Loading...
07-26-2011 City of las Cruces P E O P L E N E L P I N O P E O P L E PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA The following agenda will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Las Cruces, New Mexico, at a public hearing held on Tuesday, July 26, 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 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 28, 2011 III. POSTPONEMENTS IV. CONSENT AGENDA Those items on the consent agenda will be voted by one motion with the acceptance of the agenda. Any Planning and Zoning Commissioner, Staff or member of the public may remove an item from the consent agenda for discussion by the commission. 1. Case Z2838: Application of Thomas Hassell on behalf of the Housing Authority of the City of Las Cruces to rezone from PUD (Planned Unit Development) to R-2 (Multi- Dwelling Low Density) on a 15.64 ± acre tract of land located on the west side of Valley Drive 380± feet north of its intersection with Tashiro Drive; a.k.a. 1571 Medina Drive; Parcel ID# 02-00734. Proposed Use: Existing apartment complex that will be rehabilitated and expanded with eleven (11) new dwelling units. Council District 4. 2. Case S-11-016: Application of Underwood Engineering on behalf of Wilfred E. Binns, property owner, to approve a final plat for 4.72 ± acres known as the Valley and Hoagland Business Park. The final plat proposes to replat three existing tracts of land into four new parcels. The subject properties are located east of Valley Drive and north of Hoagland Road; a.k.a. 1301 Hoagland Road, 1910 and 1970 N. Valley Drive; Parcel ID# 02-22564, 02-22565 and 02-00724; Proposed Use: No charge with the existing commercial uses of a daycare center, restaurant and apartments; Council District 4. Page 1 of 3 V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS 1. Case PA-11-01: A request recommending approval of the One Valley, One Vision 2040 Regional Plan. The plan is a long-range, regional comprehensive plan that evaluates the needs of the region for the next 30 years and ways to meet those needs. The main components of the plan includes a regional vision statement, snapshot of existing conditions, goals and strategies, regional growth strategies, and suggested actions. This plan if approved will be the basis from which future comprehensive planning efforts will be drawn. The plan is available online at http://vision2040.las-cruces.org. Submitted by the City of Las Cruces and Dona Ana County. 2. Case Z2837: Application of Area 51 LLC to rezone a 0.25 ± acre tract (K-1) within the Sonoma Ranch East II Master Plan from R-1 b (Single-Family High Density) to C-1 C (Commercial Low Intensity-Conditional) to allow for utility-related land uses - antennas, towers, communication structures and other vertical structures and public/private utility installations. The subject property is located south of the future extension of Sedona Hills Parkway and east of Pagosa Hills Avenue; Parcel ID# 02- 37615; Proposed Use: Private Communication Structure; Council District 6. 3. Case SUP-11-01: Application of Verticom on behalf of Area 51 LLC for a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the construction of a new private communication structure on property located south of the future extension of Sedona Hills Parkway and east of Pagosa Hills Avenue directly adjacent to the Jornada water tank site; Parcel ID# 02- 37615; Proposed Use: A 65-foot tall disguised commercial communication structure; Council District 6. 4. Case Z2839: Application of Manuel and Martha Moreno and Rafael E. Marquez to rezone a 6.37 ± acre lot and a 0.737 ± acre lot from C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity). The subject properties are located east of Morningside Drive and north of Bataan Memorial West; a.k.a. 0 Bataan Memorial West and 0 Morningside Road; Parcel ID# 02-22393 and 02-22394; Proposed Use: Event Center; Council District 5. 5. Case Z2840: Application of Susan J. Frary to rezone from R-2 (Multi-Dwelling Low Density) to C-2C (Commercial Medium Intensity-Conditional) and to numerically deviate from the required ten (10) foot opaque bufferyard to a zero (0) foot opaque bufferyard on a 0.17 ± acre lot located on the north side of Willoughby Avenue 150± feet west of its intersection with Main Street in Area 3 of the Alameda Depot Neighborhood Overlay; a.k.a. 132 W. Willoughby Avenue; Parcel ID# 02-04369. Proposed Use: A single-family residence and a commercial art studio with a sculpture garden; Council District 1. Page 2 of 3 6. Case PUD-10-02: Application of Quantum Engineering Consultants Inc. on behalf of Lord Williams & ETAL C/O Randy McMillan for a Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development known as the Dave McTimski, Inc. PUD. The subject property encompasses 15.503 ± acres and is located on the southwest corner of Northrise Drive and Roadrunner Parkway immediately adjacent to Las Cruces Fire Station #6; Parcel ID# 02-41024. Proposed Use: The PUD proposes limited commercial, office and multi-dwelling residential uses; Council District 6. 7. Case PUD-10-03: Application of Quantum Engineering Consultants Inc. on behalf of Lord Williams & ETAL C/O Randy McMillan for a Final Site Plan for a Planned Unit Development known as the Dave McTimski, Inc. PUD. The subject property encompasses 15.503 ± acres and is located on the southwest corner of Northrise Drive and Roadrunner Parkway immediately adjacent to Las Cruces Fire Station #6; Parcel ID# 02-41024. Proposed Use: The PUD proposes limited commercial, office and multi-dwelling residential uses; Council District 6. 8. Case PUD-10-06: Application of Quantum Engineering Consultants Inc. on behalf of the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society for a Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development known as the Good Samaritan Society Village II PUD. The subject property encompasses 13.223 ± acres and is located on the southwest corner of Northrise Drive and Roadrunner Parkway immediately adjacent to Las Cruces Fire Station #6. Parcel ID# 02-41025. Proposed Use: A senior citizen multi-dwelling development offering apartments, townhomes, assisted living quarters, nursing care and other related uses. The PUD also proposes limited commercial, office and multi-dwelling residential uses if the senior citizen development does not occur; Council District 6. VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IX. