Loading...
02-22-2011 YM City of Las Cruces PEOPLE NEtPIN0 PEOPLE 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, February 22, 2011 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 25, 2011 III. POSTPONEMENTS 1. Case Z2828: Application of Borderland Engineers & Surveyors to rezone a 5.21± acre tract from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity to R-1a (Single-Family Medium Density) for 0.94± acres and to M-1/M-2 (Industrial Standard) for 4.26± acres. The subject property is located between Bataan Memorial West and Cortez Drive; a.k.a. address 5195 Bataan Memorial West; Parcel ID# 02- 19666; Proposed Use: Single family residential and unspecified industrial uses; Council District 5. POSTPONED TO MARCH 22, 2011 IV. WITHDRAWALS — None V. CONSENT AGENDA— None Those items on the consent agenda will be voted by one motion with the acceptance of the agenda. Any Planning and Zoning Commissioner, Staff or member of the public may remove an item from the consent agenda for discussion by the commission. VI. NEW BUSINESS 1. Case IDP-45: Application of Patrick Vigil, Vica One on behalf of Tierra Del Sol Housing Corporation for a replat of Bella Vista Subdivision and to vary setback and lot size requirements on a 0.153± acre tract located in the North Mesquite Neighborhood Overlay Zone District, at the southeast corner of Palm Street and Mesquite Street; a.k.a. 1550 North Mesquite Street; Map Code# 4-007-134- 224-217; Proposed Use: Creation of two residential lots for single-family use. Council District 1. 2. Case S-11-002: Application of Blanchard Engineering for the City of Las Cruces for a master plan amendment known as Kennon Annexation Master Plan Major Amendment No. 1 and a waiver request to road improvements on a 320± acre tract located at the terminus and on the south side of Crawford Blvd.; a.k.a. 0 Crawford Blvd.; Parcel ID# 02-39560. Proposed Use: Public/Private Utility Installation. Council District 4. 3. Case Z2823: Application of Blanchard Engineering for the City of Las Cruces for a rezone from HC (Holding with conditions) to M-3C (Heavy Industrial) to allow for Heavy Industrial uses with conditions on a 320± acre tract located at the terminus and on the south side of Crawford Blvd.; a.k.a. 0 Crawford Blvd.; Parcel ID# 02-39560. Proposed Use: Public/Private Utility Installation. Council District 4. VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION VIII. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Work Session on March 15, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers IX. ADJOURNMENT 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 FOR THE 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 City Council Chambers 5 February 22, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. 6 7 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 8 Charles Scholz, Chairman 9 Godfrey Crane, Vice Chair 10 Charles Beard, Secretary 11 Ray Shipley, Member 12 Shawn Evans, Member 13 Donald Bustos, Member 14 15 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 16 William Stowe, Member 17 18 STAFF PRESENT: 19 Cheryl Rodriguez, Development Services Administrator 20 Ellie Cain, Senior Planner 21 Jennifer Robertson, Planner 22 Helen Revels, Associate Planner 23 Mark Dubbin, Fire Department 24 Jared Abrams, CLC Legal Staff 25 Lora Dunlap, Recording Secretary 26 27 I. CALL TO ORDER (6:00 pm) 28 29 Scholz: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission for 30 Tuesday, February 22, 2011; I'm Charlie Scholz, the Chair. Before we 31 begin I want to introduce the other members of the Commission. On the 32 far right is Commissioner Shipley. Commissioner Shipley is the Mayor's 33 appointee to the Commission. Next to him is Commissioner Crane, he 34 represents District 4; he's also our Vice Chair. Next to him is 35 Commissioner Evans who represents District 5 and then it's 36 Commissioner Bustos who represents District 3. On my immediate right is 37 Commissioner Beard who is our Secretary and also represents Council 38 District 2 and I represent Council District 6. 39 40 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —January 25, 2011 41 42 Scholz: Our first order of business is the approval of the minutes of the previous 43 meeting which would be the minutes of January 25, 2011. Are there any 44 additions or corrections to the minutes gentlemen? 45 46 Crane: I have one Mr. Chairman. 1 1 2 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 3 4 Crane: Page 52, line 26; 1 didn't thoroughly do my homework on this but I am 5 reading the staff recommendation for Case Z2825 evidently, and I am 6 saying on line 25; "the property owner will be required to replat the subject 7 property that is zoned all underlying lot lines." That doesn't make sense. 8 9 Scholz: Not to me either, no. 10 11 Crane: Right, I wonder if I should have looked it up but I didn't but since its boiler- 12 plate and not something that's well perhaps... yes, it is recorded. 13 14 Scholz: We'll put a big question mark. 15 16 Crane: Yes, that's all I have. 17 18 Scholz: Someone else. No? Okay, I have one; page 33, line 22 and again it's one 19 of those I can't figure out and I said it this time; line 22, "yeah politics for 20 that." I have no idea what that means so if you want to put a question 21 mark on that one as well. Alright, I'll entertain a motion to accept the 22 minutes as amended. 23 24 Shipley: I so move to accept the minutes as amended. 25 26 Scholz: Is there a second? 27 28 Bustos: Second. 29 30 Scholz: It's been moved and seconded; all those in favor, say aye. 31 32 All Commissioners: Aye. 33 34 Scholz: Those opposed same sign; and any abstentions? All right, the minutes are 35 approved. 36 37 III. POSTPONEMENTS 38 39 1. Case Z2828: Application of Borderland Engineers & Surveyors to rezone a 40 5.21± acre tract from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity to R-1a (Single- 41 Family Medium Density) for 0.94± acres and to M-1/M-2 (Industrial Standard) 42 for 4.26± acres. The subject property is located between Bataan Memorial 43 West and Cortez Drive; a.k.a. address 5195 Bataan Memorial West; Parcel 44 ID# 02-19666; Proposed Use: Single family residential and unspecified 45 industrial uses; Council District 5. POSTPONED TO MARCH 22, 2011 46 2 1 Scholz: Our first order of business is actually a postponement. Let's see, does 2 anyone want to speak to the postponement? Ms. Revels, you're going to 3 come up and tell us what's going on here. 4 5 Revels: Helen Revels for the record. Case Z2828 was a zone change from C-2 to 6 R-1a and M-1/M-2. The applicant and staff met to discuss this possible 7 zone change and suggested that the applicant rezone to C-3 and so there 8 was some issues still outstanding so that's the reason for the case being 9 postponed this evening. 10 11 Scholz: Okay. Alright, do we have to move on that? No, it's just postponed, good. 12 13 IV. WITHDRAWALS - NONE 14 15 Scholz: Okay and there are no withdrawals? 16 17 V. CONSENT AGENDA 18 19 Scholz: And no consent agenda, I'm shocked. 