of course, I have no idea what went on since I wasn't 6 here. So I'll entertain a motion to approve these...or rather, any additions 7 or corrections, please. Commissioner Crane. 8 9 Crane: Page 1, line 36: we start as we usually do "by" introducing. 10 11 Scholz: 'By" instead of"be." 12 13 Crane: And line 30, "My name's Godfrey Crane and 'I am' also...," I think belongs 14 in there. 15 16 Scholz: I believe you're right. Any other additions or corrections? All right, I have 17 a note here from the secretary who says, "I already caught the error on 18 page 13, line 11, where it should say 'adjournment 6:32." Okay, you want 19 to make that correction on your own copy. That's page 13, line 11. All 20 right, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting, 21 June 26th, as amended. 22 23 Stowe: So moved. 24 25 Scholz: All right. Stowe moves. 26 27 Shipley: Second. 28 29 Scholz: And Shipley seconds. All those in favor say aye. 30 31 Shipley, Stowe and Crane: Aye. 32 33 Scholz: Those opposed same sign...and abstentions? Two abstentions, actually; 34 Evans and Bustos and I will abstain, as well. Okay. 35 36 IV. POSTPONEMENTS — NONE 37 38 Scholz: That brings us to our first order of business: any postponements, Mr. 39 Ochoa? 40 41 Ochoa: Nothing tonight, sir. 42 43 V. CONSENT AGENDA - NONE 44 45 Scholz: Okay, how about anything on the Consent Agenda? I didn't see anything. 46 47 Ochoa: No, sir. 3 1 2 VI. OLD BUSINESS — NONE 3 4 Scholz: And no Old Business? 5 6 Ochoa: Nothing tonight, no. 7 8 VII. NEW BUSINESS 9 10 1. Case S-11-028: Application of Sierra Glymph and Charles H. Glymph for a 11 subdivision known as Sierra Tracts Subdivision on a 2.384 t acre lot located 12 on the southeast corner of Wilt Avenue and Jefferson Lane; 4840 Wilt 13 Avenue; Parcel ID# 02-19301. Proposed Use: A single-family residential 14 subdivision of one (1) lot into two (2). Council District 6. APPROVED 6-0 15 16 2. Case S-11-028W: Application of Sierra Glymph and Charles H. Glymph to 17 waive 100% of the requirements for road improvements to Wilt Avenue, a 18 Collector roadway, for a distance of 316.47 + feet of roadway along the 19 western boundary line of a proposed subdivision known as Sierra Tracts 20 Subdivision. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Wilt 21 Avenue and Jefferson Lane; 4840 Wilt Avenue; Parcel ID# 02-19301. 22 Proposed Use: A single-family residential subdivision of one (1) lot into two 23 (2). Council District 6. APPROVED 5-1 24 25 Scholz: Okay, so our new business is case S011-028 and then S-11-028W. Why 26 are they set up separately? 27 28 Ochoa: Mr. Chair, these are two separate cases. If we could please make a 29 motion to suspend the rules to hear both cases together, please? 30 31 Scholz: Okay, I'll entertain a motion to suspend the rules. 32 33 Shipley: I move to suspend the rules. 34 35 Scholz: Okay, is there a second? 36 37 Evans: I second. 38 39 Scholz: Okay. Shipley moves and Evans seconds. All those in favor say aye. 40 41 All: Aye. 42 43 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. All right, we've suspended the rules so we 44 can discuss both of these at the same time. The way this works, by the 45 way, for those of you in the audience who haven't been here before: we 46 do the presentation by the City first; then we open it for public discussion; 47 then we close it for public discussion; then the Commissioners discuss this 4 1 and then we vote on it. Okay? Actually, in this case we'll "un-suspend" 2 the rules, we'll go back into the rules. But that's all right. Go ahead, Mr. 3 Ochoa. 4 5 Ochoa: For the record, Adam Ochoa, Development Services. The one and only 6 presentation we have tonight, gentlemen, for two cases, S-11-028 and S- 7 11-028W. They are a request for approval for an alternate summary 8 subdivision known as Sierra Tracts and a waiver request to road 9 improvements for that subdivision. The subject property located here on 10 the vicinity map on the striped, light blue; you can see the purple sign 11 saying "subject property" poking right at it; located on Jefferson Lane, the 12 southeast corner of Jefferson and Wilt Avenue, south of what's Bataan 13 Memorial West out on the East Mesa of the city. 14 As I said, the subject property is located on the southeast corner of 15 Jefferson Lane and Wilt Avenue. The subject property currently 16 encompasses approximately 2.384 acres and is zoned REM, which is 17 Single-Family Residential Estate Mobile. Current on the property exists a 18 single family residence with, I believe, two accessory structures. The first 19 case we're looking at, which is S-11-028, the subdivision, is proposing an 20 alternate summary subdivision known as Sierra Tracts. This subdivision 21 will split one existing single-family residential tract into two new single- 22 family lots. These two new lots would meet all Development Standards of 23 the 2001 Zoning Code for the REM Zoning District as it's being proposed. 24 That subdivision shown here on the southeast corner of Jefferson 25 Lane, here to the north, and Wilt Avenue, to the west of the subject 26 property: Lot 1 being the more (inaudible) one and Lot 2, to the south. 27 Like I said, both properties are over an acre in size so they do meet 28 zoning requirements when it comes to minimum lot size, minimum width, 29 depth and so forth for the 2001 Zoning Code. 30 The second case we're looking at tonight is case S-11-028W. It is 31 a request for a waiver to the City of Las Cruces Subdivision Code and 32 Design Standards which essentially require all subdividers subdividing in 33 the City of Las Cruces to provide all and any necessary amount of right-of- 34 way dedication and road improvements to off-streets adjacent to whatever 35 proposed subdivision that is being proposed. This subdivision is adjacent 36 to Wilt Avenue, which is a designated Collector roadway by the 37 Metropolitan Planning Organization, or MPO, and is also adjacent to 38 Jefferson Lane. 39 First of all, let's just touch base on the one that's improved already. 