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS X. ADJOURNMENT Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5 FOR THE 6 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 7 City Council Chambers 8 July 26, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. 9 10 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 11 Charles Scholz, Chairman 12 Godfrey Crane, Vice Chair 13 Charles Beard, Secretary 14 Ray Shipley, Member 15 William Stowe, Member 16 Donald Bustos, Member 17 Shawn Evans, Member 18 19 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE 20 21 STAFF PRESENT: 22 Cheryl Rodriguez, Development Services Administrator 23 Paul Michaud, Senior Planner 24 Adam Ochoa, Acting Senior Planner 25 Helen Revels, Planner 26 Lorenzo Vigil, Acting Assistant Planner 27 Billy Chaires, Fire Department 28 Mark Dubbin, Fire Department 29 Jared Abrams, CLC Legal Staff 30 Bonnie Ennis, Recording Secretary 31 32 I. CALL TO ORDER (6:00 pm) 33 34 Scholz: Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission for 35 July 26, 2011. My name is Charlie Scholz. I'm the Chair. I'll introduce 36 the members of the Commission in just a moment. No, I'll introduce 37 them right now, as a matter of fact. On my far right, Commissioner 38 Shipley; he's the Mayor's appointee. Next to him, Commissioner 39 Crane. Commissioner Crane represents District 4. Next to him, 40 Commissioner Stowe, who represents District 1; then Commissioner 41 Evans who is representing District 5. Is that right, Commissioner 42 Evans? Yes, thank you. Commissioner Bustos represents District 43 2...3, sorry. I'm skipping over here. Commissioner Beard is 44 representing District 2 and I'm in Council District 6. 45 46 il. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 28, 2011 47 48 Scholz: The first order of business is the approval of the minutes of June 28tH 49 Are there and additions or corrections to the minutes? Commissioner 1 1 Stowe, you'll have to bring your mike down, sir. There we go. 2 3 Stowe: I believe the "members present" is from the previous meeting. 4 5 Scholz: Yes, as a matter of fact I have a note from the secretary that says, 6 "Yes, I know. I will fix this problem." 7 8 Stowe: That's it. 9 10 Scholz: And I was going to call her attention to that, too. Anything else? Okay, 11 I'll entertain a motion to approve. 12 13 Shipley: Move to approve the minutes. 14 15 Beard: Second. 16 17 Scholz: Okay, Shipley moves and Beard seconds. All those in favor say aye. 18 19 All: Aye (Except Commissioner Evans) 20 21 Scholz: Those opposed same sign and one abstention, Mr. Evans. Thank you. 22 23 Ill. POSTPONEMENTS 24 25 Scholz: Okay, our next order of business here is postponements. Are there 26 any postponements, Mr. Ochoa? 27 28 Ochoa: Good evening, gentlemen. Yes, the case number 5 under New 29 Business, case Z2840; the applicant will not be here this evening for 30 the hearing of this case and has asked to postpone the case to the 31 next P & Z meeting, which will be on August 23d 32 33 Scholz: All right. I'll entertain a motion to postpone case Z2840 to August 23d 34 35 Stowe: So moved. 36 37 Shipley: Second. 38 39 Scholz: Stowe moves and Shipley seconds. All those in favor say aye. 40 41 All: Aye. 42 43 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. So Z2840 is postponed until August 23`d 44 And that's it on postponements. 45 46 Ochoa: That's it. Yes, sir. 47 2 1 Scholz: All right. 2 3 IV. CONSENT AGENDA 4 5 Scholz: The next item is what we call the Consent Agenda and there are two 6 items today on the Consent Agenda. Here's how that works: if there's 7 anyone from the Commission or from the staff or from the audience 8 that wishes to comment on cases Z2838 or S-11-016 then we'll take 9 them off the Consent Agenda and put it under New Business. If, on 10 the other hand there's no protest then one vote on the Consent 11 Agenda will approve those two cases. Is there anyone who wishes to 12 speak to Z2838? Commissioner Crane. 13 14 Crane: I'd like to ask some questions so I would like it removed from the 15 Consent Agenda. 16 17 Scholz: Certainly, we'll move that to the first item under New Business. How 18 about case S-11-016? Commissioner Shipley, you have some 19 questions on that one? Okay, that'll be our second item under New 20 Business. 21 22 Those items on the consent agenda will be voted by one motion with the 23 acceptance of the agenda. Any Planning and Zoning Commissioner, Staff or 24 member of the public may remove an item from the consent agenda for 25 discussion by the commission. 26 27 1. Case Z2838: Application of Thomas Hassell on behalf of the Housing 28 Authority of the City of Las Cruces to rezone from PUD (Planned Unit 29 Development) to R-2 (Multi-Dwelling Low Density) on a 15.64 ± acre tract 30 of land located on the west side of Valley Drive 380± feet north of its 31 intersection with Tashiro Drive; a.k.a. 1571 Medina Drive; Parcel ID# 02- 32 00734. Proposed Use: Existing apartment complex that will be 33 rehabilitated and expanded with eleven (11) new dwelling units. Council 34 District 4. MOVED TO FIRST ITEM UNDER NEW BUSINESS 35 APPROVED 7-0 36 37 Scholz: So for the first case of New Business it is Z2838. Mr. Ochoa, you want 38 to speak to that? 39 40 Ochoa: Yes, sir. Adam Ochoa for Development Services. I'll be glad to 41 answer any questions Commissioner Crane might have or I can do a 42 full presentation if that is something that the Commission would desire. 43 44 Scholz: Commissioner Crane? 45 46 Crane: Yes, I have, I think, two or three questions. One is: are we sure that 47 when the work is done there will not be a decrease in the number of 3 1 affordable housing apartments in this particular development? It' going 2 to increase, I believe...but I wanted to hear you say so. 3 4 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, the proposal is to actually 5 increase the number of dwelling units on the apartment complex by 6 eleven dwelling units and the entire dwelling unit apartment complex is 7 a HUD Section 8 kind of assisted living...I'm sorry...not assisted living. 