Loading...
12-18-2012 City of las Cruces® P E O P L E N E L P I N 0 P E 0 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, December 18, 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 accommodations 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 accommodations are 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. Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. November 27, 2012 — Regular Meeting IV. POSTPONEMENTS — NONE V. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Case S-12-045: Application of Zia Engineering on behalf of the City of Las Cruces for a replat of the Hope Summary Subdivision for a 1.74- acre parcel located at 2225 E. Griggs Avenue at the northeast corner of East Griggs Avenue and North Walnut Street; Parcel ID No.02-30274. The parcel would be divided into two lots. The City would sell the larger, 1.326-acre Lot "1A" to the current occupant, a social service provider. The smaller 0.418-acreLot 113would be retained by the City for development at a future date with affordable housing. The property is zoned R-1 a (Single-Family, Medium Density Residential) District. Council District 3 (Councillor Pedroza). VI. OLD BUSINESS — NONE VII. NEW BUSINESS Page 1 of 2 1. Case PUD-12-04: Application of Sierra Norte Development Inc. for a Final Site Plan known as Metro Verde South Phase 2 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as Metro Verde South. The subject area encompasses 115.7 t acres and is located generally south of the Peachtree Hills Road, north of the Metro Verde South Phase 1 Subdivision, west of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard and east of the City of Las Cruces City Limits within the Sierra Norte area; Parcel ID# 02-41409. Proposed Use: The Final Site Plan proposes 367 single-family residential lots, 6 large single-family/multi-family residential lots and 2 mixed-use lots with 2 park/recreational areas; Council District 5 (Councillor Sorg). VIII. OTHER BUSINESS — NONE IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION X. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS XI. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 FOR THE 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 City Council Chambers 5 December 18, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. 6 7 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 8 Charles Scholz, Chairman 9 Charles Beard, Secretary 10 Ray Shipley, Member 11 William Stowe, Member 12 13 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 14 Godfrey Crane, Vice Chair 15 Donald Bustos, Member 16 Shawn Evans, Member 17 18 STAFF PRESENT: 19 Robert Kyle, Building and Development Administrator, CLC 20 Katherine Harrison-Rogers, Senior Planner, CLC 21 Adam Ochoa, Planner, CLC 22 Susana Montana, Planner, CLC 23 Rocio Dominguez, CLC Engineering 24 Mark Dubbin, CLC Fire Department 25 Rusty Babington, CLC Legal Staff 26 Willie Roman, CLC Traffic 27 28 1. CALL TO ORDER 29 30 Meeting called to order at 6:00 p.m. 31 32 Scholz: Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission for Tuesday, December 33 18th, 2012. I'm Charlie Scholz, the Chair. 34 35 11. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 36 At the opening of each meeting, the chairperson shall ask if any member on the 37 Commission or City staff has any known conflict of interest with any item on the 38 agenda. 39 40 Scholz: Before I do the roll or I should say introduce the members of the panel 41 tonight, I want to ask if there are any conflicts of interest here. 42 Gentlemen? No. Okay. Staff, any conflicts of interest tonight? All right. 43 We won't ask the audience because there obviously will be. 44 So I want to introduce the panel. On my far right: Commissioner 45 Shipley. He represents District 6. Next to him Commissioner Stowe 46 represents Council District 1. On my immediate right is Commissioner 1 1 Beard, who is also our Vice Chair, and he represents District 2 and I am 2 the Mayor's appointee to the Commission. 3 4 Beard: Secretary. 5 6 Scholz: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Beard is the secretary, not the Vice Chair. 7 No "Vice" there. 8 9 Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 10 11 1. November 27, 2012 - Regular meeting 12 13 Scholz: All right, our first order of business is approval of the minutes. Are there 14 any additions or corrections to the minutes of November 27th, the regular 15 meeting? Commissioner Shipley. 16 17 Shipley: Page 33 and we'll need to probably go slowly through this; there are 18 several. 19 20 Scholz: Go ahead. 21 22 Shipley: Line number 10. 23 24 Beard: Which page are we on? 25 26 Scholz: 33. 27 28 Shipley: Page 33. 29 30 Scholz: And what are we changing or adding? 31 32 Shipley: On line 10 after "this" it says, "this going", it should be, "this is going", add 33 the word "is". 34 35 Scholz: Okay. 36 37 Shipley: On line 13 after the word "need" strike, draw a line through "condition" and 38 "to add an additional", so it's "to add an additional condition". And then 39 after "this" should be a period, and then strike "at least that". And it says 40 "this should be reviewed". That's in line 14. Excuse me, that's on 13. Also 41 line 14 after "to be" it should be "you know"; it should be "that". "Whether it 42 needs to be that or if we have the authority". So, line 15 after "basis" 43 should be a period and it's a capital "T" on "that's." 44 45 Beard: Line for this? 46 2 I Shipley: Line 15. 2 3 Beard: Yeah. 4 5 Shipley: At the end it says "in the authority to review it on an annual basis" period: 6 "that's why I asked". Line 20 on the last two words, the "that" should be 7 "the" instead of there. On page 34 under Mr. Crane's topic underline 8 seven, "that's a way" I think it's supposed to be. "That is a way out of 9 some of the worries." 10 11 Scholz: Page 34, line seven. 12 13 Shipley: And then there was one on 25; but did... Mr. Beard, did you have that one 14 on 25, on page 34? 15 16 Beard: No. 17 18 Shipley: Okay, on line 25 it says, the middle of the sentence says, "you've got to 19 say that we've got a" ... 20 21 Beard: Oh, yes, I got that. 22 23 Shipley: And should be "to", "got to" protect instead of "a protect." Okay, also on 24 the next page on line ... page 35, line 4, says, "The homeless problem is 25 not even being addressed to tell you the truth." And line 16 1 think the 26 fence needs to be higher to keep people out that don't need to get to be in 27 there". They left out the word "out" after "people". On page 36 line 30 it 28 says "inaudible," it says "I just wanted to" should be added for the 29 inaudible, "make sure". And it says, "said that the Commissioner 30 Development", it should be "Community Development". And director 31 should be capitalized since that's a title, on line 31. And on page 41 line 32 41 "continues to grow" and there should be an "and" after "grow", before 33 "to", "and to focus on this area". And I think that's it. 34 35 Scholz: All right, I just had one on page two, line 31. We should add the name 36 Shipley. 37 38 Beard: Thirty-two. 39 40 Shipley: Page two, line 31. 41 42 Scholz: Page two, line 31. 43 44 Shipley: Page two, line 31. 45 46 Scholz: Yeah, it's Stowe moved and Shipley seconded. 3 1 2 Shipley: Oh. 3 4 Scholz: That's the only one I had. Commissioner Stowe, any additions or 5 corrections? 6 7 Stowe: No. 8 9 Scholz: All right, Commissioner Beard? 10 11 Beard: Page 10, 31. 12 13 Scholz: Line 31? 14 15 Beard: Line 31, "but when I visited, those tents are awful close". 16 17 Scholz: Okay. 18 19 Beard: Page 15, this is a very minor one, but line 25 "because" comma. 20 21 Scholz: All right. 22 23 Beard: Page 16, this was a hard one to ... I was going to make a couple of 24 changes because it didn't sound good, but when I read through later on he 25 uses the same words so I'm only going to make one change and it's line 26 eight "I'm not against this at all". The "very" is very hard to interpret but he 27 uses this same type of sentence structure later on. Page 31, you got this 28 one didn't you? 29 30 Shipley: I think so. 31 32 Beard: "We're not against this". 33 34 Shipley: Yeah. 35 36 Beard: On line 29. 37 38 Shipley: No, I didn't get that. 39 40 Beard: Okay, "we're not against this". Let's take out"yet". 41 42 Scholz: All right, any other corrections, additions? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to 43 accept the minutes as amended. 44 45 Shipley: So moved. 46 4 1 Scholz: Is there a second? 2 3 Beard: Second. 4 5 Scholz: All those in favor say aye. 6 7 ALL: AYE 8 9 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. All right the minutes are approved as 10 amended. Certainly, who moved that? Shipley; and Beard seconded. 11 Yes, I will do that. 12 13 IV. POSTPONEMENTS - NONE 14 15 Scholz: Okay, Adam we're back to you now and let's see, I'm looking for my 16 agenda here. Here we go. Any postponements? 17 18 Ochoa: None tonight, sir. 19 20 Scholz: Okay. 21 22 V. CONSENT AGENDA - NONE 23 24 1. Case S-12-045: MOVED TO NEW BUSINESS 25 26 Scholz: And one item on the consent agenda. 27 28 Ochoa: That is correct. 29 30 Scholz: Okay, here's how the consent agenda works if you haven't been here 31 before, we ask if there are any people who want to speak to the consent 32 agenda, if they do we move it to new business, to the first item of new 33 business. Otherwise, it just takes a voice vote by the Commissioners. So 34 is there anyone on the Commission want to speak to this? You do, 35 Commissioner Shipley. 36 37 Shipley: Two questions. 38 39 Scholz: Okay, well we'll move it our first item of new business then. 40 41 VI. OLD BUSINESS - NONE 42 43 Scholz: And no old business, Mr. Ochoa? 44 45 Ochoa: No, sir, none tonight. 46 5 1 2 VII. NEW BUSINESS 3 4 1. Case S-12-045: Application of Zia Engineering on behalf of the City of Las 5 Cruces for a replat of the Hope Summary Subdivision for a 1.74 acre parcel 6 located at 2225 E. Griggs Avenue at the northeast corner of East Griggs 7 Avenue and North Walnut Street; Parcel ID No. 02-30274. The parcel would be 8 divided into two lots. The City would sell the larger, 1.326-acre "Lot 1A" to the 9 current occupant, a social service provider. The smaller 0.418-acre "Lot 113" 10 would be retained by the City for development at a future date with affordable 11 housing. The property is zoned R-1 a (Single-Family, Medium Density 12 Residential) District. Council District 3 (Councilor Pedroza). 