40 The City of Las Cruces has recently improved Jefferson Lane. That being 41 said: no further improvements or right-of-way dedication are required for 42 Jefferson Lane for this subdivision. Although, the other street, Wilt 43 Avenue, is currently paved, sort of, but it's not completely improved to 44 what City Standards are for that property. The City of Las Cruces Design 45 Standards require the subdivider to not only dedicate the required right-of- 46 way for a Collector roadway but the Collector roadway will be 85-feet in 5 E 1 width; so the applicant would be required to dedicate half of that along 2 their property, 42 Y2 feet...if we go back here to the proposed subdivision, 3 they'd be required to dedicate 42 Y2 feet for the entire 316, give or take 4 some, feet of the proposed subdivision adjacent to Wilt Avenue. Those 42 5 Y2 feet would then have to be improved to City Standards for what a 6 Collector roadway is. That includes driving aisles, curb, gutter, sidewalk, 7 possible bike lanes and possible lighting fixtures. Seen here are two 8 examples for City Design Standards for City Design Standards for a 9 Collector roadway: one being a road with no bike facilities; the other one 10 with the bike lane option. Essentially, the subdivider would be responsible 11 for building half of one of these two; again, 82 Y2 feet worth of it, which 12 would include a median, two driving lanes, a bike lane or not, curb and 13 gutter, sidewalk and possible parkway and street lighting. 14 The applicant is proposing to dedicate the required additional right- 15 of-way for Wilt Avenue, the 42 Y2 feet for that entire 316 feet of frontage 16 along Wilt Avenue; but is requesting to waive 100% of the required road 17 improvements to Wilt Avenue. The applicant has stated that the proposed 18 subdivision will not add any additional traffic onto Wilt Avenue because of 19 the fact that they're actually...again, if we go back to the subdivision 20 proposal, they are proposing a flag lot for Lot #2, the southern lot, which 21 would actually gain access to Jefferson Lane and no access would be 22 done off of Wilt Avenue for the proposed subdivision. The applicant has 23 also indicated that the cost of constructing required road improvements 24 are too extreme for the purpose of simply splitting one existing residential 25 tract into two new residential lots. 26 The hardships expressed by the applicant, unfortunately, do not 27 demonstrate or meet what's considered a hardship by the City of Las 28 Cruces Subdivision Code. Hardship would be something from some type 29 of soil or topographical problem with the area that we could take into 30 consideration for a hardship, as well as the staff's perspective that with the 31 construction of the road or payment-in-lieu of, which is another option that 32 could be done for this; essentially, that would greater benefit the 33 community and continue the whole health, safety and welfare of the City of 34 Las Cruces and the surrounding area of this subdivision. That being said, 35 the waiver request, staff believes is not justified. 36 Here is an aerial of the subject property, again highlighted in the 37 light blue box, seeing the dwelling here and the two accessory structures 38 on there. As you can see again, Jefferson Lane is completely built out 39 with the road, sidewalks, curbs and light and here is Wilt Avenue not 40 improved, as you can see just from the aerial itself, it's not the 85-foot 41 right-of-way that's required. Here are some site photos of the streets 42 adjacent to the property, this being the property on the east side and this 43 being Jefferson Lane, like I said, completely built out by the City, nothing 44 additional required for that. But I tried to take a picture here of the actual 45 sign of Jefferson and Wilt looking down south on Wilt Avenue in front of 6 t 1 the subject property, as you can see there, there is some paving for Wilt 2 Avenue but definitely not to City Standards. 3 On July11, 2012 the DRC, or Development Review Committee, 4 reviewed the proposed subdivision and waiver request. After some 5 discussion at the DRC meeting, DRC recommended approval for the 6 proposed subdivision and denial for the proposed waiver request. 7 Tonight, gentlemen, the Planning and Zoning Commission is a 8 recommending body for the proposed subdivision and waiver request to 9 City Council so this will move forward as a recommendation to City 10 Council 11 With that, gentlemen, your staff recommendation for case S-11- 12 028W, the waiver request, staff recommends denial for the proposed 13 waiver to the road improvements based on the findings found in the staff 14 report that you all got before the meeting. And as for case S-11-028, the 15 alternate summary subdivision, staff recommends a conditional approval 16 again based on the findings found in the staff report. The condition 17 stipulated by staff as you can possibly see in your staff report, we still 18 have some outstanding comments and conditions from various City 19 department. So staff is recommending a condition that: the applicant shall 20 finalize all outstanding comments and conditions stipulated by the 21 reviewing departments of the proposed subdivision. 22 Your options tonight, gentlemen, first for case S-11-028W, the 23 waiver request are: 1) to vote yes to approve the waiver request for case 24 S-11-028W; 2) to vote yes to approve the waiver request with any 25 conditions deemed appropriate by the P & Z; 3) to vote no and deny the 26 waiver request as recommended by staff for case S-11-028W, and; 4) to 27 table/postpone and direct staff accordingly. 28 For case S-11-028, the subdivision, your options tonight are: 1) to 29 vote yes to approve the subdivision as recommended by staff; 2) to vote 30 yes to approve the subdivision with additional conditions deemed 31 appropriate by the P & Z; 3) to vote no and deny the subdivision, an; 4) to 32 table/postpone and direct staff accordingly. No public input was received 33 by staff except for one phone call prior to the meeting this afternoon 34 simply just getting information on the proposed subdivision and waiver 35 request or what they're requesting. Other than that, no other public input 36 was received by staff. With that, the applicants are here if you have any 37 questions for them and I stand for questions as well, gentlemen. 