8 It is a HUD program apartment complex, sir. If you'd like more detail 9 on that the applicant is here to answer the questions you might have 10 on that, sir. 11 12 Crane: Okay and during the remodeling of the apartments that are going to be 13 remodeled which, I gather there is quite a number of them; what 14 provisions will be made for the tenants to move elsewhere. Are they 15 simply going to be given notice and, if so, will they be given priority to 16 come back later? 17 18 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane. I'll defer to the applicant for that 19 question. 20 21 Crane: Thank you. 22 23 Scholz: Is the applicant here? 24 25 Ochoa: Yes, sir. He is. 26 27 Scholz: Good. 28 29 Andrews: Good evening. I'm Tom Andrews representing the Housing Authority 30 of Las Cruces and I'm doing the development work on the project. We 31 are not going to displace any people permanently. There might be 32 some temporary relocation as we begin the project we will build the 33 new units first and we'll transition the families into the new units and 34 then start moving the families around. We don't anticipate starting 35 construction until November but we've already notified the families that 36 they're not going to be displaced, there will be no relocation and that 37 we will work with them throughout the construction phase. 38 39 Crane: Thank you. 40 41 Scholz: Okay, any other questions for this gentleman or Mr. Ochoa? I'll 42 entertain a motion to approve case Z2838. 43 44 Crane: So moved. 45 46 Scholz: Is there a second? 47 4 1 Beard: Second. 2 3 Scholz: Okay, Crane moved and Beard seconded. I'll call the role. 4 Commissioner Shipley. 5 6 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 7 8 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 9 10 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 11 12 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 13 14 Stowe: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 15 16 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 17 18 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 19 20 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 21 22 Bustos: Aye, findings and discussion. 23 24 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 25 26 Beard: Aye, findings and discussions. 27 28 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye, findings, discussion and site visit. So that's 29 approved 7-0. 30 31 2. Case S-11-016: Application of Underwood Engineering on behalf of 32 Wilfred E. Binns, property owner, to approve a final plat for 4.72 ± acres 33 known as the Valley and Hoagland Business Park. The final plat 34 proposes to replat three existing tracts of land into four new parcels. The 35 subject properties are located east of Valley Drive and north of Hoagland 36 Road; a.k.a. 1301 Hoagland Road, 1910 and 1970 N. Valley Drive; Parcel 37 ID# 02-22564, 02-22565 and 02-00724; Proposed Use: No charge with 38 the existing commercial uses of a daycare center, restaurant and 39 apartments; Council District 4. MOVED TO SECOND ITEM UNDER NEW 40 BUSINESS APPROVED 7-0 41 42 Scholz: Our next case is S-11-016. Ms. Revels. 43 44 Revels: Good evening, Commissioner Shipley. Do you have any specific 45 questions? 46 5 1 Shipley: Ms. Revels, yes I do. In the staff report you had mentioned there are 2 apartments there and my question was: I didn't see any but I know 3 there's a requirement for that lot if it's going to be apartments to have 4 eighteen there...a minimum of eighteen, I think it's ten per acre. It's a 5 1.8 acre parcel. 6 7 Revels: That's correct, Commissioner Shipley. I did get clarification from the 8 property owner, Mr. Binns, that there are, in fact, no apartments on this 9 property. There are many storage units and eight offices that kind of 10 resemble apartments but they are not apartments. 11 12 Scholz: So is our staff report correct in that this is an authorized use? I didn't 13 check storage units so I... 14 15 Revels: Yes, sir. 16 17 Shipley: Okay, they're covered under that. 18 19 Revels: Yes, sir. 20 21 Shipley: Thank you. 22 23 Scholz: All right, Commissioners, any other questions on this? 24 25 Shipley: I move to approve case S-11-016. 26 27 Bustos and Crane: Second it. 28 29 Scholz: Excuse me. Someone from the public raised their hand. You have a 30 question, ma'am? Would you please come to the microphone and 31 identify yourself? 32 33 N Carbajal: Good evening. I'm Nuriana Carbajal. I live across the street from the 34 storage units. We were here a couple of years ago asking how come 35 they hadn't been cleaned up yet and they've never been cited for 36 codes. They're still falling apart and people do live in the offices. So, 37 what are we going to do with it? Are we going to leave it that way? 38 That's my question. 39 40 Scholz: Okay, is Mr. Binns here? 41 42 Revels: I will defer that to Mr. Binns. 43 44 Binns: My name is Eddie Binns. The particular units in question are some 45 dilapidated storage units and at some point in time they will probably 46 be bulldozed down. At this time we have worked with Codes 6 1 Enforcement for boarding them up and seeing them so that they are 2 safe and not a detriment for health and welfare. But at this particular 3 point in time they are sealed and I don't have any particular projects 4 going in there in the immediate future. 5 6 Scholz: What about the question, Mr. Binns, about people living in the offices? 7 8 Binns: No, there are no people living in the facilities that I am aware of. If they 9 are I have had Codes go out there and evict them, run them off, 10 because there are signs, no trespassing and such, and none of them 11 are rented, per se, for habitation. If it is, it's trespassers. 12 13 Scholz: Okay. Any other questions for this gentleman? Okay, thank you very 14 much. Yes, someone else from the public wish to speak to this? Go 15 ahead. 