20 21 VI. NEW BUSINESS 22 23 1. Case IDP-45: Application of Patrick Vigil, Vica One on behalf of Tierra Del Sol 24 Housing Corporation for a replat of Bella Vista Subdivision and to vary setback 25 and lot size requirements on a 0.153± acre tract located in the North Mesquite 26 Neighborhood Overlay Zone District, at the southeast corner of Palm Street 27 and Mesquite Street; a.k.a. 1550 North Mesquite Street; Map Code# 4-007- 28 134-224-217; Proposed Use: Creation of two residential lots for single-family 29 use. Council District 1. 30 31 Scholz: Alright, our next order of business is new business. The first one is Case 32 IDP-45. Now, let me explain to those of you who haven't been here before 33 how this works. The City makes its presentation first, then we ask the 34 applicant to speak to the presentation, then we open it for public 35 discussion. After we have public discussion we close it and then the 36 Commissioners talk among themselves and then they vote. Alright, so Ms. 37 Revels, you're up. 38 39 Revels: Okay, this evening I have a case that's an infill development proposal 40 request; it's Case IDP-45. It's located at the southeast corner of Palm 41 Street and Mesquite Street. The address for the property is 1550 North 42 Mesquite Street; it's .153 acres. It's currently zoned C-2 and it's located in 43 the North Mesquite Overlay Zone District. 44 Here are the case specifics for the proposal this evening. There are 45 three requests within the infill development proposal; the first is being a 46 variance to the minimum 3500-square-feet lot size requirement for the 3 1 North Mesquite Overlay Zone District. Lot one is requesting a 37-square- 2 feet reduction in the minimum lot size; lot two is requesting a 264-square- 3 feet reduction in minimum lot size requirement. The second item is a 4 variance to the minimum 10-foot front yard setback requirement for the 5 North Mesquite Overlay Zone District. Lot one is requesting a 4.1-foot 6 reduction to the minimum front yard setback. Lot two is requesting a 3.1- 7 foot reduction to the minimum front yard setback. The third item on the 8 request is an approval of a lot line adjustment known as Bella Vista 9 Subdivision Replat Number 5 to create two residential lots. These 10 residential lots will be used to build two new site-built homes on the two 11 lots in question. 12 Here is a copy of the proposed final plat. Here you'll see that currently 13 Bella Vista is a replat of lots 11 and 12; they're 25-foot width lots currently 14 and so the lot line adjustment will turn the lot lines the other direction. 15 Here is an aerial map of the location of the property here. Here's the 16 zoning and thoroughfare map and you'll see we have R-2 zoning to the 17 east of the property and there's C-2 property all around the property which 18 has a lot of mixed use; there's a lot of residential use and there's a couple 19 churches in this near vicinity. 20 Staff recommendation is approval of the infill development proposal 21 and your options tonight, is to approve the infill development proposal as 22 recommended by staff, approve the infill development proposal with 23 conditions deemed appropriate by this body, deny the infill development 24 proposal or table or postpone the infill development proposal. I stand for 25 any questions this commission may have and also the applicant is here to 26 answer any questions you may have. 27 28 Scholz: Alright gentlemen, questions for this woman. Commissioner Shipley. 29 30 Shipley: Mrs. Revels, could you please review the front yard setbacks again; for 31 the variance? 32 33 Revels: Okay, in the North Mesquite Overlay Zone District, the front yard setback 34 is either 10 feet or it can be a consensus of the front yards, of all of the 35 front yards along that property line or along the frontage of the street there 36 so the 10-foot yard setback, lot one is requesting a 4.1 reduction... 37 38 (People speaking away from the microphones.) 39 40 Shipley: On the second page of our handout it has the setbacks for the IDP 41 proposed front yard lot one, 5.1 feet and lot two, 6.10 feet. 42 43 Revels: That is correct, it should be 4.11, that is my mistake there; 4.11 right, 5.1? 44 45 Shipley: It's one-tenth, so it would be nine-tenths, I think. 46 4 1 Revels: Yes, correct 4.9; I'm sorry. 2 3 Scholz: Other questions? I have just one; why is this a commercial zone? I thought 4 this was a residential neighborhood. 5 6 Revels: It's an older neighborhood and a lot of properties are zoned commercial 7 and are used for residential uses. The North Mesquite Overlay Zone 8 District does allow residential use in the C-2 zoning district. 9 10 Scholz: Oh, okay I didn't know that. Thank you; any other questions? Okay, may 11 we hear from the applicant, please? Please state your name and tell us 12 anything else we need to know. 13 14 Vigil: Patrick Vigil; I represent Tierra del Sol Housing Corporation. Basically we 15 have worked... I've worked for them for about seven years on infill 16 projects, ten years with the affordable housing. We've done, this would be 17 close to on my count about 11 infill projects. Basically it's a good 18 opportunity for someone who would not typically be able to afford a house, 19 to buy a house. We've got, there are small houses; about a little over a 20 1,000 square feet on a three-bedroom for one lot, the bigger lot and a two- 21 bedroom, 800 square feet, give or take, for the smaller lot. 22 23 Scholz: Okay, questions for this gentleman? Well, I don't see any; thank you very 24 much. 25 26 Vigil: Thank you. 27 28 Scholz: Okay, anyone from the public wish to speak to this? Yes sir, please come 29 down and identify yourself. 30 31 Reyna: My name is Frank Reyna; I'm the adjoining neighbor at 1540 North 32 Mesquite. I was looking at the plat and I don't know if any of you have 33 taken a look at how wide and how long this property is; it's not very big at 34 all. I mean, I can see one house being built on it but much less two. 35 Looking at the way it's laid out, there is no back yard. I mean, for low- 36 income housing and to make affordable housing but usually I mean 37 families that are looking for housing would like to have a yard you know; 1 38 don't want my yard to be their back yard. 1 mean I would like to know if a 39 wall is going to be put up. If so, are they going to pay for it to make the 40 separation? Two, the alleyway is going to be the driveway into the second 41 house over here; that driveway is used by ambulances, fire trucks, people 42 that live there you know. Are we going to have congestion there now? 1 43 don't know about the front yard, if there is any. I just don't see how you 44 can fit two houses on this property; maybe one, I could see. I'm all for 45 filling the... I mean the end cap, whatever you want, the area, but not to 46 the point where you're cramming, I mean people into sardine cans you 5 1 know. I mean, because basically that's what it looks like, you know and 1 2 think in the end the people are going to suffer, the people that live there 3 you know? I mean, they're not going to have no yard, no street, I mean, 4 the kids are going to play in the alley or the street whichever, you know. 1 5 just don't think it's a feasible size lot for two houses. 6 7 Scholz: Okay; questions for this gentleman? Commissioner Beard. 