38 39 Scholz: All right. Thank you, Mr. Ochoa. Questions for this gentleman? 40 Commissioner Crane or is that Commissioner Stowe's light that's on? 41 42 Crane: No, it's me. 43 44 Scholz: It's you. Go ahead. 45 7 1 Crane: Two questions, Mr. Ochoa, I did not have the opportunity to go and see 2 this property: what's the condition of Wilt Avenue north of Jefferson? It 3 looks as if it's not very improved. 4 5 Ochoa: No, sir. North of Wilt Avenue, with the actual build out of Jefferson Lane 6 they did build out kind of the entryways into Wilt Avenue to the south and 7 north but the north is essentially the same as what it is to the south. Wilt 8 Avenue is almost the same, I believe, there's some more dirt road patches 9 to the north on Wilt Avenue. 10 11 Crane: Okay, thank you. And the purpose of requiring the property owners to 12 build out their half of the road; is it as improvements are made to these 13 various lots the City will end up, the neighborhood will end up with a 14 complete road, right? Both sides? 15 16 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, that is correct. 17 18 Crane: Now, looking at the cross-section that you put up, that we don't have, 19 showing the bike lane and without bike lane...right...this one. I'm curious 20 to know who's responsible for digging the holes and laying in the utilities. 21 There's no arrangement here for stormwater, for example. Now, if the 22 present owners are required to put in curb, gutter, sidewalk and half a strip 23 of asphalt, well, they can't be required to put in a drop for storm drains 24 because there's no storm drain. So ultimately a storm drain has to come 25 along, presumably when the whole street is finished, in which case the 26 work that they paid for is going to get ripped up. Did I misunderstand 27 something? 28 29 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, the Code does require for any 30 subdivision in the City of Las Cruces to provide all required...not only the 31 improvements to the road or the option that we have in the past, require a 32 payment-in-lieu-of. That option was not put forward by the applicants. 33 They are going for the full waiver request. Just to let you know, just 34 driving down Jefferson Lane, there are some storm drains down Jefferson 35 Lane so tying into those or the proximity to those is a possibility. Of 36 course, not being part of Public Works or the Utilities Department 1 37 couldn't explain further, sir. 38 39 Crane: But Wilt Avenue runs south of Jefferson and I guess that's downhill. So 40 the rain on Wilt is not going to drain north to Jefferson and we haven't 41 talked about gas and drinking water. Let me cut to the chase: the City is 42 hopeful, I guess, that it will end up with a bunch of patches, all done under 43 the same design, which will constitute a complete street for Wilt Avenue 44 along that block and blocks north and south. Right? But who has to do 45 the utilities? 46 8 t 1 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, the applicant would be required to do 2 any improvements to his utilities under those rights-of-way as well. If 3 there are existing utilities under there now then they are existing; but any 4 additional improvements to that right-of-way area would be up to the 5 applicant, sir. 6 7 Crane: So the applicants could be looking at curb, gutter, sidewalk and half a 8 roadway of asphalt and base and about 316 feet of sewer, a storm drain, 9 gas, electricity and drinking water. Is that true? It's being done piecemeal 10 so somebody's got to come and (inaudible) up the next section at some 11 point. 12 13 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, that is correct: it'd be their 14 responsibility. 15 16 Crane: Thank you. 17 18 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 19 20 Evans: So Jefferson Lane was paved or the upgrades were done by the City? Is 21 that correct? Did I hear you say that? 22 23 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Evans, that is correct. The City of Las 24 Cruces did improve all of that section of Jefferson Lane. 25 26 Evans: So what compelled the City of Las Cruces to do that as opposed to doing 27 some of these other areas? 28 29 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Evans, I'll leave that to my supervisor for 30 that question. 31 32 Kyle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, Jefferson Lane was done as part of 33 a CDBG funded project. It was paid for with federal monies. The City is 34 the fiscal agent through the CDBG program. That particular roadway was 35 an identified project and that's why the City did that. It was done with 36 federal funds. 37 38 Evans: So at some point this was subdivided and the homeowners went in there 39 and purchased these individual parcels. Was that part of the city and did it 40 go through...I mean, why do we find ourselves here today where you have 41 residents, building permits have been issued. The properties have all 42 been subdivided but yet the original owner of all this land was never 43 required to put in all that infrastructure when it was originally developed or 44 sold. 45 9 1 Kyle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, this area was annexed in the 2 1980s. Significant, if not all, of that property was in its current condition at 3 the time it was annexed. The County subdivision rules, etc. may not have 4 required improvements at that particular time and following annexation the 5 City and establishment of the requisite rules which, of course, evolved 6 over time would make those requirements. This particular piece of 7 property, I do not believe, is part of a prior subdivision. I think it's a parcel 8 of land that came into the city in that condition so it was not subject to the 9 current rules. They are subdividing the property at present time and have 10 to comply with the rules that are in effect today. 11 12 Scholz: All right, Commissioner Stowe, you had a question earlier. I didn't mean 13 to miss you. 14 15 Stowe: Yes, I have a question: are we able to estimate the approximate cost of 16 the 300-or-so feet of roadway and curbs? 