16 17 R Carbajal: My name's Raul Carbajal. My wife is the one that just spoke. We live 18 across the storage units. Yes, Mr. Binns, people do live there. We live 19 there. We live across the road. We see it first hand. We see them go 20 in and out. They live in those offices. The buildings are condemned 21 almost. Like he says, they want to be bulldozed or anything they 22 should be done now or put not trespassing on the buildings period. 23 They're unsafe. If you walk them even the ceilings are falling. We had 24 asked a couple years back just to clean up the place. Nothing was 25 ever done. Codes hits me for the weeds just in my parkway and I do 26 the best I can. I keep it cleaned and everything else. Yes, we have an 27 ongoing project going on right now and I'm proud of it. 28 But those buildings, those storage units...they're not storage 29 units. They're condemned buildings. They need to be taken care of 30 and Mr. Binns has been asked in the past in some of these meetings 31 that we've been at just to go and look. I mean, that's all you've got to 32 do is look and you'll see people. There was people living in the car 33 wash building that's not even an apartment. It doesn't even have a 34 restroom in it. We've called Codes. We've done our part. Kids hang 35 out back there. Nothing's ever been taken care of in the school year. 36 All we ask is: if he wants to, you know, separate all these 37 parcels do something to the place first. We don't mind upgrade or 38 businesses coming in or anything like that. We just want what's there 39 now to be taken care of first before you guys decide to rezone his 40 parcel units. That's all we're asking. We're not asking for much. 41 That's all I have to say, really. Thank you. 42 43 Scholz: Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Shipley, you have a quizzical look on 44 your face. I'm going to close this to public discussion, by the way. 1 45 should have explained: the way it usually works when we're 46 presenting a case is that the City presents its case first then the 7 1 applicant presents. We open it then to public discussion then we close 2 it to public discussion and we discuss among ourselves and vote. You 3 don't have a quizzical expression on your face. I'm sorry. 4 5 Shipley: My question about the apartments is because it does state in the staff 6 report, which is in error...so I just wanted to make sure that the staff 7 report is corrected to state that the apartments are not there and if it's 8 going to be graded for apartments then it needs to meet the City of Las 9 Cruces Code. 10 11 Scholz: Right, the Residential Standards. Yes, and I'm afraid that this Body 12 can't do much about codes violations. 13 14 Shipley: The only thing I think we can do is advise the applicant and people 15 across the street to call every day if they're there. If they see it, call. 16 That's all you can do. 17 18 Scholz: Any other questions or comments? Commissioner Crane. 19 20 Crane: It also says in the paperwork here that...I think it was submitted by the 21 applicant that there are a day care, a restaurant and apartment 22 buildings. It doesn't mention the...we've heard there are no 23 apartments, legitimately. It does not say there are any offices here and 24 it doesn't say that there are any storage lockers. It seems this 25 application is somewhat deficient. 26 27 Revels: That's correct. The information provided was incorrect. 28 29 Crane: Does that invalidate the application? 30 31 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, if I may... 32 33 Scholz: Ms. Rodriguez. 34 35 Rodriguez: Cheryl Rodriguez, Development Services Administrator. The 36 application before you is a subdivision request to, essentially, replat 37 the existing properties. The questions that are being asked are good 38 questions but they're germane to land use and this is not a land use 39 decision because the zoning of the property is current. What the 40 applicant is seeking to do is to replat three existing properties into four 41 parcels and, because you have a previously filed subdivision, our 42 Subdivision Code says if you are increasing the number of lots that it is 43 to come before this Authority. The use questions are already vested 44 with the C-3 zoning district so any future development or 45 redevelopment on the subject properties will have to comply with the 8 1 existing C-3 Development Standards as established in our Zoning 2 Code. 3 4 Scholz: Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez. 5 6 Crane: So the deficiencies we are observing on the actual lot, the actual use, 7 are not germane at the moment. 8 9 Scholz: That's what she's saying. Yes, Commissioner Crane. 10 11 Crane: Thank you. 12 13 Scholz: Anything else? All right, I want to entertain a motion to approve. 14 15 Crane: So moved. 16 17 Scholz: Okay, Crane moves. 18 19 Stowe: Second. 20 21 Scholz: And Stowe seconds. All right, I'll call the role. Commissioner Shipley. 22 23 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 24 25 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 26 27 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 28 29 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 30 31 Stowe: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 32 33 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 34 35 Evans: Aye, findings, discussion. 36 37 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 38 39 Bustos: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 40 41 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 42 43 Beard: Aye, findings, discussion. 44 45 Scholz: And the Chair aye, findings and discussions so it's passed 7-0. 46 47 9 1 V. OLD BUSINESS 2 3 Scholz: There is no Old Business.... 4 5 VI. NEW BUSINESS 6 7 (SEE ABOVE) 8 9 1. Case PA-11-01: A request recommending approval of the One Valley, 10 One Vision 2040 Regional Plan. The plan is a long-range, regional 11 comprehensive plan that evaluates the needs of the region for the next 12 30 years and ways to meet those needs. The main components of the 13 plan includes a regional vision statement, snapshot of existing 14 conditions, goals and strategies, regional growth strategies, and 15 suggested actions. This plan if approved will be the basis from which 16 future comprehensive planning efforts will be drawn. The plan is 17 available online at http://vision204O.las-cruces.or-g. Submitted by the City 18 of Las Cruces and Dona Ana County. APPROVED 7-0 19 20 Scholz: That brings us to our next case, which is recommending approval of 21 the One Valley, One Vision 2040 Regional Plan and Mr. Michaud, who 22 has worked very hard and long on this is going to do our presentation. 