13 14 Scholz: Okay, so our first item is S-12-045 and I believe you're up, Ms. Montana. 15 16 Montana: Yes. 17 18 Scholz: Wonderful 19 20 Montana: Commissioner Shipley, do you have any questions I can answer or would 21 you like the full presentation? 22 23 Shipley: No. I just have one, really one question 'cause you've provided the DRC 24 minutes. That's what I didn't have. Secondly, in the Fire and Emergency 25 Services section back in here, they made a comment about "please put in 26 Munis" and could you clarify. 27 28 Montana: Munis is our permit tracking, electronic permit tracking system. 29 30 Shipley: Okay. 31 32 Montana: And sometimes it doesn't allow some of the reviewing agencies to get in. 33 So I put it in for them. 34 35 Shipley: Okay. I didn't understand what that was and so I needed, that's all 1 36 needed clarification on. Thank you. 37 38 Montana: Thank you. 39 40 Scholz: Do you need anything else? No. All right. If there's anyone from the 41 public wishes to comment on this? No. Okay, what is your pleasure 42 gentlemen? 43 44 Shipley: I move to approve Case Number S-12-045 and I don't think there were 45 any conditions. 46 6 I Montana: There is a standard condition. 2 3 Shipley: Standard condition, with the standard condition. 4 5 Scholz: Okay. 6 7 Stowe: I second. 8 9 Scholz: Okay. Shipley moves and Stowe seconds. I'll call the role. 10 Commissioner Shipley. 11 12 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 13 14 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 15 16 Stowe: Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 17 18 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 19 20 Beard: Aye, findings and discussion. 21 22 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion, and site visit. Okay, so 23 that's approved 4:0. 24 25 2. Case PUD-12-04: Application of Sierra Norte Development Inc. for a Final Site 26 Plan Known as Metro Verde South Phase 2 for a Planned Unit Development 27 (PUD) knows as Metro Verde South. The subject area encompasses 115.7 +/- 28 acres and is located generally south of the Peachtree Hills Road, north of the 29 Metro Verde South Phase 1 Subdivision, west of Sonoma Ranch Boulevard 30 and east of the City of Las Cruces City Limits within the Sierra Norte Area; 31 Parcel ID# 02-41409. Proposed Use: The Final Site Plan proposes 367 single- 32 family residential lots, six large single-family/ multi-family residential lots and 33 two mixed-use lots with two park/recreational areas; Council District 5 34 (Councilor Sorg). 35 36 Scholz: All right, that brings us to our second items of business tonight and that is 37 Case PUD-12-04. Mr. Ochoa, you're going to handle it. 38 39 Ochoa: Yes sir. Thank you. Adam Ochoa, Building and Development Services, 40 for the record. Final case tonight, gentlemen, is Case PUD-12-04. It is a 41 request for approval of a final site plan known as Metro Verde South 42 Phase 2. This is within the Sierra Norte area north of town shown here in 43 the vicinity map highlighted in the like purplish color within what is 44 considered the Metro Verde South PUD area as well. Just to give you a 45 little bit better basis of bearing, it's north of Highway 70, south of the future 46 extension of Peachtree Hills Road, north of Thurman, generally east of 7 1 what would be the future extension of Sonoma Ranch ... 2 3 Scholz: You mean west don't you? 4 5 Ochoa: West. That is correct. I'm sorry. And it's east, there we go, of the City of 6 Las Cruces City Limits. Here is the zoning map showing again that 7 underlying PUD zoning designation being the Metro Verde South PUD. 8 And to the east, that being the stand of land where Sonoma Ranch 9 Boulevard would be going through. 10 Like I said this, is within the Sierra Norte area and it is north of the 11 currently existing and approved Metro Verde South Phase 1 Subdivision 12 which is brought in prior to the Planned Unit Development being approved. 13 That went through a preliminary plan and final plat process and was 14 approved and, primarily, that is just a single-family residential subdivision 15 to the south of the current property we're looking at now. The property or 16 the area that we're looking at now is currently vacant or undeveloped and 17 encompasses approximately 115 acres and again, it is within that Metro 18 Verde South PUD area. 19 The final site plan proposes approximately 367 single-family 20 residential lots and six large single-family/multi-family residential lots 21 shown here which would be either later subdivided for single-family 22 residential or just the development of multi-family residential to be done on 23 those properties. There are two large mixed use lots with this proposal as 24 well which run alongside what would be the future extension of Red Hawk 25 Golf Road to the east of those properties. And this development also 26 proposes two parks or recreational areas shown here and this linear park 27 as well. 28 The final site plan is being proposed to be built out in 17 different 29 phases shown here as well, A through R, 17 different phases. I'm sorry, A 30 through S. Road network being proposed is basically comprised of local 31 streets that should be constructed to Design Standards with a total of nine 32 cul-de-sacs and two smaller kind of knuckle cul-de-sacs, if you will, 33 located here and here for access to single-family residential lots within the 34 large chunk of land. 35 Some background on the area: the Metro Verde South PUD 36 Concept Plan, which is what this is part, was approved back in February 37 2011. If you can recall back then the development was proposed or 38 presented as a kind of a mixed use development; a lot of words such as 39 smart growth and new urbanist type of development were used by the 40 applicant's representative at that time. The concept (inaudible) the area 41 as a unique community with a sense of place that would create kind of 42 walkable neighborhoods and an overall more livable walkable community. 43 This was supposed to be a paradigm shift that created a community where 44 the pedestrian was considered instead of just vehicular connectivity and 45 so forth like that. And provide a variety of transportation choices. So from 46 the beginning this was proposed as a type of development with high 8 I connectivity not only pedestrian but also types of transportation and 2 vehicular as well. The local streets, this is straight out of the concept plan, 3 were to be designed to discourage through traffic while still ensuring 4 connectivity. So again, coming back to that high connectivity wanting or 5 need or desire for that development. 6 After staff looked within this final site plan and analyzing it, it is 7 staff's opinion that the proposed final site plan does not follow the concept 8 of the original Metro Verde South Concept Plan. It is staffs opinion that 9 the proposed street network connectivity is an issue for that: connectivity 10 from a ... not only from a trip standpoint, from an emergency access 11 standpoint, and so forth like that as well. The proposed cul-de-sacs: it is 12 staffs opinion that impede the travel choices and emergency access for 13 the PUD and essentially with the cul-de-sacs in the final site plan and 14 pedestrian connectivity forcing pedestrians and cars to basically go from 15 those cul-de-sacs into two, if we could go back to the ... here we go, those 16 cul-de-sacs forcing those pedestrians and vehicles to go back to two 17 basically main thoroughfares within this final site plan for a more kind of 18 funneling all that type of traffic to those two main roads within the 19 subdivision. Go back here. While the cul-de-sacs do eliminate through 20 traffic, which is something that the concept plan called out for, they also do 21 negatively affect and sometimes even eliminate the connectivity of a 22 community when they're over utilized. Again, it is staffs opinion that the 23 final site plan is not in accordance with the Concept Plan from a 24 connectivity standpoint of providing the amount of pedestrian and 25 vehicular connectivity that was proposed initially. 26 To go a little bit more into that connectivity standpoint, staff did 27 review, I guess, if you would, kind of a report, American Planning 28 Association's Organization Planning Advisory Service report entitled 29 "Planning for Street Connectivity." Within that report they actually give two 30 examples of connectivity or discuss connectivity and the ranges of low 31 connectivity to high connectivity and I will go a little more into that in the 32 next slide. It is staffs opinion that this final site plan is actually more with 33 encompassing the low connectivity of a street network. On top of that 34 there are still also some outstanding issues from the Development 35 Services' standpoint which may or may not have been addressed already. 36 The applicant did submit a third review after this had gone to our 37 Development Review Committee so that has not been reviewed yet. 38 There are some issues from an Engineering Service standpoint, from a 39 drainage standpoint which again may have already been resolved but, 40 again, more issues that were brought up at our DRC. But again those 41 reviews have not been done. Our Traffic Department also had issues with 42 this from the street standpoint, the potential driveway and possible 43 intersection issues as well with the entire final site plan. 44 Going back to that connectivity issue that we brought up, to the top 45 right corner here that is straight out of the report: that is a street network 46 with high connectivity ... high connectivity street network. To the bottom 9 I of that is a street network with low connectivity. And looking at comparing 2 that to what is being proposed with the final site plan the amount of cul-de- 3 sacs kind of making with a stretch of area here with that low connectivity it 4 is staffs opinion that the proposed final site plan actually provides low 5 connectivity of a street network and it actually does not follow the concept 6 plan, original kind of intent of that high pedestrian and vehicular 7 connectivity that was being proposed. 