17 18 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Stowe, no. Typically sometimes applicants, 19 just referencing past cases, do submit that as a...kind of as an example of 20 hardship towards that, but an actual cost breakdown was not submitted to 21 the City, sir. 22 23 Stowe: But my question is: the City should be able to estimate such an activity. 24 How can one be made to pay for something without an estimate or without 25 a quotation? 26 27 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Stowe, it's be up to the applicant to hire an 28 engineer or the surveyor that they hire to hire an engineer to do those 29 calculations for them to take what's existing out there now, the pavement, 30 whatever improvements are out there, and kind of compare that to what's 31 required by City Standards and come up with an estimate of what the cost 32 would be by doing that, sir. 33 34 Stowe: And no one has done that so far? 35 36 Ochoa: No, sir. 37 38 Stowe: The law seems to apply to one who would organize a subdivision, whether 39 that be a thousand properties or two. 40 41 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Stowe, that is correct. The way the Code 42 reads is it's called a "subdivider." So anybody subdividing a piece of 43 property in the city is required to their improvements in right-of-way 44 dedication, sir. 45 10 1 Stowe: It seems to fall rather heavily on this particular land owner who will 2 continue to be a tax payer. That's my comment. Thank you. 3 4 Scholz: Someone else? Okay, I just have two questions: the flag lot that 5 you...could you go to that screen? Yeah, there it is. How wide is that 6 flag? 7 8 Ochoa: Mr. Chair, that flag lot is 25 feet wide. That takes into account the 9 minimum required 12-foot driving aisle and then the 6-foot curb cut from 10 the property lines along Jefferson. 11 12 Scholz: Okay, will that require a wall or anything like that to designate the line? 13 14 Ochoa: Mr. Chair, no, sir. A wall would not be required to designate that. 15 believe the surveyor with the pins out there when this subdivision is 16 finalized and that's how you would signify between one property and the 17 other, by the pins of the surveyor. 18 19 Scholz: Well, the reason I asked that is because we did something like this on 20 Missouri, oh, back four or five years ago, and there was a flag lot there. It 21 was at the corner of Missouri and Locust, I think, it's off the corner, 22 actually. And the fellow who owned the flag lot definitely wanted some 23 designation as to where the road would be; that is where his entrance 24 would be. And so, the person who had the lot to the west of him actually 25 built a wall on the lot line or inside his lot and the intent there, of course, 26 was to separate those so people would know where the lane was and 27 whose land it was. The City doesn't require that though. 28 29 Ochoa: No, sir. 30 31 Scholz: Oh, okay, well, that's interesting. Okay, I have two other comments: one 32 is that I was out there in the rain yesterday and there was an awful lot of 33 mud on Wilt Avenue, obviously, drifting off the land. If this land were 34 improved or if the street were put in it would stop that and, obviously, the 35 drainage would be improved. Now I know people on the East Mesa are 36 concerned about flooding because the land is relatively flat and that 37 particular area isn't very well drained. Part of it is because, you know, the 38 streets are,,, some of them are dirt...Wilt Avenue is actually paved all the 39 way up to Cortez, I think, but it's the same kind of pavement as south of 40 Jefferson. It's a lane of asphalt of sorts. Anyway, it seems to me that 41 doing that curb improvement would obviously improve the drainage 42 because stormwater would then go into the stormwater system in 43 Jefferson, I'm assuming. 44 The other thing that occurs to me is that while people talk about 45 hardship here I think the value of the property is actually improved when 46 you do something like that and so, when you go to sell the property, it's a 11 1 more valuable property. But that's my comment and opinion on it. Any 2 other questions or comments, gentlemen, for Mr. Ochoa? Yes, 3 Commissioner Shipley. 4 5 Shipley: I was out today and actually thought that the mud that was there was not 6 from rainwater. It was basically dust and dirt from the corrals for the 7 horses that had drifted across the road. It was still wet but that, basically, 8 is the westerly flow of the Arizona desert coming that way, 1 guess. And 9 the road goes all the way out to Aldrich if you're going south.... 10 11 Scholz: Yes. 12 13 Shipley: ...and I went completely around all the neighborhood and checked. All of 14 the north/south streets are pretty much the way Wilt is and then the 15 east/west streets have been improved so I was curious about that as well. 16 But this is an improvement to the property and it's a requirement. I'm not 17 really sure that I like the flag lot as well because that ends up being 18 something to argue over in the way they've got the lot split from north to 19 south it would seem that you would want somebody to come out on Wilt 20 Avenue, especially if they...I still think they still have the right to have 21 animals on the property and it looks like that's what some of the area was 22 used for. So, as opposed to giving them a small lane to go out with a curb 23 cut on that, it would seem that the access off of Wilt would be better 24 served. 25 26 Scholz: Well, that was my concern, too, Commissioner Shipley, that people would 27 tend to use Wilt because it was convenient to the second lot. That's why 28 asked about the driving lane and the like. Okay, any other questions for 29 Mr. Ochoa? All right, may we hear from the applicant, please? State your 30 name for us. 31 32 Glymph: My name is Aaron Glymph. I'm one of the three applicants and a member 33 of the family that would be taking the additional section of the lot. 34 35 Scholz: Okay. 36 37 Glymph: Actually, most of the Commissioners addressed most of the stuff I wanted 38 to say. Briefly, this is simply splitting within our family. We just wanted to 39 put a second residence on the lot for myself. My sister is living in the 40 other residence on the first section of the lot. I briefly want to address the 41 flag part of the subdivision. The section on the east side that would be the 42 flag would be the driveway and that was actually per the City's suggestion 43 so there would not be any additional traffic on Wilt for that and aside from 44 that, obviously, the issues of the waiver. 