8 9 Beard: Could you put up the aerial view so we can see where he's talking about; 10 where he is? 11 12 Reyna: See, my property line is right there, exactly the way they have it right 13 there; all the way to the back alley. Our house sits right there; our house is 14 about 1100-square-feet. 15 16 Beard: You mean the one at the bottom of the picture? 17 18 Reyna: Yeah, on the bottom. 19 20 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, if I may? Can the applicant please speak directly into the 21 microphone? Thank you. 22 23 Reyna: Oh, I'm sorry about that. Yeah, my house sits right there and then we have 24 that corner lot there; the 1550 there. I'm all for a house going up there, 1 25 just think that a single house, I mean would be more adequate than two 26 houses being built on the property. At least the people would have access 27 to a driveway, a yard, you know. I mean, make it affordable, I'm all for that 28 but not two. I just don't see how you're gonna fit two there and then you 29 know create the... I mean, it's just gonna be clustered, you know? I mean, 30 the church right across the street has a big empty lot for parking and those 31 churches have been there for years. I mean, it's a great neighborhood you 32 know but cramming people in there like sardines, I just don't see it, you 33 know. I think the people in the end are gonna pay that live there. And if 34 you do approve it, I don't want my back yard to be their yard. I mean, 1 35 don't think anybody wants anybody else's yard to be their yard, you know? 36 1 think it's only fair to say, you know. I mean, and if a wall doesn't get put 37 up there then basically they're gonna use my yard as their yard, you know 38 and I just don't think it's, you know, I don't think anybody would want that 39 there, I mean, in their yard, you know. 40 41 Scholz: Okay, any other questions; yes, Commissioner Crane. 42 43 Crane: Mr. Reyna is it? 44 45 Reyna: Yes sir. 46 6 1 Crane: How close is the closest part of your house to the lot line? 2 3 Reyna: Right exactly the way it is; the markings are from the corner where they 4 have it pretty much marked; it's exactly like that. You mean the corner of 5 my property line? And they're supposed to be five feet away from my 6 property line, at least, you know? 7 8 Crane: How far are you from the property line, Mr. Reyna? That corner of your 9 house that's close... 10 11 Reyna: We're two feet and the fence is there, I mean from the... We're about 12 maybe a foot in the property line on, our line. I mean probably about six 13 inches to a foot, our wall starts. 14 15 Crane: Maybe I'm being misled by that shadow there but I'm looking at the gray 16 area of your roof. 17 18 Reyna: Oh yeah, no, that's the shadow. My roof don't go out that far, yeah, no. 19 20 Crane: Okay, so that looks to be, I'd take a guess, five to 10-feet? 21 22 Reyna: No, not even, it's about two feet, three feet from the, no about three, four- 23 feet from the wall, itself; from my wall to my house. 24 25 Scholz: And your wall is on the property line? 26 27 Reyna: My wall is about six inches in the property, my property line. 28 29 Scholz: Okay, right. 30 31 Reyna: Yeah. 32 33 Scholz: Okay. 34 35 Reyna: That telephone pole is actually pretty much where the property line is, right 36 there where you see the shadow; at the front on Mesquite Street. 37 38 Crane: It seems to me the other side of the wall where the shadow is, is going to 39 be the driveway for the new house. 40 41 Reyna: Yeah, our property doesn't... our house is not even on that property line at 42 all; that's just the shadow that's the way it's (inaudible)... 43 44 Crane: So in fact the separation of the buildings is rather more than five or ten 45 feet. 46 7 1 Reyna: If they stay five feet from the property line to the beginning of their house; 2 is that what you're saying? 3 4 Crane: No, but there's a driveway there. 5 6 Reyna: Well that's supposed to be a driveway, yeah. I don't see how it is, but 7 yeah. 8 9 Crane: Alright, thank you Mr. Reyna. 10 11 Reyna: Thank you sir. 12 13 Scholz: Okay, any other questions? Commissioner Evans? 14 15 Evans: Yes, it appears to me that the area in question on the display right there; is 16 that drawn incorrectly or I mean, would the lot size be synonymous with 17 the what is across the street; the frontage of that? 18 19 Scholz: I think that's a question for Ms. Revels, isn't it? 20 21 Evans: Yes, I'm sorry. 22 23 Revels: Excuse me; can you repeat the question, Commissioner Evans? 24 25 Evans: Yes, given the picture that we're looking at, is that an accurate, to-scale lot 26 size that's on that map? 27 28 Revels: On the aerial or on the actual...? 29 30 Evans: On the aerial. 31 32 Revels: Probably not, I mean this is an old aerial. The recent one that we have for 33 our maps was not working and I could not get it to work and it was very 34 fuzzy and stuff so I had to use an older aerial. But if you're looking here at 35 the replat, this is actually his property here. He has, I believe it's 1, 2, 3 or 36 4? 37 38 (Mr. Vigil is answering away from the microphones) 39 40 Revels: Three here and then these are the two 25-foot width lots here for the 41 property that's in question. 42 43 Crane: Excuse me, Ms. Revels. Could you mark that with the cursor, is that 44 possible? 45 8 1 Revels: Mr. Reyna owns this lot; he has like three lots here. I believe it's 8, 9 and 2 10 that makes up his property and then we have 11 and 12 that makes up 3 the property in question and the telephone pole in question is like right in 4 here, right in the corner here. 5 6 Evans: Right, so you know from this diagram right here, the frontage is actually 7 the same as what's on the other side of the street which I guess, you 8 know, we don't get a real good representation of that on the aerial and 9 that's the only point I was making. 10 11 Revels: That's correct. 12 13 Evans: Right, so it actually looks bigger or smaller than what it actually is on that 14 aerial. 15 16 Revels: Correct. 17 18 Evans: Okay, thank you. 19 20 Scholz: Yeah, it's a distortion of sorts. 21 22 Evans: Right, okay. 23 24 Scholz: Thank you Commissioner Evans; any other questions for this gentleman? 25 Thank you Mr. Reyna, appreciate it. Ms. Revels, I do have a question; he 26 was asking about a wall. Do we require walls in that area? Is there, you 27 know, do we require a wall across the back or a wall between the two 28 properties? 29 30 Revels: We don't require it. Normally property owners do, you know, like to fence 31 off their own property and put up a fence but it's not a requirement. 32 33 Scholz: Because I can understand his concern about people, you know, if you look 34 out the back door and you see a large empty lot and I've been to his 35 property, you know, and I've seen that. It would seem to me that people 36 would think of this as a continuation of their property even though it's not. 37 38 Revels: I can defer to the applicant to see if there are any plans to put up a fence 39 and/or wall at this location. 40 41 Scholz: I would appreciate that. 42 43 Vigil: I can't promise that there will be a rock wall as Tierra del Sol or the money 44 people but I will say that every project that we've done for Tierra del Sol 45 Housing Corporation in the past, we... takes a rock wall and separates 46 the properties. 