8 Here showing the aerial of the areas of the final site plan of 115 9 acres showing majority lot of vacant land around here and single-family 10 residential as well. Going back to the DRC meeting on November 28th, 11 the Development Review Committee did review the proposed final site 12 plan. As I stated, several departments at the meeting did state their 13 concerns and lingering issues that they had with the final site plan. It was 14 the opinion of the DRC that the proposed final site plan was a typical 15 subdivision. That is kind of where we're coming from that this is a typical 16 subdivision which is allowed by regular Design Standards. But looking at 17 the concept plan that was being proposed we feel that it's not following 18 that and just going back to the typical type of subdivision or as stated in 19 the DRC, kind of a "cookie cutter subdivision" and does not follow that 20 concept plan. 21 The DRC unanimously voted to recommend denial for the proposed 22 final site plan. With that, as well, staff recommends denial for the 23 proposed final site plan based on the findings presented in the staff report 24 before you. (inaudible) on the Commission is authorized to take final 25 action regarding this case and the decision of P&Z Commission also can 26 be appealed to City Council 27 With that your options tonight, gentlemen, are: 1) to vote yes to 28 approve the final site plan; 2) to vote yes, approve the final site plan with 29 any conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission; 3) to vote no and 30 deny the final site plan as recommended by staff; 4) table and postpone 31 and direct staff accordingly. That is the conclusion of my presentation. 32 The applicant is here and has a presentation as well for you. I stand for 33 questions. 34 35 Scholz: All right, questions for this gentleman? No, okay. I have one. With all the 36 ... from reading the reports from the various areas, it seems to me that 37 there are a number of things which need to be remedied here before we 38 can really discuss a plan. Do you think we should consider postponing 39 this until we see a more complete plan or an updated plan? 40 41 Ochoa: Chairman Scholz, that is definitely up to the Commission if you wish to 42 postpone this. We can let the applicant have his turn at the podium to see 43 what he has done to take care of those issues and that is a possibility that 44 you have to possibly postpone this and bring this one on a later date. 45 46 Scholz: Well, this has to go before the Design Review Committee again if the plan 10 1 is changed, doesn't it? 2 3 Ochoa: I believe so. I believe it would. Yes, sir. 4 5 Scholz: Yeah, okay. So then it would come back to us anyway. 6 7 Ochoa: That is correct sir. if you postpone it, that is correct. 8 9 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Shipley. 10 11 Shipley: Mr. Beard is first. 12 13 Scholz: Oh I'm sorry. Commissioner Beard, go ahead. 14 15 Beard: In the City's opinion, the present layout, does that increase the number of 16 houses in this proposal over what it was proposed before? 17 18 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, the Concept Plan actually called out 19 a very large number of residential lots in the actual area. I believe they 20 projected a total population of about 25,000 in the Concept Plan. So this 21 is just kind of a smaller piece of that, so there's no real actual ... there are 22 no actual real numbers designated for how much would be in so many 23 acres and so forth like that. But there were some requirements for, 1 24 guess, the zoning designation used within the Planned Unit Development 25 that dictated how many single-family uses, how many multi-family mixed 26 uses and so on and so forth like that. But in actual number there was no 27 actual maximum number, if you will, by the Concept Plan, sir. 28 29 Scholz: In terms of lots? 30 31 Ochoa: That is correct. 32 33 Scholz: Right, okay. Any other questions? Yes, Commissioner Shipley. 34 35 Shipley: Could you go back to your slide that showed which agencies, go back 36 one, no keep going. 37 38 Scholz: I think that's the one you want. 39 40 Shipley: Outstanding issues with Development Services, Engineering Services, 41 Traffic, and MPO. Is there anyone from those agencies here tonight? 42 43 Ochoa: Yes, sir. We do have a representative here from Engineering Services 44 and Traffic as well. 45 46 Shipley: But the others that are Development Services are not represented and 11 I MPO is not? 2 3 Ochoa: I am Development Services, sir. The issues I had ... 4 5 Scholz: You didn't recognize him? He wasn't wearing his badge, I know. 6 7 Ochoa: The issues we had were basically with the connectivity of the final site 8 plan. That was one of the outstanding issues and other issues were just 9 clean up on the actual final site plan itself. 10 11 Shipley: The reason I'm asking that question was the same thing was, that if we 12 listen to the applicant and he's changed things, somebody needs to verify 13 that that's been done and we have the people here that can do that. 14 That's my question. 15 16 Ochoa: Again the major issues out there, mine were more cleaning up the final 17 site plan. MPO's comments were about just adding notes on it as well. 18 But Engineering Services with their drainage issues and Traffic with 19 whatever issues they might've had from a transportation standpoint they 20 are here to answer whatever questions you might have and potentially 21 answer whatever questions might be brought up or issues that might be 22 brought up by the applicant. 23 24 Scholz: Okay. All right, we'll take that into account. Let's hear from the applicant. 25 26 Moscato: Good evening, Commissioner and members of the Planning and Zoning 27 Commission. My name is John Moscato. I'm here on behalf of the 28 developer, Sierra Norte Development, Inc. First of all I'd like to wish all of 29 you a Merry Christmas and happy holiday season. Thank you for being 30 here. I'm sure there are better things you could be doing tonight than 31 being at this meeting. 32 If you look at the facts of this case it's a very simple, straightforward 33 submittal. Number one: we have met or exceeded all submittal 34 requirements for a final site plan of a PUD. Second: we have provided 35 refutable factual evidence that all elements of this final site plan comply 36 with the provisions of the approved Concept Plan, Metro Verde South 37 PUD and I'll show that in my presentation. 38 What's not as simple but is equally as important is staffs failure to 39 apply the rules and regulations regarding final site plan submittals fairly 40 and consistently in this case and it's that failure ultimately that has led to 41 the recommendation of denial. I'll give you a couple of examples just to 42 start and then we'll do more as we go through the presentation. I talk 43 about consistency. There are certain rules and regulations that are to be 44 followed, certain submittal requirements that are to be met for a final site 45 plan. Nowhere in that list and I have the list here, I'm sure you have seen 46 the list before, nowhere in the list do you hear about the developer and 12 I staff having to agree philosophically about a plan. Nowhere do you find 2 that the spirit of the plan is cited as an element that needs to be 3 addressed by the developer and yet when you go through the DRC 4 meeting minutes, that's all staff had to depend on for their 5 recommendation of denial, philosophical differences and that somehow 6 we were not abiding by the spirit of the Concept Plan. Now I usually don't 7 get excited about these issues. I've been in this business for over 20 8 years, but I have to tell you when I was sitting in that DRC meeting and 1 9 heard staff cite the spirit of the plan as a reason for recommending denial. 10 1 almost jumped out of my chair, really. All I could think of was one of my 11 favorite professional tennis players, John McEnroe had a saying, "You 12 cannot be serious," and that's all I can say about this. You cannot be 13 serious that a project that has gone through so many reviews in the PUD 14 approval process, years of reviews, multiple approvals by Planning and 15 Zoning Commission, by City Council, and we're facing the prospect of 16 denial of a 100 plus acre project because of philosophical differences and 17 somebody's view of what the spirit of the plan is. You know I would 18 contend that if the four of you individually thought about what the spirit of 19 the plan was, what the spirit of the PUD was, you wouldn't agree. I just 20 don't see how that can be a standard that staff would apply in this case or 21 any case. There are rules and regulations that should be followed and 22 staff simply has not done that in this case. 23 Turn to fairness, and I don't mean to be harsh with staff. Staff 24 generally does an excellent job of many projects approved without 25 difficulty at all, but you saw the same slide as I did. It's Attachment 5 in 26 your packet, that crazy quilt mix of cul-de-sacs that fold into each other 27 and into each other and into each other, of course, that doesn't foster 28 connectivity. But the more important fact is that's nothing like our plan; 29 absolutely nothing like our plan. Our plan is actually a hybrid of some cul- 30 de-sacs and what's called a typical grid pattern. Mr. Ochoa contended 31 that ... excuse me while I check my notes. He contended that somehow 32 the cul-de-sac plan failed to provide emergency access. Well, we had a 33 Fire Department representative at the DRC meeting and in the first round 34 of comments he said he didn't have any issues at all: none at all. There's 35 no problem with emergency access. There are cul-de-sacs all over the 36 City and they don't eliminate emergency access. That's just not a fair 37 statement to make. It's factually incorrect. It's not supportable by any 38 empirical evidence. He indicated that it requires circuitous routes. 39 There's no cul-de-sac being proposed in this plan that folds into itself or a 40 cul-de-sac leads to another cul-de-sac, leading to another cul-de-sac. 41 And you can have those, I was doing some research on cul-de-sacs 42 preparing for this meeting and there was one drawing, I remember it very 43 vividly, where because of just this ongoing system of cul-de-sacs two lots 44 that are actually back to back to each other required a 2.1 mile route to get 45 from the front door of one to the front door of the other even though they 46 were actually lots back to back. There is nothing like this in our proposal. 