45 Before I get to any questions and the reason for the waiver is pretty 46 simple. We feel we're willing to cede to the City the 42 Y2 feet by 316 12 I roughly. I think that's a very good opportunity for the City and, 2 unfortunately, 1 can't afford to build that road; and as the overhead photo 3 showed none of Wilt is developed except for the very small section that is 4 Jefferson and having that one small section developed—for lack of a 5 better term, this thing's kind of pointless developing just that one section 6 when the entire rest of it is not. And we, again, are willing to give that land 7 or cede or whatever the proper term would be to dedicate that land so that 8 whenever the City does build that road or decide that they do want to 9 follow through with that we have no issues with that. Unfortunately, that's 10 not financially an option for us at this time. Other than that, I just want to 11 be open to any questions. As specific to the lot, don't worry. Anything 12 else with the waiver? 13 14 Scholz: All right, questions for this gentleman? Commissioner Crane. 15 16 Crane: Do you have a rough idea of what this costs with the improvements that 17 the City wants you to make? 18 19 Glymph: Unfortunately, I have no idea. From my understanding of anything having 20 to do with roads it would be multiple tens of thousands. So it's just not an 21 option. 22 23 Crane: Thank you. 24 25 Scholz: Other questions? Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else from the 26 public wish to speak to this issue? Yes, ma'am. 27 28 Donnelly: Would you be so kind as to bring up the satellite aerial map? 29 30 Scholz: Would you identify yourself, please, ma'am? 31 32 Donnelly: I certainly will. My name's Linda Donnelly. Sierra is my neighbor. I am 33 this neighbor. Sierra and I share this border right here. I have an acre- 34 and-a-quarter square, rectangle, there. My husband and I have been on 35 this property since after the annexation and when we got the property they 36 didn't ask us to improve anything...on that small point...but this right here 37 is my driveway. No one else uses that piece of Wilt. There are no other 38 driveways here. My neighbor, Lennie, of twelve years, her driveway does 39 indeed come out right here but they don't go all the way down this way 40 because, for one thing, Jefferson is 25 miles-per-hour. All they have to do 41 is turn right here and Aldrich is 30 miles-an-hour and either way they're 42 going to come out to Porter and out to the Highway. And I've spoken with 43 one each of you but (inaudible) but that's (inaudible) so I don't know if you 44 can use that but she doesn't care about any of this. I'm the only one who 45 uses this piece of Wilt. If you took one of those wires that they put down 46 to measure traffic you would see that. Who uses Wilt during the day are 13 1 trucks or a Comcast truck or a CentryLink truck and they don't know 2 where they're going so they come down one way, go this way, that way 3 and, occasionally come down that end of Wilt. But as I said, I'm the only 4 one, my husband and I...and my husband, I'm awfully proud. He's a 5 supervisor for Homeland Security; a good guy. 6 We've been there for twenty-two years now and it's all rural. 1 7 wasn't even happy when they paved it. It was like mud for the first ten 8 years and I was happy with that; but quite frankly, I don't know what all 9 this talk is about making the whole thing a four-lane highway. Nobody 10 comes through here. People use Aldrich. People use Jefferson. They go 11 one way down to Porter, one way down to Dunn. I don't understand. I'm 12 sure there's a City planner somewhere who...and I don't know which one 13 of you is that person, if that person's here, but I don't understand why 14 you'd use Wilt for anything. Porter comes right out the Highway, straight; 15 at the other end of the Hacienda Acres Subdivision Dunn, straight out to 16 the Highway and you can get onto the Highway from there. Wilt....a just 17 little further, doglegs and you can't even get to the Highway from there. 18 You still have to go either east or west to get to Porter or Dunn. So, 19 dunno. A lot of this just isn't making sense to me. I hope I am making 20 sense to you. Do I ask if anybody has a question for me? 21 22 Scholz: Yes, does anyone have a question for this young lady here? Okay, thank 23 you very much. 24 25 Donnelly: Thank you. 26 27 Scholz: Anyone else in the public wish to speak to this? Okay, I'm going to close 28 this for public discussion and, gentlemen, what's your pleasure? 29 Commissioner Evans. 30 31 Evans: Commissioner Scholz, I have one more question for staff. 32 33 Scholz: Yes. Go ahead. 34 35 Evans: What are the implications for this? So, if we approve the subdivision and 36 we don't approve the waiver does that mean that they will be able to 37 continue to develop that other piece of property that we split out or will that 38 be contingent upon them funding the development of the road? 39 40 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Evans, just to remind you again, you're just 41 a recommending body to City Council who will be doing the final action on 42 both cases: the subdivision and the waiver. But to answer your question, 43 if they do get approved on the subdivision but denied for the waiver 44 essentially the subdivision would be okay but they would not be allowed to 45 record that subdivision or make it legal, if you will, until such time that they 46 brought in either construction drawings for Wilt Avenue or some type of 14 1 payment-in-lieu-of would be negotiated with the City for the build out of 2 Wilt Avenue. So the subdivision would lay there, dormant, until that time; 3 either until construction drawings or payment-in-lieu-of is done. 4 5 Evans: Right. So, essentially, we would be approving...just so I can get this clear 6 for myself...we would be approving the division of that piece of property, 7 which is somewhat similar to the piece of property adjacent to it; however, 8 they would not be able to do anything to that piece of property until the 9 plans were either submitted and paved or there was some type of 10 agreement. So, basically, they get an approval of the subdivision but they 11 can't do anything until they come up with the money to build it out. 12 13 Ochoa: They wouldn't be able to record it with Dona Ana County to make it an 14 actual legal subdivision so it'd stay essentially the way it is now until such 15 time that something was done with the City. 16 17 Evans: Okay, thank you. 18 19 Scholz: All right, Commissioner Crane. 