9 1 2 Scholz: Okay. 3 4 Vigil: For example right now we're doing on Alamo, and it had a makeshift wood 5 fence and we took that one down, built the wall within the property lines, 6 no cost to the adjacent neighbor and they actually went above and beyond 7 and ran it the whole 110 feet of that particular piece of property. So 8 typically we'll spend the money to divide that situation. 9 10 Scholz: Okay, thank you. 11 12 Vigil: And then just a little comment on the size that he says they're small lots 13 for two houses, just refer back to the variance. There's not that much 14 difference percentage wise from the variance, from the actual size of lots 15 that are being allowed on new subdivisions in (inaudible-speaking away 16 from microphone) in the neighborhood, 3500 square feet. 17 18 Scholz: Okay, thank you. Okay, anyone else from the public want to speak to this? 19 Okay, I'm gonna close it for public discussion. Gentlemen, what's your 20 pleasure? 21 22 Crane: I move that application IDP-45 be approved. 23 24 Scholz: Alright, is there a second? 25 26 Evans: Before we go there, is there... 1 actually... I support the proposal but I also 27 understand the gentleman that was up here, you know, his concerns and 1 28 would like to make a recommendation that we add a condition of putting 29 up a rock wall in the event that this property is developed. 30 31 Scholz: Okay. I'll ask you to write that. Commissioner Beard has a comment, 1 32 think. 33 34 Revels: Are we specifying a rock wall or can it be like a fence of some sort? 35 36 Evans: I would say whatever is in compliance with... 37 38 Revels: Compatible with the neighborhood? 39 40 Evans: Exactly. 41 42 Beard: I would say it has to be opaque. I mean it can't be a chain link fence. 43 44 Revels: Chain link fences would not be allowed. 45 46 Beard: Oh, okay. 10 1 2 Scholz: Okay, would you like to make that as an amendment then, or a condition? 3 Commissioner Shipley. 4 5 Shipley: I guess I would like to just have... I thought we would have a little 6 discussion prior to doing the amendment. 7 8 Scholz: Well, no one seconded the motion, so yes we can have a discussion, go 9 ahead. 10 11 Shipley: Okay, what I'd kind of like to say is that as I looked at the site plan, it's 12 difficult to discern and the real concern I have, I think with this kind of 13 development, is that it ought to be a little better than it's the City doing this. 14 And especially if you're gonna have low-income people, they're gonna 15 have children that are going to need a place to play and when I walked the 16 lots and looked at it, splitting it the way they're recommending splitting it 17 into two lots is the only way that would work there. You don't have enough 18 room with 25 feet on each side but I think the bottom line is, there is a 19 3500-foot requirement there and one home could go in there and be done 20 nicely, fit in with the neighborhood and it would be adequate room for the 21 children to play and not have to play in the street or the alley or across the 22 street in the parking lot at the church. The way it is now, there's nothing 23 there except some ponding areas that may not be usable to play in or, you 24 know, we don't get that much rain, but they've still got to be there so 25 they've got to be hollowed out and there's got to be some rock in there to 26 hold that and that's not... it just doesn't seem that location, that it's 27 appropriate there. I would think that one home on that lot would be very 28 nice and it could be done very well. If there's a couple of homes that were 29 built around the corner that are nice, that look nice and would help the 30 neighborhood retain its character and that, and there are a lot of modular 31 homes in that area so it's not necessarily trying to make it upscale but 32 we're trying to think about how best would that narrow of a lot and the 33 length of that lot, because entering from the alley is gonna be a problem. 34 Entering from the first house, from the curb for the way they've got it cut, 35 they're almost within 10, 15 feet of the turn on that curb and that's gonna 36 be difficult to get in and out of, especially if there's traffic during school 37 hours and that. So 1 think that they'll have to have a variance to do that so 38 we're not seeing all of the variances here. We're seeing some of them, 39 isn't that right? 40 41 Revels: The other two variances that he's speaking about are outlined in your 42 packet. There would be a variance for the ponding location because it has 43 to be five feet from the property line and ten feet from the structure but 44 that's an in-house variance that they would get from Public Works 45 Department and also the placement of the driveway would require a 46 variance because it doesn't meet the required footage from the 11 1 intersection of the property to the driveway and that also was reviewed by 2 Traffic Engineering and it was agreed that it was approved; that a variance 3 would be issued for the distance. 4 5 Scholz: Yeah, I think that was covered in the DRC meeting. Okay; Commissioner 6 Crane. 7 8 Crane: The matter of the wall, I think Mr. Reyna said he has a wall, a rock wall 9 already there. I don't think it extends the whole north side of his lot and 10 that it was six inches inside the property line and Commissioner Evans 11 would like to see a rock wall on or an opaque barrier on the other side of 12 the property line. So we're gonna have quite a lot of space taken up, and a 13 narrow lot, counting the lots in question and Mr. Reyna's lot, by two thick 14 walls with a space in between them and the space worries me. I've been 15 sitting here thinking about a child climbing up and dropping down between 16 the two walls. Perhaps I shouldn't worry about that but I don't see why we 17 are specifying that there has to be a wall there. It seems to me that that 18 almost makes for the lot to appear smaller than it is. 19 20 Scholz: Alright, someone else. Commissioner Evans. 21 22 Evans: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think to clarify a little bit more; typically walls are put 23 up on the boundary line and half of it is built on one property and the other 24 half is built on the other so you know, if there is a preexisting wall that 25 resides solely on the neighbors, they can work that out and put an 26 additional wall on that would, you know, would straddle the property line. 27 But that's something that the developer, you know, can look at, if in fact 28 we do choose, you know, to go forward with a wall. If not, I still support 29 the effort but I do think privacy should be, you know, considered, you 30 know, as far as the neighbor is concerned. 31 32 Scholz: Alright, Commissioner Shipley. 33 34 Shipley: Cheryl, I know we're not supposed to try to redesign things okay, but 35 obviously if you put the entrance to both properties on Palm Street, in the 36 middle of the lot, on the lot lines and put the garages so there's a right 37 turn-in garage and a left turn-in garage, you would solve a lot of the 38 problems with the variances you're talking about. And you know that may 39 be something that the applicant could look at and see if there is a better 40 way to do this so that you don't have to have the turn-in off of Mesquite 41 into the property and through the alley into the property and you have just 42 one access point between the two properties. 