13 I The longest cul-de-sac is nine lots long. How circuitous can that be? It's 2 just flies in the face of the facts. And he's saying it somehow eliminates 3 connectivity. Each one of those cul-de-sacs goes to a road that's part of 4 the typical grid pattern. It's an example of what I sometimes call "paralysis 5 by analysis." 6 That staff looks at some American Planning Association document 7 that maybe has a few negative comments about cul-de-sacs and all of a 8 sudden cul-de-sacs are the worst thing in the world. I don't know how 9 many of you have lived on cul-de-sacs. I've lived near a cul-de-sac and I 10 can remember when I lived out in the ETZ. I can remember the end of the 11 cul-de-sac was where moms and dads took their kids to learn to ride 12 bikes. We had an annual block party every year and the invitation was the 13 same every year, meet at the end of the cul-de-sac. They foster 14 neighborhood connections. They don't eliminate them. It's also been 15 proved, and I have a lengthy excerpt in the presentation, it's also been 16 proved through empirical evidence, not just theory; but empirical evidence 17 that cul-de-sacs reduce traffic, they lead to fewer accidents, a decrease in 18 crime, they're more popular than lots and homes on typical grid streets, 19 and they attract premium prices in terms of lot sales and home sales. 20 There's nothing wrong with them. You think that this was part of some evil 21 conspiracy to foist cul-de-sacs on the community, but it's not. And the 22 presentation will show that pretty clearly. 23 Also if cul-de-sacs were not to be included anywhere in the Metro 24 Verde PUD then here is the set of PUD documents, reviewed by staff 25 months upon years, approved by staff, approved by DRC, approved by 26 P&Z, approved by City Council. If it was important to note that the cul-de- 27 sacs were not to be used or even to be discouraged, there was ample 28 opportunity to say that through the review process of the concept plan and 29 now it's a site that concept plan which is devoid of any mention of cul-de- 30 sacs to be discouraged or eliminated, to cite that as a reason for denying 31 this final site plan. Really, as Development Services, Community 32 Development's main reason for denying the final site plan I just think it's 33 so wildly misplaced that I'm certainly hopeful that you'll disregard it. 34 35 Scholz: Excuse me, Mr. Moscato. You said you're going to have a presentation, 36 isn't this your presentation? 37 38 Moscato: This is my introduction. 39 40 Scholz: Okay. 41 42 Moscato: But I guess I'm ready now to move on to the presentation. 43 44 Scholz: Good. 45 46 Moscato: Oh, before I do, one more issue in terms of fairness: the issue was raised 14 I about staff comments that hadn't been addressed and one of you 2 mentioned, "Well, there are lots of comments in your packet." From the 3 point of view of fairness I would've hoped that if staff was going to present 4 in your packet staffs comments they would've included our answers 5 because we have answered all of the comments. So, again, I just wonder 6 how you can expect businesses to operate in a climate where we cannot 7 depend on consistency and we cannot depend on fairness and 8 unfortunately, that's the situation we're faced throughout the review and 9 approval process of this final site plan. 10 Mr. Ochoa has already presented a nice vicinity map. This just 11 really reiterates the, or shows, the whole picture of Metro Verde, Metro 12 Verde South PUD which is where we are here. There's another Metro 13 Verde Amendment 700 or so acres to the north. That's another picture: 14 just shows the various land use designations within the overall Metro 15 Verde area. All those land uses are still in place. Everything we have 16 proposed and the first phase of this project, the second phase of this 17 project, and I'm sure in future phases will be in compliance and have been 18 compliance with the land uses approved in the PUDs. 19 This shows a comparison of the original Concept Plan on your left 20 and what we've done on the right is simply drop in the lots that have 21 already been approved in Metro Verde South Phase 1 and that are being 22 proposed in Metro Verde South Phase 2 and you can see everything lines 23 up. 24 This is a portion of one of the pages from the Metro Verde South 25 PUD Concept Plan that's fully approved. I wanted to highlight here in 26 number three: create a range of housing opportunities and choices. This 27 was never proposed and was not approved as being a one-size fits all 28 development. It's in total over 2,000 acres when you include a couple of 29 pieces that we still have to go through PUD approval for on the outskirts. 30 It was never anticipated that a single subdivision design would be used 31 everywhere. So to say that we used a grid pattern in Phase 1, we're using 32 a hybrid grid cul-de-sac pattern in Phase 2. We have another 33 development that has actually been to staff in a pre-application conference 34 where it's rear alley access, no cul-de-sacs at all, kind of modified grid 35 pattern. We feel that giving people a choice, what it says here, create a 36 range of housing opportunities and choices. If somebody wants to live on 37 a cul-de-sac, that should be their choice. If we want to develop some lots, 38 a small minority of the total in the overall PUD as cul-de-sacs, we're not 39 violating the approved concept plan at all. We're complying with it. 40 A lot's been talked about in terms of connectivity. This is word for 41 word taken from the approved Concept Plan in terms of how specifically 42 point-by-point issue-by-issue that pedestrian connectivity was proposed to 43 be realized. Let's go through them one by one: sidewalks in single-family 44 areas will be separated from the roadway with landscape parkways. We 45 did that in Phase 1 in its entirety, 260 lots already built. We did that in 46 Phase 1. We will do it in Phase 2. It's part of our standard street cross 15 I section. 2 Number two: 10-foot shared use paths shall be constructed along 3 Sonoma Ranch Boulevard, Engler Road, and Arroyo Road. Well, in 4 Phase 2 none of those roads exist. There is another Arterial, Peachtree 5 Hills Road, at the north end of Phase 2 and when we build that we will 6 include it because it's part of the cross section that the Planning and 7 Zoning Commission approved, City Council approved, staffs approved. 8 We will build it. In Phase 1 there was a piece of Engler Road that was 9 built and we did build a 10-foot shared use path. When we are supposed 10 to build that under the terms of the approved concept plan, we will build 11 that. 12 13 Scholz: Excuse me, Mr. Moscato. Sonoma Ranch Boulevard is built though, isn't 14 it? 15 16 Moscato: Not with ... 17 18 Scholz: I drove on it today. I was wondering what I was driving on. 19 20 Moscato: Well, not within the Metro Verde South PUD. 21 22 Scholz: Oh, I see. You haven't gotten that far yet. 23 24 Moscato: No. 25 26 Scholz: Okay. 27 28 Moscato: Three: bike lanes will be constructed within the road cross sections of all 29 Arterials and Collectors for commuting cyclists. The only Arterial is 30 Peachtree Hills Road at the very north end. The approved cross section 31 includes bike lanes. We will build bike lanes. 32 Four: elevated crosswalks and roundabouts will encourage lower 33 driving speeds in the area. When we build Red Hawk Golf Road, which is 34 at the very east edge of Phase 2, the approved cross section for Red 35 Hawk Golf Road includes elevated crosswalks which we will build. It 36 doesn't specifically include roundabouts in this area. Roundabouts are an 37 issue we'll get to in just a little bit, too. Where roundabouts are included in 38 the Concept Plan to be built, we will build them. We are the area's biggest 39 proponent of roundabouts. The City beat us by about one month in 40 building its roundabout right here. About a month later we completed the 41 roundabout out at Red Hawk Golf Road and the future Arroyo Road. 42 We're big proponents of that and we'll continue building them where they 43 are specified to be built. 44 Five: 12-foot sidewalks will be constructed along both sides of the 45 neighborhood mixed use corridor. As we build Red Hawk Golf Road, 46 which is mixed use corridor as well as Central which runs perpendicular 16 I with Red Hawk Golf Road, we will build those. We're not denying, we ... 2 that's a major feature that we proposed to be included. That wasn't any 3 requirement that the City put on us. We proposed it and we certainly 4 intend to build those. 5 Six: (inaudible) will be implemented along the neighborhood mixed 6 use corridor. Again, that refers to Red Hawk Golf Road and Central and 7 we'll do that. So, every single item that's detailed in the Concept Plan with 8 respect to pedestrian connectivity is being complied with by the developer, 9 everywhere. The alligation that somehow intermittent use of cul-de-sacs 10 impedes or eliminates connectivity when cul-de-sacs are nine lots deep at 11 most, it just doesn't stand up as a factual statement. 12 A picture's worth a thousand words: here is the system of 13 pedestrian connectivity in Metro Verde South Phase 2. The red indicates 14 either sidewalks or a multiuse path in the case of Peachtree Hills Road. 15 This doesn't even show what will be built within those larger parcels and 16 I'll talk about those a little bit here in a minute. 17 Mr. Ochoa has already cited this first statement, minor Local streets 18 will be designed to discourage through traffic while ensuring connectivity. 