23 24 Michaud: Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning 25 and Zoning Commission. For the record my name is Paul Michaud, 26 Senior Planner with the City of Las Cruces and we're talking about the 27 One Valley, One Vision Regional Plan which we discussed at your 28 work session of June 21St 29 Tonight I'm going to quickly go over this Regional Plan's 30 relationship to other Plans. I'm going to give a very quick Plan 31 summary and overview of the comments that have been received to 32 date. You'll have opportunity to discuss your own comments and 33 suggestions on the Plan and, again, we are asking for you to make a 34 recommendation to forward on to City Council regarding the Plan itself. 35 You've seen this diagram before: it's in the Plan itself and it's 36 illustrating the Regional Plan, at the very top of this pyramid, if you will. 37 Again the Regional plan is a very broad based plan that deals with 38 various resource topics, very similar to our City Comprehensive Plan, 39 but again, the Comprehensive Plan just deals with the city limits. The 40 Regional plan's dealing county-wide both unincorporated and 41 incorporated places. There're are other various plans that this could 42 possibly affect or go to, technical plans and sector plans, and 43 ultimately it feeds down to the very bottom, which is called 44 Implementation, your Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and 45 things of that nature. 46 Just generally, for general information, on the comments that 47 have been received there're many formatting, typographical and 10 1 related points that are not summarized in the Comment matrix that 2 were part of your staff report; and that was a preliminary comment 3 matrix that we have gone through all our stakeholder meetings ending 4 pretty much last week and have completed that matrix. 5 The matrix itself, if you look at it, has three categories: 6 Clarification, Comments and Direction. Clarification is just things that 7 staff feels should be made and we're going to just go ahead and 8 approach and make. Comments were areas that we weren't quite sure 9 there was enough detail or just plain out comments we didn't know 10 what to do with. Then there was Direction, things that we were asking 11 for the Elected Bodies ultimately to make a decision on. The Comment 12 matrix does explain how staff plans to address the changes and 13 suggestions where clear direction has been given and, certainly, there 14 are other points that are identified as comments, for the most part, that 15 we may need direction to follow up on. That updated matrix will be 16 posted on the web site, if not this week, definitely by next week. 17 Technically the review period has been completed. We are 18 now in the next phase of this process for the Regional plan which, 19 again, started back in the end of 2007 and that's to get 20 recommendations from your Body, as well as the County Planning and 21 Zoning Commission and other Planning and Zoning Commissions in 22 the ETZ. During the review period, and the review period was 23 essentially June and July of this year we held twelve meetings that 24 were open to the public and, again, those were throughout the county. 25 We presented to eight stakeholder groups. We had some ads and 26 articles in both the Las Cruces Sun and the Bulletin. There was and 27 still is an informational video on Channel 20. There was a blurb on 28 KRWG and then, of course, our web site has be on throughout the 29 whole process. Except as noted in this presentation staff does expect 30 to incorporate the suggestions that were noted at your June 21st work 31 session. Just going over, I'm going to go over kind of chapter by 32 chapter of kind of where we are seeing the comments and possible 33 changes. 34 Chapter one is the Executive Summary and, as explained 35 before, that was purposely left blank. Staff is in the process of 36 developing that and we do have a draft as of today. We will hope to 37 get a draft out and post it on line probably in the next two to three 38 weeks. 39 Chapter two is the Vision Statement and again, the Vision 40 Statement states the Current Themes and Values of, ideally, what we 41 as a region hope to achieve by 2040 and these Recurrent Themes and 42 Values were collected through the surveys and all the input that was 43 collected back in 2008, early 2009. The Elected Bodies did look at the 44 Vision Statement then it went through the Advisory Committee over the 45 last several months. As you can see here, based on the comments 46 that we've received to date, it's really a lot of wordsmithing on the five 11 1 elements or the five sections of the Vision Statement. The one major 2 addition is to add medical to the very last bullet. 3 Chapter three is the Introduction chapter and that provides a 4 brief summary on the public engagement process that has been going 5 on for the last four years; what we call the SWOT, which is the 6 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats and, again, that 7 was utilized by the Advisory Committee to help identify the issues as 8 well as the goals that are in the Plan. There's demographic data 9 focusing on population data and then the organization of the Plan itself 10 and then the relationship to other Plans, which is the chart that was 11 represented earlier. Based on the comments that we've received to 12 date some of the changes that we're envisioning are to revise the 13 public engagement section, to talk a little bit more about the 14 methodology, to update the number of meetings and to reference the 15 background data, the surveys, the appendix, which is noted in the 16 bibliography in the documents; and those documents are available on 17 line under "background information." They'll also be available once the 18 Plan is done. We'll PDF all those various documents into one 19 document, which will be a companion to this particular document itself. 