43 44 Scholz: Alright, other discussion? Okay, Commissioner Evans, you want to write a 45 condition then for us? 46 12 1 Shipley: Can I ask the Commission a question, please? 2 3 Scholz: You bet. 4 5 Shipley: Has it... I mean, does everybody feel comfortable that this is exactly the 6 way, the best way to do this particular corner? You know if we're not, then 7 maybe we need to take a little more time and table it for a month and let 8 people try to come up with a better solution. You know, I'm not trying to 9 redesign stuff but I am trying to say we ought to do it right and we ought to 10 do it so there's all the safety factors are taken in. I think, in my opinion, 11 driving through an alley to get to your house is one thing but there's other 12 ways it could be handled and it could be done nicely. 13 14 Scholz: Commissioner... excuse me, Ms. Rodriguez. 15 16 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, an option that is available is you 17 can make the motion to table this and ask the applicant to redesign it and 18 then if that motion is approved, then that'll be the direction set forth. If the 19 motion fails, then it fails and then we can go to the next motion. 20 21 Scholz: Alright Commissioner Shipley, are you going to make a motion to table? 22 23 Shipley: I will move that this item be tabled for date specific or just some date in the 24 future? Depending... and that the applicant look at revising the plan so 25 that we have one access point in the center of the property off of Palm 26 Street as opposed to the two exits through the alley and through Mesquite. 27 28 Scholz: Okay, a motion to table; is there a second? 29 30 Bustos: I second. 31 32 Scholz: Okay, It's been moved and seconded. Now, we have to do this with the 33 consent of the applicant obviously. Okay, so first of all we'll vote on this 34 and see if in fact there is a consensus to table. All those in favor of tabling, 35 please say aye. 36 37 Shipley, Bustos, and Beard simultaneously: Aye 38 39 Scholz: I'm sorry; did I hear three or two? 40 41 Bustos: Three. 42 43 Scholz: Three, okay and those opposed same sign. 44 45 Crane, Evans, and Scholz simultaneously: Aye. 46 13 1 Scholz: And so the motion fails; it's a tie; 3, 3. Alright, that brings us back to the 2 main motion gentlemen. Do you have a condition for us Mr. Evans? 3 4 Evans: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move that we approve... 5 6 Crane: A point of order; do I have to withdraw mine even though it wasn't 7 seconded? 8 9 Scholz: Beg pardon? 10 11 Crane: Do I have to withdraw my motion even though it wasn't seconded? 12 13 Scholz: No, it's still hanging there in lieu of a second. 14 15 Crane: Okay, so Mr. Evans is going to suggest a modification. 16 17 Scholz: Yes, he is; a condition. 18 19 Crane: And... a condition. 20 21 Scholz: Right, and I... 22 23 Crane: And it will be up to me to say, yes, I want it wrapped into my motion? 24 25 Scholz: I would ask a legal opinion on this; can we make a... tell us Legal 26 27 Abrams: Okay, it's a question; is what occurs where somebody does not second 28 the motion; the motion dies. 29 30 Scholz: Okay, the motion dies, thank you. So do we need to vote on the condition 31 or do we simply make a condition part of the motion? I think we make it 32 part of the motion, don't we? 33 34 Abrams: Yeah, I'm assuming if you're gonna add a condition, I mean it's easier to 35 first have a motion on the condition and then vote on the main motion 36 afterwards. 37 38 Scholz: Okay. Alright, are there any other conditions on this one? 39 40 Revels: No sir, there was no other conditions to the proposal. 41 42 Scholz: Okay, read us your condition please, Commissioner Evans. 43 44 Evans: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the condition for Case IDP-45, 45 and the condition being that the developer will construct a wall that is in 46 conformance with the City of Las Cruces requirements. 14 1 2 Scholz: Alright, does that make sense folks? Okay. 3 4 Crane: Excuse me; shouldn't we specify the wall that has to be on the lot line? 5 6 Evans: Right, that separates the adjoining property. 7 8 Scholz: Right, okay. Alright, is there a second to that? 9 10 Crane: Second: 11 12 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. All those in favor of the condition, 13 say aye. 14 15 All Commissioners: Aye. 16 17 Scholz: And those opposed same sign. Alright, we're back to the main motion. 18 19 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve IDP-45. 20 21 Scholz: With the following condition. 22 23 Evans: With the following condition. 24 25 Scholz: And read the condition again, please. 26 27 Evans: That the developer will construct a wall that is in conformance with the City 28 of Las Cruces requirements with the adjacent property. 29 30 Scholz: Alright, was there a second on that? 31 32 Bustos: Second. 33 34 Scholz: Thank you Commissioner Bustos. Okay, we'll call the roll; Commissioner 35 Shipley. 36 37 Shipley: Nay; findings, discussion and site visit. 38 39 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 40 41 Crane: Aye; findings, discussion and site visit. 42 43 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 44 45 Evans: Aye; findings, discussion. 46 15 1 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 2 3 Bustos: Aye; findings, discussion. 4 5 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 6 7 Beard: No; findings and discussions. 8 9 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye; findings, discussion and site visit, so the motion 10 is passed four to two. Thank you gentlemen. Thank you applicant. 11 12 1. Case S-11-002: Application of Blanchard Engineering for the City of Las 13 Cruces for a master plan amendment known as Kennon Annexation Master 14 Plan Major Amendment No. 1 and a waiver request to road improvements on a 15 320± acre tract located at the terminus and on the south side of Crawford 16 Blvd.; a.k.a. 0 Crawford Blvd.; Parcel ID# 02-39560. Proposed Use: 17 Public/Private Utility Installation. Council District 4. 18 19 2. Case Z2823: Application of Blanchard Engineering for the City of Las Cruces 20 for a rezone from HC (Holding with conditions) to M-3C (Heavy Industrial) to 21 allow for Heavy Industrial uses with conditions on a 320± acre tract located at 22 the terminus and on the south side of Crawford Blvd.; a.k.a. 0 Crawford Blvd.; 23 Parcel ID# 02-39560. Proposed Use: Public/Private Utility Installation. Council 24 District 4. 25 26 Scholz: Our next piece is Case S-11-002 and Miss Robertson, I think you're up. 27 28 Robertson: Staff has one request for you tonight; the last two items on the agenda are 29 sort of together. 30 31 Scholz: Yes, they are. 32 33 Robertson: So I would ask at this point if we could go ahead and suspend the rules to 34 hear these two cases together just for the discussion part. 35 36 Scholz: Okay; could I entertain a motion to suspend the rules? 