19 The cul-de-sacs certainly discourage through traffic. They don't 20 discourage connectivity, not when all you have to do if you live at the 21 farthest end of the cul-de-sacs is walk the width of nine lots to get to the 22 basic grid of streets. How anyone can say walking nine lots is somehow 23 an impediment to connectivity is simply beyond me. 24 This next statement wasn't one that Mr. Ochoa raised here, but it 25 was raised at the DRC. I answered it at the DRC. Dedicated alleys 26 owned and operated by the City of Las Cruces will serve numerous homes 27 throughout Metro Verde South. It says "numerous homes." It doesn't say 28 every home. We didn't include any dedicated alleys in Phase 1. We're 29 not proposing any for Phase 2. In the preliminary final site plan 30 presentation that we made at the pre-app meeting two weeks ago we 31 clearly showed a development where we intend to propose and build 32 those. It doesn't say they have to be built everywhere. It's a choice we 33 have. We'll take that choice in some areas and we'll decide to use other 34 designs in other areas. 35 Okay. This is another view of cul-de-sacs. Mr. Ochoa cited an 36 American Planning Association document. I haven't read the full 37 document. I just read the little pieces that he included. I don't know if it's 38 simply a theoretical piece or not, but I'd like to read this into the record. 39 It's not too long and I think it's very instructive to have someone else's 40 view besides mine, besides Development Services on cul-de-sacs today. 41 This is from a magazine called Access which is published by the 42 University of California - Berkley, and it's written by Michael Southworth, 43 Professor of City and Regional Planning at the University of California - 44 Berkley, editor of the Journal of Urban Design, and Erin Ben Joseph, 45 Associate Professor of Landscape Architect and Planning at the 46 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spring 2004. Now the last time 1 17 I looked I don't think UC-Berkley or MIT were, you know, bastions of 2 conservative development thinking. They're usually pretty much on the 3 cutting edge of what's happening in the planning and development field. 4 5 Scholz: Mr. Moscato, in interests of time, are you planning to read the entire 6 piece? 7 8 Moscato: I'd like to. 9 10 Scholz: Well, why don't you summarize it since you've already read it and we can 11 read it on the screen? 12 13 Moscato: Okay. 14 15 Scholz: I would appreciate it. Thank you. 16 17 Moscato: Okay. The author cite several advantages, I've mentioned some of them 18 already that it offers quiet safe streets, children can play with little fear of 19 fast moving traffic. It's actually unlike some uses of the grid system may 20 promote familiarity and neighborliness. Cites here, based on a study of 21 neighborhoods, no just theory, this is based on a study where traffic was 22 measured, accidents were measured, crime was measured, popularity of 23 measured, pricing was measured and cul-de-sacs were at the top of the 24 list in terms of reducing traffic, reducing accidents, reducing crime, 25 increasing popularity, increasing property values and final statement, 26 findings suggest cul-de-sac streets, especially at lots at the end perform 27 better than grid or loop patterns in terms of traffic safety, privacy, and 28 safety for play. What's the problem with them? I mean, why is staff so 29 insistent that the use of cul-de-sacs in this one phase of Metro Verde 30 South is somehow not to be condoned? 31 Here's the next project which we proposed to build. It'll just take a 32 second here, but you'll see this is actually to be developed across the 33 street from the new elementary school on Peachtree. You can see no cul- 34 de-sacs, rear alley access, and this is in keeping with the stated provision 35 of the Concept Plan where there is to be a range of choices and housing 36 opportunities. Someone wants to live on cul-de-sacs, they have that 37 choice, they have that opportunity. We have the opportunity to develop it. 38 We also have the opportunity to develop a more new urbanist design 39 which you see here. And I hope we'll be bringing before you in a few 40 months. 41 One of the ... 42 43 Scholz: Pardon me just a moment. Commissioner Beard, you had a specific ... 44 45 Beard: I would like to know exactly where that is on this map here or on the 46 overall map. 18 1 2 Moscato: Let me see. Okay. 3 4 Scholz: Yeah, it's at the north end ... 5 6 Moscato: See where the cursor is? I can see it up on the screen, you can't see 7 that? 8 9 Scholz: Yes, we can see it. 10 11 Moscato: That's where it is. Right there. 12 13 Scholz: Thank you. Go ahead. 14 15 Moscato: Much of the, for lack of a better term, "new urbanist ideas" that will 16 ultimately be developed in Phase 2 are centered in this core group of 17 larger parcels and if you... I can go back ... if you remember the Concept 18 Plan there's the little lots and then there's that core area of bigger lots. 19 That's where the higher density that the concept plan calls for will occur. 20 That's where the mix of uses and there's lots of them that are approved. 21 There's multifamily apartments. There's assisted living. There's 22 townhomes, other attached housing. In the mixed use areas, 23 neighborhood commercial, combination of work/live opportunities. That's 24 where it's going to occur. There will be hundreds of those units here. We 25 have incredible density approved as Mr. Ochoa pointed out. In fact I did 26 the math for somebody just the other day because of the total maximum 27 density that was approved for this whole area and the fact that the single- 28 family lots are actually relatively low density, what's left here in terms of 29 density is nearly 80 units an acre. Now we'll never reach 80 units an acre, 30 not in Las Cruces. But it does give us a lot of flexibility and this is an area 31 we have focused on in our own internal planning in trying to attract 32 multifamily and other developers to this phase and this will be the core of 33 those features. 34 35 Scholz: Okay, but we're not talking about that right now are we. 36 37 Moscato: We are. Yes, sir, we are. Those lots are part of the final site plan. If the 38 final site plan is not approved and those lots are not created ... 39 40 Scholz: Thank you. Thank you for the correction. 41 42 Moscato: We have no opportunity to move forward with development of those. So 43 we're not just here for approval of the small lots. We're here for approval 44 of the whole thing including the big lots. 45 46 Scholz: I understand. 19 1 2 Moscato: Here are some renderings of the types of buildings and themes which we 3 are seeking to build in those larger lots. The one at the top is a series of 4 townhomes, higher density, two, three story townhomes, a use that is 5 approved under the PUD and the one at the bottom is an example of 6 live/work where the ground level has different commercial office/retail uses 7 and there'd be loft or apartments up above. That's exactly what we have 8 proposed in the PUD. It's exactly what we're going to be striving to 9 develop here once we have the final site plan approved. 10 This is an example of a multifamily development that we actually 11 had initially planned to build on the parcel just to the east of that rear alley 12 access plan that I showed you a few minutes ago. We proposed it 13 through the state for a low-income housing tax credit funded project. 14 Didn't quite make (inaudible) for that funding, so we are now considering 15 shifting this plan over to the Metro Verde South Phase 2 area, or 16 something very like it. It's just an example of the type of development that 17 we will be including in those larger parcels. Again, the whole idea behind 18 Metro Verde South is a mixed use concept plan. So you're going to have 19 some single-family lots. You're going to have some standard and 20 standard looking, normal looking, every day subdivision type single-family 21 lots. It's unavoidable. How else are you going to build single-family 22 homes for people? There's not an unlimited array of choices. We're 23 incorporating three already in the single-family lots that you've seen, 24 Phase 1 which is built, the grid pattern; Phase 2 which we're proposing 25 here which is the hybrid grid cul-de-sac pattern; and on Peachtree the rear 26 alley access. Also in Phase 2 the higher density core of the neighborhood 27 mixed use corridor of which this is one example of what we hope to 28 develop there. 29 Also in Phase 2 are two public parks that we will build. We have 30 met with Parks staff. Our parks designer, Joanne Gutierrez, has met with 31 Parks staff. She has created these plans. If you went out there to Phase 32 1 you would've seen that in connection with Phase 1 we have built and 33 dedicated to the City two new parks. They are completed. They have 34 been inspected. They have been accepted by the City. That's rare these 35 days when a developer goes in and as he builds the lots, builds the parks 36 along with the lots, dedicates them to the City. That's exactly what we've 37 done in Phase 1, that's exactly what we propose to do in Phase 2. Here 38 we'll have to imagine that all three of these pieces are lined up end to end. 39 It's a linear park with exercise stations that will be along Red Hawk Golf 40 Road. Here is Joanne's rendering of what it would look like from the side. 41 The other park is a youth soccer park that will be built at the southeast 42 corner of Phase 2. Again, a much needed feature in the neighborhood. If 43 you went out there I'm sure you would've noticed so many homes in the 44 Las Colinas area, Sierra Norte Heights, and (inaudible) Sierra, and Monte 45 Sombra, not very many parks at all. This Metro Verde South Phase 2, just 46 as Phase 1 has already done, will provide that entire neighborhood, 20 I because these are parks that will be dedicated to the City. They aren't 2 private parks. Anybody in the area, anybody in the City can use these. 3 This is Joanne's rendering of what the youth soccer park which will include 4 some swings and other features. 