20 We're also seeing some minor changes in text description to the 21 population subsection that addresses the trend over the next thirty 22 years of the 65-plus age group and rewording the organization section 23 to follow in chronological order, which, I believe, was Commissioner 24 Shipley's comment at the work session. 25 Looking at the SWOT and looking at Strengths: there are eight 26 Strengths that are listed in the Plan. Based on the comments that 27 have been received to date, there are two suggested changes, no 28 additions and no deletions suggested at this point and, as you can see, 29 the two suggested changes are to add White Sands Missile Range and 30 Construction and Development to the Strength that lists the vital roles 31 or institutions that play vital roles in the region. Then on the...I believe 32 this the last item on the Strengths, is the Comprehensive System and 33 Educational Institutions. There's a whole list of schools there but we 34 also list those schools in Table 5-18, so we're suggesting to remove 35 the list to there since they're in Table 5-18. 36 Looking at the weaknesses, there are a total of eleven 37 weaknesses that are listed in the SWOT. To date based on 38 comments: there are suggested changes, no additions, no deletions 39 and just one comment. Again, the changes are more changing 40 words...the first one is to change out "equal" to "comparable," to 41 change out "most of these" to "except for those." There was a 42 comment, I believe it was Commissioner Shipley, regarding the 43 weakness being unclear which was listed here: "Many people outside 44 the Region lack an awareness of the historic, cultural, environmental 45 resources and this negatively affects tourism potential." I think from 46 the staff's perspective we didn't think that was unclear; so certainly if 12 1 you all think that's unclear you might want to give us some suggested 2 language to make a change to that. 3 Looking at the Opportunities there are five Opportunities that 4 are listed in the SWOT. Based on the comments that have been 5 received to date there are three suggested changes, one addition and 6 no deletions. The changes: now the first is to make a separate bullet 7 for the tourism and flood control and the suggestions right now they 8 are kind of combined. The second was to look at retirees as an 9 industry, to relook at retiree centric services and businesses. The third 10 change was to change the Economic Development Opportunities 11 section, again, to change some wording to add engineering and 12 management operations. The addition was to add this following 13 one...again, some of these descriptions might change as the process 14 moves forward. You are kind of the first Planning and Zoning 15 Commission looking at this. Economic synergy potential exists in 16 pursuing rail connection of the region's industrial and airport facilities 17 like the West Mesa Industrial Park and Las Cruces International Airport 18 to the rail operations in Santa Teresa. I believe that came out of the 19 ETZ Commission in their discussions. 20 There are eight Threats in the SWOT section in the Plan. To 21 date there two suggested changes, one addition and no deletion and 22 two comments. Again, the changes: one is to add essential services; 23 the second on a change is to add...which is talking about flooding and 24 specific parts, is to add a (3) and (4)...(3) is that there is flooding due 25 to unlawful construction in flood hazard areas and (4) that there could 26 be flooding due to intensive precipitation during monsoon periods. On 27 the addition...there's an addition to add, again as a Threat, 28 "Occurrences of drought can impact the region's resources including 29 agricultural production and limitations to water supply; and then of 30 some of the comments there was a suggestion of using the term 31 "uncontrolled or poorly planned growth" regarding the fourth bulleted 32 Threat. Staff isn't suggesting that wording and so, Mr. Chairman, you 33 can kind of pipe in on this. During the Advisory Committee there was 34 quite a bit of discussion regarding the term of "uncontrolled and poorly 35 planned growth" but the fact is that nothing is truly uncontrolled or not 36 managed. To some degree something is managed and that was a 37 discussion that the Advisory Committee and staff do not suggest 38 making that change. There was also a suggestion to add water and 39 water quality as a threat. Staff really hasn't gotten the details of that, 40 but certainly we wouldn't have a problem putting that in if you feel 41 that's necessary to put in. 42 Chapter four is a chapter that deals with the concepts of 43 Sustainability and Smart Growth. Really, there've been no suggested 44 changes to this chapter. We're suggesting to change the title of it just 45 to "Concepts." You'll still have Sustainability and Smart Growth in 13 1 there. It'll just clean up the table of contents and to add an introductory 2 paragraph, much like the other chapters. 3 Chapter five is the Snapshot section and, again, this chapter 4 provides the existing condition on the twelve identified resource topics 5 that are listed here and discussed before. Some of the proposed 6 changes from the information that we've been receiving are: to correct 7 land ownership on the acreage for NMSU and, again, most of these 8 are just clarification items to include more survey data results that are 9 put in throughout this document; to revise the description about the 10 Paso del Norte Watershed Council; to add planning efforts on water 11 quality and expand the bacterial total maximum daily load description 12 that's already in the Plan...and that's coming from that particular 13 group; to revise description about the Dona Ana Soil and Water 14 Conservation District and update the wetland and riparian text related 15 to the work that they are doing; to add a subsection on hazardous 16 material that is identified in the list of hazards from the All Hazards 17 Plan that is referenced in this document; to reword and reorganize the 18 subsection