37 38 Crane: So moved. 39 40 Scholz: Okay, is there a second? 41 42 Beard: Second: 43 44 Scholz: All those in favor, say aye. 45 46 All Commissioners: Aye. 16 1 2 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. Okay, the rules are suspended. 3 4 Robertson: Thank you. These are Cases S-11-002 and Z2823; this is the Kennon 5 Annexation Master Plan Amendment No. 1 and Zone Change Request. 6 The case specifics for these two cases; the subject property is located 7 at the terminus, Crawford Boulevard; we'll have a map in just a second to 8 go and look at where that's at in relation to rest of the West Mesa. The 9 master plan amendment and zone change request proposes public and 10 private utility installation uses on approximately 320 acres. The existing 11 uses on the subject property include at this time a small gas regulator 12 station and a composting and spray irrigation area. The proposed use, the 13 use that they're proposing on this site to come into the future for 14 development is a solar energy project, also known as the private utility 15 installation side of this proposal. 16 There is a variance and a waiver request associated with these two 17 cases so just to give you information about the waiver request; the waiver 18 request is to road improvements to Crawford Boulevard and the variance 19 request is for the parking requirement. The parking requirement for a 20 private utility installation would be an 11-foot on-site only driving aisle from 21 the nearest public right-of-way which would be Crawford Boulevard. 22 In the end, approval of these requests would allow the property to be 23 developed in accordance with the proposed master plan amendment for 24 the subject property to develop this new private utility installation or also 25 known as the solar energy project. 26 Here's the second page of the master plan amendment. If I could point 27 out, here is Crawford Boulevard here to the north of the subject property. 28 This half a section right here is the subject property. There is a large gas 29 line that runs, that bisects basically the subject property from this corner 30 here all the way south and it continues to go down into the public land, 31 closer to the Potrillos. 32 Here's an aerial of the subject property, here is Crawford Boulevard, 33 going to the subject property. This is the subject property here highlighted 34 in cyan. Here's the high-pressure gas line that runs across the property 35 and then there are several arroyos that also traverse the subject property 36 that cut, especially in this area here, there are some topographical 37 challenges. 38 Here's an MPO thoroughfare map of the subject area. Crawford 39 Boulevard is a proposed Corridor; it is proposed to be a Corridor for traffic 40 going from 1-10 all the way to the south part of our town and there's no set 41 plans for that road other than when development comes, they are going to 42 assess where it's going to be and how it's going to function; and they 43 being the MPO. 44 Staff recommendation and just to kind of keep you in line with what's in 45 the staff report; page 12-of-12 of your staff report actually spells out the 46 conditions associated with the staff recommendation for the zone change 17 1 and variance request and then the DRC recommendation for the master 2 plan amendment and the waiver request so just to kind of keep those in 3 track. So the staff recommendation for the proposed zone change and 4 variance request; one, to allow the use that's proposed for the subject to 5 numerically deviate a 100% from the requirements of these utility 6 installations parking standards which require a minimum 11-foot driving 7 aisle on the site itself. The second part is any development on the subject 8 property shall adhere to all applicable restrictions of the Las Cruces 9 Municipal Code in regards to the Airport Operations Overlay District. That 10 was also an original condition from the original zoning and annexation and 11 master planning of the Kennon Annexation area. 12 The DRC recommendation; there is a condition associated with the 13 master plan amendment but given it's about three small paragraphs long, 14 I'm going to go ahead and read it for the record, but it is also written out 15 and typed out in your staff report under the DRC recommendation. On 16 February 9, 2011, the DRC reviewed and recommended approval for the 17 proposed master plan amendment conditionally and the condition actually 18 goes to the waiver request. The condition states: "Current traffic generated 19 by this property consists of approximately four trips per day to verify 20 proper operation of an existing gas regulator station and City of Las 21 Cruces composting and spray irrigation facility. An estimated 25 vehicles 22 per day utilize the existing right-of-way and easement for a gas pipeline 23 that passes through the property. Since traffic generation is highly specific 24 to the actual use, traffic estimation for traffic generated by the 25 development along with any road design and construction will be done at 26 the building permit stage for the actual lot or tract developed. At that time, 27 all design, construction and traffic estimation will be done in accordance 28 with City Design Standards and the MPO Transportation Plan in effect at 29 that time. The immediate added use plan for this property is for an 30 approximate 155 acre photovoltaic or solar energy plant which will 31 generate approximately one trip per day upon completion. No road design 32 or road construction is planned in association with this facility." And we 33 have two slides that regard your options for the master plan amendment 34 waiver request and then also the zone change and variance request but in 35 essence they marry each other. 36 The first option is to vote yes and approve the master plan amendment 37 with the conditions stated and waiver request as recommended by DRC. 38 Vote yes and approve the master plan amendment and waiver request 39 with your own conditions. Vote no or table the request and then for the 40 zone change and variance request, they would be the same but for those 41 two requests. Staff stands for questions. The applicant also has a 42 presentation they would like to give. 43 44 Scholz: Alright, questions for this lady. Commissioner Crane, your mic is on; did 45 you have a question? Okay, let's here from the applicant. 46 18 1 Blanchard: I'm Dave Blanchard with Blanchard Engineering. I'm working for the City 2 on this project with Christine Logan who is with the City. I'll be doing the 3 presentation and then Christine and I will both stand for questions. 4 5 Scholz: Okay, we need you closer to the mic, sir. Can we raise that podium a bit? 6 7 Blanchard: I don't know. 8 9 Scholz: Well, the young lady does; she is very good at this... and I think it's topped 10 out; okay. Stay on mic, please. 11 12 Blanchard: I'm David Blanchard with Blanchard Engineering. I'm working for the City 13 for Christine Logan and I'm doing the little presentation and Christine and 1 14 will both stand for questions at the end. 15 16 Scholz: Thank you, sir. 17 18 Blanchard: This is where it's located, generally; if I can find the mouse. Here's the 19 airport exit, we're down here south of the F&A Cheese. It's 320 acres in 20 the east half of section 2, 24 south, range 1 west and that should be 21 USGLO surveys instead of the USRS surveys; a typo that slipped through. 