5 When we put our name on something like a Concept Plan and we 6 make promises to perform in a certain way, we like to think, we make 7 good on our promises. One of the promises we made was for Metro 8 Verde South as a whole to be at a higher level of sustainability than the 9 typical development in Las Cruces. This is the certification that we 10 received from the National Association of Home Builders Research Center 11 certifying that Phase 1 a, and the other phases are going through the same 12 certification process, has been certified as a Three Star Green 13 Subdivision. I'm not sure if you're aware, this is the first Three Star Green 14 Subdivision certified by the NAHB Research Council in the entire state of 15 New Mexico. It's right here in Las Cruces, right here in Metro Verde South 16 PUD. We have two homes that have just been completed which are, 1 17 believe, the third and fourth lead platinum homes to be certified in town. 18 You know just another example of the fact that we take the provisions and 19 the promises of the concept plan very seriously. No one forced us to do 20 this. We could've been sustainable without going through the certification 21 process which cost a lot of money and takes a lot of time to do, but you 22 know we try to do our best. 23 This is just a comparison of the original land use tabulation table, 24 which is on your left and one that we had to revise 'cause we had to go 25 through a minor revision in the Concept Plan because there was a small 26 decrease, I think seven percent decrease in the amount of drainage 27 acreage. Well, this simply shows that. It's not that important except it 28 does say that all acreages are approximate and may be adjusted with final 29 design which is exactly what we do. You know when you have a concept 30 plan you always have to make some adjustments between the concept 31 plan and what you actually build. Here there was seven percent increase, 32 not a very big, I mean, seven percent decrease. But it really... it's not 33 going to affect the overall density. We're never going to be close to the 34 overall approved density. But this is just going to show that you know we 35 did make an adjustment, we tabulated what the adjustment was, we 36 showed what the adjustment was, everything's very clear and above 37 board. 38 1 mentioned before that for some reason staff failed to include our 39 responses to staffs comments in your packet. Here are some of the 40 pages of our responses. I believe we've answered all of the questions. 41 You know there are some questions that frankly I don't think we're going 42 to ... or some issues I don't think we're going to resolve. If staff continues 43 to take the position that cul-de-sacs should not be built here in Phase 2, 44 well, that may be an issue that just does not get resolved. You know we 45 can repeat over and over again we like our plan. These are the reasons 46 why we think we're complying with the provisions of the Concept Plan. If 21 I staff disagrees, staff certainly has a right to disagree, but I think we have a 2 right to press our case as well, and we have and I believe we've answered 3 all of the concerns. You know if there are lingering concerns, engineering 4 was mentioned as far as drainage. Well, I think we have a difference of 5 opinion there perhaps as far as what needs to be addressed here at final 6 site plan stage in the form of a master drainage study, as opposed to what 7 has to be addressed at construction drawings in a final drainage study. 8 Believe me we know what the rules are. We've built enough of these 9 developments around town. We just finished building 260 lots in Phase 1. 10 We'll abide by the rules that govern construction drawings and we've 11 answered all of the comments. 12 13 Scholz: All right, so you're open for questions. 14 15 Moscato: Yes, sir. 16 17 Scholz: Questions for this gentleman? Commissioner Shipley. 18 19 Shipley: I'd just like to make a comment: I'm not opposed to cul-de-sacs. I live 20 pretty close to a cul-de-sac personally and I've lived on cul-de-sacs 21 before. I think the thing that when I looked at this plan and I tried to look 22 at it from an objective standpoint is the traffic flow and how it's going to go. 23 Also when I look at the plan I look at the fact that all of your parks are on 24 the east side of the development and the people that live over here on the 25 west side have got to get in the car to drive to the park, to take their kids to 26 the park and I see this throughout. We seem to have this problem that we 27 don't want to put small parks throughout the community so that little kids 28 can go with their moms or whatever and walk to a park, they have to get in 29 a car and drive to a park. I know from when I take my grandchildren, I live 30 in Sonoma Ranch, the closet park that I can go to is about seven or eight 31 blocks. It's actually a little farther than that away. So we have to get in 32 the car and drive over there and stop and get out and play on the swings 33 and that, and then get back in the car and drive somewhere else, because 34 you've got to cross Sonoma Ranch Boulevard and that's a busy street for 35 a six year old or seven year old to cross. So, one of things that I noticed 36 here, you've got 3.41 acres up here in the northern part, you've got a one 37 acre parcel down here for that, but other than that there's nothing in there 38 green space for kids. 39 When I go out and look at sites I look at the way the neighborhoods 40 run and I see where the kids are, and the kids are playing in the street. So 41 the cul-de-sacs are where the kids are playing and when the cars come in 42 then they stop and go to their yards and go on the sidewalk and do that. 1 43 think when we're working with paper and that it's a good choice to try to 44 think about how we can ... when I say inter-connectivity, bicycles are 45 connectivity, walking you know is connectivity. If you can't walk through a 46 neighborhood and get to some place that's close by it doesn't work. So 1 22 1 have a kind of a bias about parks and I'd like to see them more into the 2 neighborhoods than where you have to get in the car and go to that. 3 Second thing is that when you ... this is all laid out and homes are 4 laid out and so forth and then you've got in the middle, you've got a 5 large....your large lots for your mixed use and I think that's very ... it's 6 good to have the mixed use in the center and build the homes around it so 7 that they can go to that place to buy, to shop, to do those kinds of things. 8 My experience in this business is that you need to build the mixed use 9 first, because if you don't do that first and you build all these homes on the 10 east, or the west side of this they're going to lose their mountain view and 11 you're going to have every one of your residents come in and when you 12 want to go in and have this done, they're going to complain that you've 13 just cut off their view. If it's built and they have a chance to pick out their 14 lot and they see that it's not important to them, it works that way. But we 15 get people who come you know like somebody wanted to build a church 16 for example on a corner lot and it had been zoned for that for ever and 17 ever and ever. But the whole neighborhood came in because they didn't 18 want us to do that or they didn't want the ... because they said it would 19 block their view. So, that's just a point I would make to maybe help in your 20 planning process to do that, to make your project a little more appealing to 21 the people that are doing that. 22 1 don't think this is "cul-de-sac-wise." It's excessive, I think it's a fine 23 layout. I think there are times where you have long stretches of road 24 where you certain connectivity points in, for example, all along the linear 25 park there's no way to get in to any of the homes except for at AB there, 26 that point you've got one point in there, and then if you go up farther north 27 and that road comes around when it's done, I guess that Peachtree Hills 28 Road, but everything's ... you've got long straight avenues and we have 29 problems in this City continually about people wanting us to put in speed 30 bumps or they want us to put patrolmen out there because people are 31 going more than 25 miles an hour down the street in the neighborhood. 32 The southern part seems to have better connectivity, in my opinion, 33 because you've two or three entrances in so that people can drive up the 34 main arterial and then turn left and go across to that. But the northern part 35 is there's only one entrance as I see there. So, there's one entrance in 36 the middle of the multiuse, but that's what I was looking at as far as 37 connectivity. How do the kids get around, walking and riding bikes and so 38 forth? 39 40 Moscato: I believe there... if I may answer? I believe there is an entrance from Red 41 Hawk Golf Road at the very north boundary of the larger multifamily 42 parcels and one coming from, actually two coming from Peachtree Hills 43 heading south. So I think maybe there is possibly one you missed there, 44 right at the southern boundary of the linear park and the northern 45 boundary of the larger parcels. 46 23 I Shipley: I saw the one there and I also saw the one off of Peachtree, at the top. 2 But most of your traffic is going to be coming from the south out here for a 3 long time. In other words, it's going to be coming home this direction and 4 going to work into town. So that's why I was kind of looking at it from that 5 standpoint. The southern parts got plenty of access too, but once they get 6 into the neighborhood this one that are not named or at least I can't read 7 them, they're so small, but it's on linear, you know straight line basically 8 and that just ends up people speeding up and down. 9 10 Scholz: All right. Thank you, Commissioner Shipley. Other comments, questions 11 for this gentleman? Okay, I had a couple about the engineering study. 12 We had ... let me go back to my notes here. By the way we did get the 13 Design Review Committee minutes and while they weren't included in this 14 piece, we did get them on-line so that would've included your responses, 15 as well, as I recall. Okay, as I see it here in our notes we have two pages 16 of Engineering Service's comments and then a page of comments from 17 Traffic. Are these things addressed? 18 19 Moscato: Yes sir. 20 21 Scholz: Okay. How were they addressed? Just by you answering them or were 22 they actually... did you actually make changes in the site plan? 23 24 Moscato: We met with representatives from Traffic and Engineering, discussed 25 changes, agreed. We did make one or two intersection changes, 26 redesigned and answered each and every ... you can see they list their 27 comments number by number, one by one, and we provided answers one 28 by one. They have questions, we give answers ad we believe satisfactory 29 answers. 