titles and text in the Transportation Snapshot portion...the 19 comment there was that they felt separating out the non-motorized 20 from the motorized doesn't kind of get out the Complete Streets sort of 21 concept. So now none of the data is really changing. It's just how it's 22 categorized. To correct the number of high schools that were listed 23 and to include any missing education and public safety entities and to 24 update the text that the City is now doing recycling; to correct the text 25 on the EI Paso Electric ownership and other facilities and other 26 facilities which are outside this region; to add the Sapphire, biofuel and 27 solar facilities at the F & A Dairy to the Table 5-12 in Renewable 28 Projects; to add positive points to Table 5-14, which talks about 29 economic considerations in agriculture, the points that were listed in 30 the Plan, which were all for the most part negative so we're trying to 31 balance that out; to add more educational institutions to Table 5-17; to 32 add the following groups to the existing intergovernmental groups, 33 which is the Lower Rio Grande Public Waterworks Authority, which is 34 the combination of the five water districts in the Vado area; to add the 35 Dona Ana Soil and Water Conservation District and to add the Council 36 of Governments that serves this area. 37 Regarding the issues that are listed in this Snapshot section, 38 there are thirty-four issues in the Plan. They cover all of those twelve 39 resource topics and, to date, there's one suggested change to that 40 issue, six additions and one deletion, based on the comments. The 41 suggested change is to reword the cross-out that you see above to 42 basically rewrite it: the cost to treat and recover water to meet water 43 quality standards is a limitation to additional future water supplies. The 44 additions include: in 2004 data collection along the Rio Grande by the 45 New Mexico Environment Department exhibited exceedences of the 46 bacterial standard for E. coli. That is in the process of being studied 14 I and substantiated as such exceedences could negatively affect 2 people, plants, animals and the economic vitality of the region's 3 agriculture. The second addition is: a need exists to encourage Green 4 Infrastructure and Low Impact Development to assist with stormwater 5 management. The third addition to issues: there will likely be a need 6 for more transportation options in addition to driving a personal vehicle 7 due to the upward trend in population over 65 years of age, the 8 number of persons with a disability or unable to drive. The fourth 9 addition: there will likely a need for additional health care services, 10 again, due to that trend. The upward trend in population over 65 years 11 of age may require providing more housing options or amenities in 12 addition to the detached single-family dwellings. The other addition: 13 planning and coordination on timing and design of regional roadways 14 to avoid piecemeal roadway construction and inconsistent roadway 15 design; and that goes with a list of other items in that 16 intergovernmental section. The deletions suggested came from an 17 individual from NMSU regarding the issue that "distances between 18 communities make access to higher education in outlying rural areas in 19 the region more challenging" and he is suggesting the deletion since in 20 the last three years there have been branch campuses being 21 developed. But, again, that is just an item that we have listed as 22 direction. 23 Under accomplishments in the Snapshot section there are forty 24 accomplishments in the Plan as it exists. Based on the comments 25 received to date there are two suggested changes, two additions and 26 one deletion. The first change deals with clarification of the ETZ: in 27 the Sunland Park area, the Camino Real Regional Utility Authority has 28 authority to actually form an ETZ. In some ways they function like an 29 ETZ but they're not technically an ETZ and the Plan doesn't quite state 30 that it exists today. The second is to update the third transportation 31 bullet, really just to clarify the various transit routes that are in 32 existence. The existing description didn't quite explain it accurately. 33 Regarding additions to the accomplishments section: to add the 34 Munson Senior Center in Las Cruces. It has become the first 35 nationally accredited senior center in the State of New Mexico. To add 36 a section called "accomplishments" to Intergovernmental Cooperation, 37 much like the other resource topics and, really, just to refer to the 38 existing tables. I think this comes from the ETZ: to add more items 39 that the Council and Board of County Commissioners had done so 40 there might be a need to create another table on that. The only 41 deletion was regarding the Prehistoric Trackway bullet. That's actually 42 listed twice so it should either be in Environmental or in Community 43 Facilities but not in both. 44 The next major section in the Plan is chapter six and that deals 45 with Goals and Strategies. There are forty-three goals that are listed in 46 the Plan. Based on the comments that have been received to date 15 1 there are no suggested changes, additions or deletions to the goals. 2 There are various strategies in the Plan. There are actually two 3 hundred and twenty-nine strategies listed in the Plan based on each of 4 those twelve resource topics and, again, these strategies are possible 5 ways to achieve that goal and it may not apply in all circumstances or 6 parts of the region and, based on the comments to date, there are two 7 suggested changes, twelve additions and no deletions to those 8 strategies. The suggested changes deal with goal 6-5-1 to add 9 "consider hazardous by-pass ways" to that particular strategy. On goal 10 6-7-2 it's to add not just "Colonias" regarding technology but also rural 11 areas. Looking at additions it's to "add a strategy to work with 12 stakeholders to develop and implement reclaimed water strategies" to 13 goal 6-2-1 regarding the availability of safe, dependable, affordable, 14 sustainable water supply; to add the following two strategies to goal 6- 15 2-2 again