22 We look at the aerial view, this is a Google project, 2010 roughly. The 23 existing City composting is this little white square here; I'll have better 24 pictures in a moment. The City has a spray irrigation area where they're 25 taking the affluent from the west mesa treatment plant and spraying it on 26 the ground in here, fenced area. There's gas line Road, Jennifer's talked 27 about; transects the property, goes to the Afton Gas Station. There's a gas 28 regulator station in the northeast corner of the property. This is the 29 composting area, it's basically a concrete platform where they dry out the 30 sludge from the sewer treatment plant at the end of Lohman and Amador 31 and this is how it looks relative to the property standing a little bit on the 32 north side of the property looking to the southwest. I have this little 33 caption, lower left of all of my photographs so that you can see where the 34 picture-taker was standing when he took the picture. 35 36 Scholz: Good idea. 37 38 Blanchard: Looking to the north of the property, there's not much very close; that's the 39 F&A Cheese plant quite a ways away. If we stand on the north property 40 line looking west, we have an electric line that's on the property to the 41 north, adjacent to us, City owned property and there is a dirt road with a 42 gas line in the road; it goes over, I believe, to the prison. Looking to the 43 east, we have the same situation; the electric line adjacent to the north, 44 dirt road and a gas line on our property. 45 This is the gas line road into the property just a little ways looking 46 southwest, through our property. It's improved with basically gravel; on 19 1 each end it goes back to being more dirt and this is also, has all the proper 2 easements on it now. Any development we'll have to do, we'll have to put 3 on the proper easements also. 4 This is a part of the spray irrigation system the City has; has a sprinkler 5 and a couple more sprinklers so you can see the configuration of the 6 sprinklers; they're inside a fenced area. This is the gas regulator station 7 located on the northwest corner of the property. 8 This is the master thoroughfare plan that Jennifer referred to earlier 9 and shows Crawford Avenue here on the north boundary of our property; 10 of course we'll have to accommodate that for right-of-way when we do 11 something. 12 This is the Airport Overlay Zone and this is where we fit relative to the 13 overlay zone. We're in the conical area where the most salient limitation 14 is; the limiting structure height is 300 feet for the northwest corner. 15 Increases gradually because the land slopes down and the cone slopes 16 up and we have to abide the original master plan with the Kennon 17 Annexation by our master plan; we do have to accommodate all airport 18 issues. 19 This is property and we'll show a little bit about the ownership of the 20 surrounding properties. City of Las Cruces is on the north, State of New 21 Mexico northeast, United States on south, southeast and south and the 22 State of New Mexico is on the west. 23 Looking at the zoning of the surrounding properties; to the north is 24 where the only place where anything is really happening. This is the West 25 Mesa Industrial Park Overlay Zone. State of New Mexico zone is unzoned, 26 vacant. The United States is unzoned, vacant. The State of New Mexico 27 on the west of our property is vacant, the zoning is Holding from the, again 28 from the Kennon Annexation, originally. Of course our property is owned 29 by the City of Las Cruces; it's Holding, we're asking for M-3 zoning. 30 The existing land use is the City of Las Cruces, if I can get my mouse 31 down here, the utilities for the previously mentioned composting area and 32 spray irrigation field. The immediate planned use is for a photovoltaic 33 utility by a company called Sun Edison and then the City Commission 34 today approved the staff to proceed developing and auction for Sun 35 Edison to lease this property. 36 1 included these pictures of the master plan just in case somebody 37 wants us to refer back to them during discussion since I'm following the 38 same thing Jennifer did. This is the photovoltaic by the Sun Edison 39 people. This particular one is in Alamosa, Colorado; just typically what you 40 might see for a photovoltaic system. Here is another photovoltaic system 41 in Arizona by enXco which is a firm I believe has, is pursuing putting 42 another photovoltaic plant on the west mesa also. The actual configuration 43 may be different than this; it'll look somewhat similar and as it is close to 44 the ground but the technology is dynamic and changing at a fairly quick 45 rate so the configurations might look slightly different. 20 1 Summing it up, we have, we're trying to get the zoning changed from 2 Holding to M-3. The current use is the City of Las Cruces spray irrigation 3 and composting facility. Immediate future as previously mentioned, Sun 4 Edison photovoltaic and neither Sun Edison nor the City utilities want 5 traffic in their area now; there's people aren't out there to man it. The gas 6 regulator station's out there, the composting area and the spray irrigation's 7 not a place they want people to be coming conveniently and likewise Sun 8 Edison doesn't want a lot of people coming around their photovoltaic if 9 they can avoid it. Because of this, the roadway and drainage is postponed 10 until such time as construction or some use warrants use of it, because 11 anything that Sun Edison does we'll have to solve the drainage issues if 12 there are any as they go along; they'll have to comply with all the City 13 ordinances and they'll have to comply with the City's standards at the time 14 of construction. So, if things go down the road a ways and City standards 15 change, they still have to comply with the standards as they are at the 16 time they're choosing to do something. 17 Utilities are also postponed; Sun Edison has no use for them, the City 18 has no use for them and if the roadways are not being built it doesn't 19 make sense to put utilities until they'll be utilized and when they are put in, 20 they'll have to comply with City standards at the time of construction. 21 They'll have to comply with the Overlay Zone which should be no 22 problem and we've put for a maximum of six lots in here. That's depending 23 on how much land gets used up for other things basically. Sun Edison on 24 the most recent sketch is looking to take around 140 acres and the City 25 uses up 120, 140 so there's still some land available there and all staff 26 comments have been resolved positively and we'll be happy to stand for 27 questions. 28 29 Scholz: Alright, any questions? Oh Christine, do you want to make a presentation? 30 No? Okay, questions for these folks? I've never seen them mute like this, 31 this is amazing. 32 33 (Someone speaking away from microphone.) 