30 31 Scholz: Okay. All right, any other questions? Okay, thank you very much, Mr. 32 Moscato. 33 34 Moscato: Thank you. 35 36 Scholz: Is there someone from Engineering here? 37 38 Dominguez: Rocio Dominguez. Chief Development Engineer. Natasha Billy is the one 39 that has been reviewing the comments that were made. If I'm not 40 mistaken they met on Wednesday and Thursday of last week and the 41 changes were barely submitted at the end of last week. So Natasha Billy 42 has really not had a chance to look into the comments and see if the 43 comments that she had before were addressed or not on the new 44 submittal. 45 46 Scholz: Oh, well, that puts us in an interesting position then. Yes, Mr. Kyle. 24 1 2 Kyle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, I think as a general issue most of 3 the outstanding staff comments and if you did read the DRC minutes, 4 there were issues that were raised and I think we dispensed with most of 5 those that, yes, they would address those or meet with staff to work it out. 6 1 don't believe the nature of any of those outstanding staff comments are 7 significant enough to be game changers, for lack of a better word. 8 9 Scholz: Okay. 10 11 Kyle: To the development proposal or would require any significant redesign to 12 address those comments. Like I said in regards to some of the traffic 13 issues and our Traffic Engineer is here, it may require the shifting of some 14 roadway intersections, possibly some lot lines, but I don't think any of it 15 would cause major amendments requiring a complete redraw. 16 17 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'd like to talk to Traffic for just 18 a moment. 19 20 Roman: Good evening. Willie Roman, City Traffic Engineer. 21 22 Scholz: Okay, were your concerns met? 23 24 Roman: I would say that a few of them were addressed adequately but most of 25 them were not. One of the major issues is that they have not submitted a 26 Traffic Impact Analysis and there is no way that we can assess a Traffic 27 Impact Analysis that actually focuses on their proposal. They did submit a 28 Traffic Impact Analysis but it was for the PUD and this is a final site plan. 29 So, I have no way of determining what type of impact there would be on 30 some of the roads; for example, the roadway that seems to be in the 31 middle of the subdivision. I'm not sure the name of that particular road but 32 most of the cul-de-sacs are tying to that road. That particular road is of 33 great concern for me as a traffic engineer. When you have that many 34 roads tying into it my concern is how the intersections are going to be 35 functioning, how the roadway itself... I'm sorry the roadway is Voyager. 36 37 Scholz: Oh, okay. That comes in from the south as I recall. 38 39 Roman: Yes, sir, and I believe it continues to go south. So I believe it's this road 40 right here, I believe that road is designated as a Minor Local, correct? It's 41 a Local road and you can see how many roads tie into that particular road. 42 My concern is, as I said, is the capacity of that road and how it will function 43 at the intersection. I mean, I understand that this is ... I think the meeting 44 that we had last week, it was mentioned that while there's nothing to the 45 north so it's, you know, there's nothing up there. Traffic's not going to be 46 going in that direction but traffic is going to be going somewhere and that's 25 I the purpose of a Traffic Impact Analysis, is for us to be able to take a look 2 at where the trip assignment is, the trip distribution, the generators are at, 3 and how we can best model what's going on out there. 4 1 think another issue, too, that isn't ... we didn't mention specifically 5 but has been discussed quite a bit is the idea of cul-de-sacs and how 6 they're safe and traffic engineer's prefer them and I would have to say, as 7 a traffic engineer, I would have to agree that I do prefer them from a 8 capacity analysis. But not, but most definitely not from ... one of the 9 issues that crosses my desk quite a bit are citizens requesting signage on 10 their streets because their children play on the streets and my first thought 11 when that crosses my desk is why are children playing in the streets? 12 They're not intended for that use and if proposals are being made and 13 brought forward at this level saying, well, look, cul-de-sacs are great 14 because they're somewhere, it's a great place for kids to feel safe to play, 15 I'm definitely going to be opposed to that because we have to go in and 16 we have to do neighborhood calming sessions and programs and figure 17 out ways to get traffic to slow down and they're not always successful. If 18 we have to start at this level and start educating the public in terms of the 19 usage of streets and the fact that they're not a safe place for kids to be 20 playing, I think if this is the appropriate place then I think that's a good 21 thing to be mentioned. 22 23 Scholz: All right. Commissioner Beard, go ahead. 24 25 Beard: So with that comment are you saying that this is a good plan, these cul- 26 de-sacs, or are you saying that they're a bad plan? 27 28 Roman: From a capacity perspective just from the cul-de-sacs themselves, if 29 you're looking just exclusively at the cul-de-sacs, it's great for the cul-de- 30 sac because people aren't going to be traveling down, because there isn't 31 connectivity there. From just the safety of the road, sure it's ... you're 32 going to have less traffic there. But what happens as a result is that the 33 roads that they connect to end up acquiring all of this extra traffic and 34 those particular roads, like Voyager, for example have to be assessed 35 adequately to make sure that they have the capacity, that at the 36 intersections they operate and they have a proper function. So in my 37 opinion I'm not very happy with this layout. The fact that the roadways are 38 very straight, in my opinion; they should be more curved because that 39 creates a natural calming effect. People don't think that they can be used 40 as racetracks. So that's some of the concerns that I had mentioned. 41 42 Scholz: As I looked at the map the Red Hawk Golf Road is on the right, is that 43 right? 44 45 Roman: Yes, sir, I believe so. 46 26 I Scholz: Okay, and so that's an Arterial. 2 3 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, I believe that is still a Local road. It's wider than what a 4 typical Local road is. It's proposed to be the, what is it, the mixed use 5 corridor if you will of the area, so it's about 68-feet wide with on-street 6 parking and 12-foot wide sidewalks and the pedestrian crossways as 7 proposed by the Concept Plan. 8 9 Scholz: Okay. Well I'm looking at north/south access here and you're talking 10 about Voyager. I drove on Voyager this morning when I went out to look 11 at the property and that's running through a ... it's a Minor Local you said? 12 Yeah, that seems to be the only way people can get to and from this, that 13 and Red Hawk Golf Road and I'm thinking that's a real handicap. What's 14 on the west side of this development? Is there a road planned there? 15 'Cause I didn't see anything. 16 17 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, west of this road is actually the county now. I believe there 18 are no roads proposed to the west here. Peachtree Hills Road is 19 proposed that the county meander down this way, but I believe it kind of 20 curves off that way so no road actually would be joining the properties 21 there to the west of them. 22 23 Scholz: Well, I can see your concerns; the Engineer, I can see your concerns 24 about Voyager then. That's Voyager is going to take all the traffic initially. 25 26 Roman: I believe that what has been installed or applied as a traffic calming 27 method thus far is stop signs being placed at every other intersection and 28 having implemented traffic calming devices myself, stop signs are not 29 intended to be a traffic calming device. They're used for functionality of 30 intersections. It's another reason why I really need a Traffic Impact 31 Analysis to determine whether some of these intersections are actually 32 warranted four-way stops or two-way stops or some of those. You know, 33 sometimes new developments come in without even checking for warrants 34 on their Traffic Impact Analysis. I think that's an important aspect and 35 that's yet another reason that I need that document to have a proper 36 assessment of this subdivision. 37 38 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Moscato, you have a rejoinder. 39 40 Moscato: Yes sir, thank you. As far as the issue of access and everything being 41 followed through Voyager, I think if you look at the map you'll see there 42 are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, there are nine 43 access points to Phase 2. Nine! I'm not sure how many more we need. 44 Voyager may certainly be a logical choice for a lot of people, but if 45 somebody's living at the north end of Phase 2, they're not going to take 46 Voyager, they're going to take Red Hawk or they're going to take 27 I Peachtree after it gets fully developed to Sonoma Ranch Boulevard. 