20 21 Crane: Also, Mr. Ochoa, you mentioned an alternative to their funding, their 22 contracting, to have the highway built out the way the City wants it. They 23 can make a payment to the City. Would that be equal to what the City's 24 costs would be for building this piece of highway? 25 26 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, the cost breakdown and payment-in- 27 lieu-of would have to be done by an engineer taking into the fact what's 28 existing, what's required to bring it into compliance, some percentages 29 would have to be added for future construction and the costs for the City, 30 essentially, to build out that section of the road. And then after that 31 payment is agreed upon then the payment would be done to the City and 32 the subdivision would be released. That is the option. 33 34 Crane: Okay, and going back to the subdivision itself, which I think for most of us 35 is not a problem. Is it prohibited for a second residence to be put in on 36 that lot but it not to be called a subdivision and, therefore, the lot remains 37 one recorded lot and can never be subdivided and sold separately 38 because it's not legally subdivided? Can they do that? 39 40 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, no. The subject property is zoned 41 REM, which is Single-Family, Residential Estate Mobile. You are only 42 allowed to have one dwelling unit per parcel in that zoning designation so 43 the only other option to put an additional dwelling on that property is with a 44 zone change. 45 46 Crane: Thank you. 15 1 2 Scholz: All right. Any other questions or comments? Yes, Commissioner Crane. 3 4 Crane: For discussion by the Commission: this is one of those nasty 5 considerations we get so often about exceptions. It is a pity that a small 6 subdivision like this, the smallest imaginable subdivision, has to meet the 7 same standards as a, what we call a commercial subdivision, you know, 8 ten, a hundred, a thousand houses. But there it is and if the waiver were 9 approved for this lot and if the lady who spoke a little while ago wished to 10 do something similar on hers and also she would have to be granted the 11 waiver; because now there's a precedent and the same for the people 12 further north on Wilt, the north side of Jefferson. And it's like the guy who 13 has a shed too close to his rear wall and that kind of thing that we've dealt 14 with in so many cases...a roof over a porch that is non-compliant. If you 15 let somebody do it then what grounds are there for saying the next 16 applicant can't do it. 17 18 Scholz: Well, it's interesting that you should bring that up because a couple of 19 years ago we looked at a similar case on the north side of the city... 20 21 Bustos: Sandhill. 22 23 Scholz: Yes, it was Sandhill. Right off of Del Rey? Yeah, there we go. And the 24 south side is in the city, the north side is in the county and there we were 25 asking, because a person was going to subdivide...again, it was a family 26 thing, I believe. We were asking them to improve about a half-mile of road 27 because they would have had, in a sense, improved the road all the way 28 to Del Rey. We gave them a waiver on that one because we felt that was 29 an undue burden, you know. I think the estimated cost there was, you 30 know, like $200,000 or $300,000. It was considerable and it was certainly 31 more than they could bear and the possibility of building another or of 32 somebody building another development on the corner of Sandhill and Del 33 Rey, I think, was already in the wind. So it seemed to me that we could 34 probably, you know, ameliorate this. 35 But we are stuck, Commissioner Crane, I think, with a ruling which, 36 in a sense, penalizes small property owners, you know, people who want 37 to subdivide. And you're right, you know, if we set a precedent by saying, 38 "Okay, you can do this," then other people who are in the same area, you 39 know, can argue the same thing. So, the thing to remember, though, is 40 that we are recommending this to City Council, okay, and City Council 41 makes the final decision on it. So I think we should recommend as we feel 42 is correct in this particular case. Yes, go ahead. 43 44 Crane: If we make part of our recommendation an explicit statement to this, 45 because it's, shall we say...a family subdivision rather than a commercial 46 one...since the lot's only being split into two...any precedent we create is 16 1 one that we wouldn't be ashamed of in the future, 1 mean, no developer of 2 a thousand-house tracts is going to get under the wire by doing this. 3 4 Scholz: Unless, of course, he has a son who he is going to sell half of it to, right? 5 6 Crane: That sort of family...that should be withdrawn. 7 8 Scholz: I just thought I'd throw that in. Yes, Commissioner Evans. 9 10 Evans: I kind of view this as somewhat different than the back porch and that is 11 that we are talking about significant costs and the reality is in my...and 12 actually maybe staff can talk to this, but the reality is that that road will go 13 unimproved until such time that the City gets another grant to go and 14 develop all those roads out there and to inhibit or prohibit somebody from 15 doing something with their piece of property knowing that it's never going 16 to be improved until the City or the government comes in and does it. 1 17 don't know if that's reasonable because the costs really are prohibitive and 18 1 think the idea that the utilities and the infrastructure and all that can be 19 done piecemeal effectively; I guess I would question that whole premise. 