34 35 Scholz: Well, I think it is. Yes, I think you explained it very well. Alright, I only had 36 one question. Is this site going to be fenced? Is that their practice? 37 38 Logan: Mr. Commissioner, it is the practice of the solar project to be fenced but 39 it's also a requirement of our code, so it must be fenced, as a utility 40 installation. 41 42 Scholz Because I was thinking, you know, you don't want people there but people 43 will wander down that road. I did in my pickup truck and I made it all the 44 way down, that's amazing. Okay, no other questions? Okay, thank you 45 folks. I don't see any public for public participation. I'll entertain a motion to 46 approve. 21 1 2 Crane: So moved. 3 4 Beard: Second. 5 6 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. 7 8 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, point of order, we need to unsuspend the rules. 9 10 Scholz: Oh, I'm sorry, we have to rise from the... yes, we do. 11 12 Evans: Also I believe there's some conditions. 13 14 Scholz: Right, there will be some conditions. We have to rise and reinstate the 15 rules first. Is there a motion to reinstate the rules? 16 17 Crane: So moved. 18 19 Scholz: Is there a second? 20 21 Bustos: Second. 22 23 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded; all those in favor say aye. 24 25 All Commissioners: Aye. 26 27 Scholz: Those opposed, same sign. Alright, the rules are reinstated. Now we deal 28 with Case S-11-002, first. Were there conditions on this Commissioner 29 Evans? 30 31 Robertson: Chair Scholz, the DRC recommendation has the one very long condition 32 for the waiver request. 33 34 Scholz: That was the one you read to us, yes of course. Okay, Commissioner 35 Evans, would you care to read the waiver request condition? 36 37 Evans: The DRC recommendation: "Current traffic generated by this property 38 consists of approximately four trips per day to verify proper operation of 39 the existing gas regulator station and City of Las Cruces composting and 40 spray irrigation facility. An estimated 25 vehicles per day utilize the 41 existing right-of-way and easement for a gas pipeline that passes through 42 the property. Since traffic generation is highly specific to the actual use, 43 traffic estimation for this traffic generated by development along with any 44 road design and construction will be done at the building permitting stage 45 for the actual lot or tract developed. At that time, all design, construction 46 and traffic estimation will be done in accordance with City Design 22 1 Standards and MPO Transportation Plan in effect at that time. The 2 immediate added use plan for this property is for an approximate 155-acre 3 photovoltaic plant which will generate approximately one trip per day upon 4 completion. No road design or road construction is planned in association 5 with this facility." 6 7 Scholz: Okay, I'm going to call the roll; Commissioner Shipley. 8 9 Shipley: Aye; findings, discussion, site visit. 10 11 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 12 13 Crane: Aye; finds, discussion. 14 15 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 16 17 Evans: Aye; findings, discussion. 18 19 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 20 21 Bustos: Aye; findings, discussion. 22 23 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 24 25 Beard: Aye; findings and discussions. 26 27 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye, findings, discussion and site visit. Okay, I'll 28 entertain a motion for Case Z2823. 29 30 Evans: Mr. Chairman, I also have a question regarding the staff recommendations 31 on that piece of property that we just... 32 33 Scholz: On 2823? 34 35 Evans: Well, in the packet, I mean they're all under one document and so how 36 does...? 37 38 Scholz: Alright, ask your question of the staff. 39 40 Robertson: Was the question, how you are voting for them, separately or exactly how 41 they are put together? 42 43 Evans: There was also a staff recommendation to allow the, you know. 44 45 Robertson: Yeah, the two other conditions that were...? 46 23 1 Evans: Right. 2 3 Robertson: Essentially that will be associated with the zone change and waiver 4 request and those will be conditions for it. What you just voted on was the 5 master plan amendment and waiver request and conditions for it, so the 6 DRC recommendation is associated with the subdivision action. The staff 7 recommendation is associated with the zone change action. 8 9 Evans: Got it, thank you. 10 11 Scholz: Okay, does that change anything? No; alright I'll entertain a motion then to 12 accept Case Z2823. Don't everyone jump in. 13 14 Robertson: Staff would like to remind the Commission that there are two conditions; 15 that staff made a recommendation for there too; under the staff 16 recommendation side. I just wanted to add that before any voting started. 17 18 Scholz: Okay, with the following conditions; I'll read them. "One; to allow the use of 19 numerically deviate 100% from the requirements of public/private utility 20 installations parking standards requiring a minimum of 11-foot driving aisle 21 meeting the City's paving standards and; two, any development on the 22 subject property shall adhere to all applicable restrictions of the Las 23 Cruces Municipal Codes, sections 38-46.1, Las Cruces Operations 24 Overlay Zone District." Did I hear a... I'm sorry, did I hear a motion to 25 approve? 26 27 Beard: So moved. 28 29 Scholz: And a second. 30 31 Bustos: Second. 32 33 Scholz: With conditions, okay. I'll call the roll; Commissioner Shipley. 34 35 Shipley: Aye; findings, discussion, and site visit. 36 37 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 38 39 Crane: Aye; findings and discussion. 40 41 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 42 43 Evans: Aye; findings and discussion. 44 45 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 46 24 1 Bustos: Aye; findings and discussion. 2 3 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 4 5 Beard: Aye; findings and discussions. 6 7 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye; findings, discussion and site visit. 8 9 Robertson: Thank you. 10 11 Scholz: Thank you Miss Robertson, thank you Mr. Blanchard. 12 13 VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 14 15 Scholz: Alright, is there any other public participation? I don't see any other public 16 here. 17 18 VIII. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS 19 20 Scholz: How about staff announcements? 21 22 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners; there will be a work session on March 15th 23 at 6:00 pm, in this room. 24 25 Scholz: Is there a topic for the work session yet, Ms. Rodriguez? 26 27 Rodriguez: The development review process. 28 29 Scholz: Ah, the development review process. 30 31 Rodriguez: And there may also be an update from Paul on Vision 2040; that's yet to 32 be determined. 33 34 Scholz: That's very possible, yes, we're meeting on Thursday to discuss a draft so 35 we may have something to say. 36 37 IX. ADJOURNMENT (6:59 PM) 38 39 Scholz: Alright, well if there's no other business before this Commission, I declare 40 us adjourned at about 6:59. Thank you very much folks. 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chairman 25