1 2 think nine access points are more than adequate for this area, especially 3 when the highest density is going to be at the perimeter along Red Hawk 4 Golf Road. 5 6 Scholz: And the north end. 7 8 Moscato: And the north end. Yes. 9 10 Scholz: Okay. 11 12 Moscato: As far as the traffic impact analysis, I think there we're back to the issue of 13 consistency. We submitted a TIA with the PUD as was stated. It was 14 reviewed, it was approved. When we went before staff, before Planning 15 and Zoning Commission and before City Council with the final site plan, 16 just the same level of approval as we're seeking here, the final site plan 17 for 700 acres at the north end of the Metro Verde Amendment, way up by 18 the golf course, all that was required was the PUD TIA. When we went for 19 review and approval through all the different bodies, all the different staffs, 20 of the 260 lots in Phase 1, all that was required was the TIA submitted 21 with the PUD. If you look at the City's own PUD regulations it clearly says 22 the staff, and this is Section B on the final site plan review, it says, "The 23 staff shall review the submittal for completeness. If all the required items 24 have been submitted as per Section 38-49E, the Community Development 25 Department shall issue a receipt for submittal," which we received. °A 26 final site plan and submittal material shall not be accepted for review if 27 incomplete." It's clearly accepted for review. We've gone through two 28 reviews and now after the second review suddenly a brand new traffic 29 engineer who hasn't been involved, admittedly, and he said this in the 30 meeting we had with them, who hasn't been involved with any of the prior 31 approvals of any of the final site plans, any of the Concept Plans, is 32 suddenly saying we need a new TIA just for Phase 2. Where's the 33 consistency? If it was required it should've been ... we should've been 34 told it was required at the time we submitted the package or after the first 35 review, but we weren't. It was good enough for 700 acres at the north end 36 of this project. It was good for 260 lots just south of Phase 2. Let's have 37 some consistency here. Why isn't it good enough now? If you were to 38 decide that you really want one specifically for Phase 2, 1 suggest that you 39 could approve this final site plan with a condition that prior to submittal of 40 construction drawings or current with submittal of construction drawings 41 we would submit that Phase 2 specific TIA. I personally don't think you 42 should have to go there because I think there's adequate precedent 43 through the entire history of this project to show that the existing TIA is 44 sufficient. 45 There's one more important fact and it goes really to the heart of 46 why a TIA is typically required: it measures what's called level of service. 28 I Now there are intersection issues in addition to level of service, but level 2 of service, you know, A, B, C, D, E, F, is the most important, I think, 3 consideration that a TIA is to deal with. In the PUD concept plan for Metro 4 Verde South, the approved Concept Plan on sheet O under PUD flexibility 5 there's a statement "vehicular level of service shall not be used as a 6 limiting factor." That was approved. It was approved by staff. It was 7 approved by P&Z. It was approved by City Council. If level of service is 8 not a limiting factor, then whatever level of service the TIA shows to exist 9 here should not be a limiting factor. So it's irrelevant as far as whether 10 this goes forward for approval or not. If it's not a limiting factor that's a 11 major feature of a TIA besides, you know, occasional intersection 12 analysis, which if you insist, we're happy to do. 13 14 Scholz: All right. Thank you. All right anyone else from the public wish to speak to 15 this. All right I'm going to close it for public discussion. Gentlemen, let's 16 hear your views. Commissioner Stowe. 17 18 Stowe: Well, just a question among ourselves. When a plan reaches this level of 19 approval we need to know that Traffic, Engineering, Parks, all the areas 20 have given their okay. It doesn't seem to be the case now or at least not 21 completely. How do we arrive at that point? 22 23 Scholz: Well, I would say that we have to weigh those factors, you know, and 24 decide for example if a traffic engineering study is as important or a Traffic 25 Impact Analysis is important, as Mr. Moscato said, we could add that as a 26 condition, you know, before the construction drawings are done. I think 27 we should also weigh the fact that many of these issues have been 28 resolved, as Mr. Kyle pointed, you know. There's nothing ground shaking 29 about the changes that have been agreed to, you know. It's not going to 30 have a major impact on the plan. Does that help you? 31 32 Stowe: Yes. We depend on all these area experts to offer their opinion. 33 34 Scholz: We do because, of course, we're not experts in our right. You know, we 35 have interests and in some cases we have some expertise because we've 36 worked in these areas before. 37 38 Stowe: I still have the impression it's a little incomplete hearing from Engineering 39 and Traffic tonight. 40 41 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Shipley. 42 43 Shipley: Oh, I would just like to say, I mean we have a planning process and we 44 basically make assumptions that you can see the number of lots that are 45 laid out there. You can figure that the basic occupancy going to be, you 46 know 3.4 people per household or whatever. You know that you're going 29 I to have anywhere from two to three cars per household and the bottom 2 line is somebody could sit down and calculate that very easily. It doesn't 3 take ... you know in the development process we should be able to apply 4 planning factors that are known and I would think that the traffic folks 5 would be able to do that. They've got a map here and if it were me 1 6 would be sitting down crunching some numbers and coming up with what 7 the flow is going to be and doing some projection. So I don't think that 8 that's really the issue here as far as the TIA is necessary. I mean, we 9 actually go out and count cars because they can do that from the plan is 10 what I'm saying. 11 12 Scholz: Okay. 13 14 Shipley: You know and you've got a variance obviously plus or minus, you know, 15 two percent, three percent or whatever so I don't see that as a problem. 1 16 just think that ... I think that you know ... one, I think, it is staffs 17 responsibility to get to us the information. If there's been meetings held 18 subsequently then tonight in our packet we should've had additional 19 information so we could make a decision based upon all of the information 20 instead of the piecemeal part. 21 22 Scholz: That would've been helpful. 23 24 Shipley: Yeah, and so I'm of the opinion that it's time to bring it to a vote. I don't 25 think we need to do a separate TIA to pass this or not pass it. 26 27 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Beard, comments? 28 29 Beard: No. 30 31 Scholz: Okay. All right, I'll entertain a motion to approve and what were the ... 32 let's see, did we have any conditions on this, Mr. Ochoa? 33 34 Ochoa: No, sir. It was a recommendation for denial. 35 36 Scholz: Okay. 37 38 Shipley: Let's just clarify that. So we are ... this is ... 39 40 Scholz: All right, I'm waiting on a motion. 41 42 Beard: There are some conditions here: Long Range Planning, add conditions 43 and Utilities had conditions. 44 45 Kyle: Mr. Chairman. 46 30 I Scholz: Yes. 2 3 Kyle: I think those were some of the comments that again were through the 4 DRC in the review. I think most of those have been agreed to 5 conceptually at least between staff so add anything ... if you wanted to 6 add any conditions at all maybe just resolution, approval with resolution of 7 any outstanding staff comments would be enough. I think that Mr. 8 Moscato and staff is aware of what those are and we're in the process of 9 addressing them anyway, so I don't think that would be an issue from our 10 side. 11 12 Scholz: Could you restate that, Mr. Kyle? 13 14 Kyle: That there just be approval with a condition that any outstanding staff 15 comments are addressed. 16 17 Scholz: Okay. 18 19 Dubbin: Mr. Chairman? 20 21 Scholz: Yes, sir. 22 23 Dubbin: Just to clarify in the packet: the Fire Department did not blanket approve 24 the subdivision or the Concept Plan. There was a condition on the street 25 widths which will be the standard size for City Design Standards and there 26 are widths that are part of the PUD which would not be acceptable in the 27 cul-de-sacs based on conditions that were initially set in the approval of 28 the PUD. 29 30 Scholz: Okay. Has that been addressed? 31 32 Dubbin: It will be in the construction drawings. At this point road widths are not 33 part of the review. I just wanted to be noted for the record. 34 35 Scholz: Okay, thank you. All right, I'm still waiting on a motion. Commissioner 36 Beard. 37 38 Beard: I move to approve PUD-12-04. 39 40 Scholz: All right, is there a second? 41 42 Shipley: Second. 43 44 Scholz: Okay, Beard moves and Shipley seconds. All right, I'll call the role. 45 Commissioner Shipley. 46 31 I Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 2 3 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 4 5 Stowe: Aye, findings ... 6 7 Kyle: Mr. Chairman, point of order: I'm sorry to interrupt, but findings are for 8 denial. You need to restate findings for approval. 9 10 Scholz: Okay. He said findings are for denial. We need to restate findings for 11 approval. 12 13 Kyle: Mr. Chairman, I believe it could be as simple and, Commissioner Shipley, 14 it could be as simple as: based on discussion tonight, presentation by the 15 applicant, etc., we believe that it does meet the approved Concept Plan. It 16 could be an example of the type of finding that we would need. 17 18 Scholz: We'll go back. Commissioner Shipley. 19 20 Shipley: Aye, based upon the discussion tonight and the presentation by the 21 applicant, I find that the findings do allow for the final site plan, or for the 22 PUD. 23 24 Scholz: Approval of the PUD. 25 26 Shipley: Correct. 27 28 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Stowe. 29 30 Stowe: Aye, based on discussions, review, and site visit. 31 32 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 33 34 Beard: Aye, based on discussions, presentations, and site visit. 35 36 Scholz: All right, and the Chair votes aye, based on discussion, presentations, site 37 visit, and assumption of the condition that any outstanding staff comments 38 are addressed. All right. So it's approved 4:0. Thank you, gentlemen. 39 Thank you, ladies. 40 41 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 42 43 Scholz: Is there any additional business? 44 45 Ochoa: No sir, none tonight. 46 32 I Scholz: Okay. 2 3 IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4 5 6 7 X. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS 8 9 Scholz: No staff announcements. 10 11 Ochoa: None tonight, sir. 12 13 XI. ADJOURNMENT 14 15 Scholz: All right, I'll declare ourselves adjourned then at what looks like quarter to 16 eight. Thank you very much. 17 18 Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Chairperson 26 33