20 So basically what we're doing is we're stopping a property owner from 21 developing their piece of property and I guess I don't see the rationale for 22 that. But, anyway, those are just my thought. 23 24 Scholz: Okay. 25 26 Crane: Commissioner Evans has brought up a point that I hadn't thought about. 27 Yes, and it's a very telling point: everybody down that strip of Wilt for what 28 is it...half a mile, maybe? Quarter mile? ...is going to have the exactly the 29 same reaction when they're asked to build a big chunk of the highway and 30 so, yes, it will not get improved unless it's done somehow by another 31 means, the way Jefferson was. So I'm not sure that anybody's going to be 32 badly damaged by a waiver granted by this Commission in this case. 33 34 Scholz: All right, any other comments? Commissioner Shipley. 35 36 Shipley: I have just one more question for staff. 37 38 Scholz: Sure. 39 40 Shipley: Everything out there is well and septic. Is that correct? All of the 41 properties are well and septic? 42 43 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, I believe so but I do believe that the 44 sewer line was laid out with Jefferson so there's a possibility for sewer 45 hookup, as well, now. 46 17 1 Shipley: So is there sewer and is there water for fire hydrants and so forth on 2 Jefferson? 3 4 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, I couldn't answer that not knowing 5 what Utilities has out there, sir. 6 7 Shipley: Well, my thoughts are: one of the things you do when you annex into the 8 city is you are entitled to city services and generally, that means you get 9 water, you get sewer, you get police protection, you get fire protection, etc. 10 and that becomes part of the tax base that you pay for because most of 11 these properties were in the county and, again, you said they were 12 annexed into the county in 1980. Is that correct? 13 14 Scholz: Annexed into the city. 15 16 Shipley: Excuse me. From the county into the city. 17 18 Ochoa: Sometime in the eighties, I believe, sir. 19 20 Shipley: So the bottom line is that most of these properties haven't changed in, you 21 know, more years than I want to count. We have a Code for a reason and 22 as a developer comes in to twenty of these families and says, "I want to 23 buy your property because we want to build a thousand homes out here," 24 that's generally how roads get done the way we're talking about doing it 25 today when you require whoever is improving the property to do those as 26 part of that. If the City decides to lay out the annexed portion and have a 27 plan to put in the streets north, south, east and west with all of the 28 amenities eventually people that live there will have to pay for that as well. 29 If you hook up to the sewer you have to pay a fee to do that so there's no 30 free lunch anywhere you go. Someone has to pay sometime and, you 31 know, if you can work out a deal with the City and pay a tenth of what you 32 would normally have to pay you might be better to try that avenue as 33 opposed to having your hands tied right now. So I would think just in my 34 limited experience would be a good time to get an engineer to give you an 35 estimate and they don't have to go out and measure everything. They can 36 basically tell you how much it costs per square foot or per linear foot of 37 road construction and give you an idea of what you're looking at and 38 maybe the City would be willing to work on that with you. 39 40 Scholz: Any other comments, questions. All right, I'll entertain a motion to rise 41 from the....what did we do? I'm sorry. We have to reinstate the rules. 42 Yes. I think we are, yes, I haven't heard any more. 43 44 Crane: Reestablish the rules, I think, is... 45 18 1 Scholz: Okay. Reestablish the rules. Would you give us a motion for that, 2 please? 3 4 Crane: So moved. 5 6 Scholz: A second, please. 7 8 Shipley: Second. 9 10 Scholz: Okay, Crane moved, Shipley seconded. All those in favor say aye. 11 12 All: Aye. 13 14 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. All right, we are now in rules and that means 15 that we vote on these items separately. Okay, the first one is case S-11- 16 028 and this is for the subdivision. All right, I'll entertain a motion to 17 approve. 18 19 Crane: So moved. 20 21 Scholz: Okay, is there a second? 22 23 Evans: I second. 24 25 Scholz: Okay, Crane moved and Evans seconds. All right, I'll call the role. 26 Commissioner Shipley. 27 28 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 29 30 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 31 32 Crane: Aye, findings and discussion. 33 34 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 35 36 Stowe: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 37 38 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 39 40 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 41 42 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 43 44 Bustos: Aye, findings and discussion. 45 19 1 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion and site visit. So it's 6-0 2 approved for the subdivision. Okay, on the waiver, case S-11-028W. I'll 3 entertain a motion to approve. 4 5 Stowe: So moved. 6 7 Scholz: Okay, Stowe moves. 8 9 Evans: Second. 10 11 Scholz: And Evans seconds. I'll call the role. Commissioner Shipley. 12 13 Shipley: I want a clarification before I vote. If we vote aye we're denying the 14 waiver. In other words, the recommendation is denial. 15 16 Scholz: Right. The recommendation is to deny but we always put them in the 17 positive, right? Every motion we state is positive. So in other words, the 18 motion is to accept the waiver. 19 20 Ochoa: Correct. 21 22 Scholz: So if you vote aye you are accepting the waiver. If you vote no you're 23 denying the waiver. I know that sounds screwy but that's the way we do 24 things here. Commissioner Shipley? 25 26 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 27 28 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 29 30 Crane: Aye, findings and discussion. 31 32 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 33 34 Stowe: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 35 36 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 37 38 Evans: Yes, findings, discussion. 39 40 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 41 42 Bustos: Aye, findings and discussion. 43 44 Scholz: Okay, and the Chair votes no, findings, discussion and site visit. So it's 45 approved 5-1. All right, this goes to the City Council then for final 46 approval. 20 1 2 Ochoa: That is correct, sir. This'll be going to City Council for final approval as a 3 Resolution. 4 5 Scholz: Okay, thank you. 6 7 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS — NONE 8 9 Scholz: Any additional business here this evening? I see someone raising their 10 hand. I'll ask for public discussion in just a moment. Any other business, 11 Mr. Ochoa? 12 13 Ochoa: No, sir, nothing tonight. 14 15 IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 16 17 Scholz: Okay, fine. You wish to speak, sir? (Aaron Glymph - inaudible from the 18 audience) No, not you, sir. You've already spoken. Your thing's been 19 approved. You wish to speak? Would you come up and identify yourself 20 and tell me what you wish to speak to? 21 22 Gutierrez: My name's Anthony Gutierrez and I own a company named Centerline 23 Services. I also work with Western Line Surveys. 24 25 Scholz: Um-hmm. 26 27 Gutierrez: And we're attending this meeting, my client and I, because Mr. Ochoa told 28 us that it would be a similar case to what we're going to present and I 29 found it very useful. I just wanted to talk to you about my experience with 30 the ETZ, as well as the County. These types of projects in this case that 31 you just heard today have been increasing and I think they have been 32 because the need for the larger subdivisions with smaller lots has been 33 diminishing because of the current economy and owning a surveying firm 34 and also being involved with engineering we've seen the smaller family 35 splits increase. So we're doing more of those now than we were five 36 years ago. And we have to go through this process even at the ETZ or 37 going to the ETA. 38 This is my first experience with the City and it was a good one. 1 39 really liked some of the observations presented by the gentleman here. 40 But, my observations I've been wanting to share with the Commission as 41 well as the ETZ Commission and those are: I think the City, as well as the 42 County and ETZ, have information that's very valuable and, for example, 43 there are roadways that are produced in larger lengths than the length that 44 was presented here, you know, not 360 feet but we're talking, maybe, two 45 miles through the same type of rural location. And, you know, all these 46 observations about the previous size of, you know, what was annexed in 21 i. 1 and you see on the aerials how the properties are dispersed it's kind of, 2 you know, odd; and how do you deal with it except on a case-by-case 3 basis. 4 1 have worked in communities such as Tucson and Phoenix, which 5 are much larger, that have a good facility in place through an administrator 6 or someone like Mr. Kyle or someone that has the experience to deal with 7 these and really serve the needs of the public and the needs of the 8 Commission and kind of filter the cases out as they see fit. 9 One of my observations is that with these roads that the City has 10 paid for, either through grant money or through a larger subdivision, you 11 have access to see the financial data and how much it cost to do, let's 12 say, a mile of road. Well, you can use that and apply it and say, "Anyone 13 who's going to come and do a family split and there's one adjacent road, 14 like this case, is going to have to pay `X' amount of dollars because this is 15 how much it cost us to build a mile-long road through the same kind of 16 area per linear foot." So the City could then put that money in the bank 17 account or whatever you do with it and then use it alongside a grant in the 18 future or maybe, you know, use it to improve 500 feet of the road, you 19 know, a mile north. There're ways to use it instead of having to use all of 20 this time, you know, and effort in this one case and I think the public is 21 served both on your end and in the private sector because tax parcels are 22 created and taxes are paid. You know, a property that's five acres pays 23 more taxes per capita than one lot on ten acres. So you get more by 24 making this an easier thing to do. 25 And I think you're going to see this more as money gets tighter and, 26 you know, people are only left with the option of moving their kin on the 27 same lot. So it's a doable problem, you know, it's something that can be 28 solved and I thing, well, here are observations leaning toward that, but it's 29 something that, you know, our Zoning Code, you know, in looking at that 30 area, there's not much they can do except for a one lot split, you know, 31 any of those people out there. And a lot of them, like their neighbor to the 32 south, she can't split that down any further based on the Zoning Code. So 33 you can do it. The Zoning Code can either be amended or added to, you 34 know, to facilitate these types of requests and then make it smooth and 35 then people can stay home at 6:00 o'clock instead of coming to hear this 36 one case. 37 38 Scholz: Well, we wouldn't stay home. Thank you for those suggestions. 39 40 Gutierrez: Anyhow, those are my observations. Thank you. 41 42 Scholz: Yeah, I appreciate it. Yeah, I think this is the kind of thing that could, 43 perhaps, come up in a Development Review Committee, you know, an 44 example or a sample of costs and things like that. And I agree. I think, 45 you know, this is probably a trend. Economically it makes good sense. 46 Okay, anybody else from the public wish to speak? 22 1 2 X. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 4 Scholz: All right, any staff announcements? Staff? No? 5 6 Ochoa: No, sir, not tonight. 7 8 XI. ADJOURNMENT (6:58 PM) 9 10 Crane: Okay, we are adjourned then at, I'd say 6:58. Thank you very much folks. 11 Thank you, Commissioners. 12 / 13 14 Chairperson 23