dealing with water, dealing with water quality; to encourage 16 green infrastructure and Low Impact Development where appropriate; 17 to support planning and analysis of the Rio Grande Basin Watershed 18 that will allow for best management practices and managing pollutant 19 loads. The fourth addition is to goal 6-4-3; to work with the agricultural 20 and ranching community when developing land use plans to come up 21 with desirable methods and locations of agricultural and ranching 22 activities for the long term. The fifth addition is to goal 6-6-2 regarding 23 the coordination of transportation planning as to plan transit corridors 24 that connect activity centers and allow higher density so that total 25 housing/transportation costs are reduced. The sixth addition is to goal 26 6-7-3, is to encourage local governmental jurisdictions preparing 27 comprehensive or master plans to coordinate with and include all 28 providers of community facilities and utilities in the development of the 29 Plan. The seventh addition is to support and enhance public access 30 opportunities on state and federal lands of outdoor activities...and 31 that's to goal 6-7-5. The eighth addition is to work with regional 32 partners to encourage state and federal funding and regulatory 33 agencies to remove institutional obstacles to regionalization. The ninth 34 addition to goal 6-9-2 is to consider the adoption or modification of 35 local zoning ordinances regarding the use of accessory dwelling units 36 and being responsive to local housing needs such as increasing the 37 affordability options, supporting public infrastructure investments and 38 providing housing options in closer proximity to those that care for 39 others. The tenth addition: to support programs that promote 40 employment and volunteer opportunities of older aged persons, 41 persons with a disability and other persons whose skills will strengthen 42 the economic vitality of the region. The eleventh addition: to consider 43 rail line extensions and spurs; and then the last addition is to 44 coordinate among government agencies in effective ways to generate, 45 store, process, analyze, manipulate and use spatial data and related 46 technologies. 16 1 The next chapter is chapter seven and that's the Types of 2 Communities. There weren't a lot of suggested changes based on the 3 comments we received. There was a suggestion to rename the title of 4 "Colonias" in this particular section to "Unincorporated Communities," 5 some description changes to highlight some of the infrastructure 6 improvements that the Lower Rio Grande Public Waterworks Authority 7 has been doing and then to make that same clarification regarding the 8 ETZ and around Sunland Park. 9 Chapter eight is the Growth Strategies section and, again, that 10 section is where all the maps are, for the most part, in the Plan. It 11 provides census strategy maps for the distribution of housing and 12 development and jobs. There are no suggested changes based on the 13 comments that we've received to date. Just want to keep in mind that 14 the Regional plan does point the general direction for the region. It 15 leaves the lower level Plans, the Comprehensive Plans or your 16 Detailed Transit Plan, etc. to get the detail and any additional public 17 input or data collection. What you're seeing on this map is what's in 18 the Plan. On the left in red is the Consensus Growth Strategy map for 19 housing and development, again trying to focus more development 20 towards existing incorporated areas but also realizing that there is still 21 going to be development outside incorporated areas. Then the Job 22 Strategy map to the right in blue, again, showing where existing jobs 23 are and trying to tie housing and jobs closer together. Put those 24 together and you get the Regional plan, which is illustrated here. 25 Chapter nine is, for all intents and purposes, the last major 26 chapter in the Plan and that's the Implementation chapter. There are a 27 total of fifty actions that are in the Plan currently and these actions are 28 a preliminary list of ways to track accomplishments of the Plan. Again, 29 it's not meant to be an exhaustive list. The actions do only look out to 30 the year 2016. There were six actions identified by the Advisory 31 Committee to work as a priority between 2012 and 2013 and the 32 Elected Bodies may wish to examine those priorities a little bit closer. 33 The priority actions were these: there was Action 2, to establish a 34 future regional service boundary to delineate the maximum extent for 35 provision of public and wastewater services, which to some extent we 36 sort of do already; Action 3, to preserve BLM and State Land outside 37 the proposed service boundary through actions including and not 38 limited to dialogue with the BLM and State Land Trust, land outside the 39 given priority for preservation, etc.; Action 9 is to complete the 40 groundwater remediation of the superfund site in Las Cruces; Action 41 12, to revisit the EPA Natural Events Action Plan; Action 40, to 42 evaluate the benefit of combining the two housing authorities, which 43 may already be underway or done before we get this Plan approved; 44 and then the last priority Action that was listed by the Advisory 45 Committee was to create an implementation task force to best 17 1 prioritize, evaluate, accomplish, consider potential funding 2 opportunities and track the progress of the Plan. 3 Looking at the Actions there were some comments expressed 4 concerned over implementation, just the section itself and it was early 5 on in the comment phase, since the Plan is advisory. There were also 6 some Actions, as I just mentioned, that might need to be deleted if they 7 were actually completed before adoption of the Plan and there was 8 one additional Action that was proposed and that was to support the 9 completion of the New Mexico Environmental Department and... 10 PdNWC, I believe it's called, regarding and finding and rating sources 11 of bacterial exceedences as a means to identify strategies to keep the 12 total maximum total daily load at acceptable levels. 13 That is the Plan itself. For meetings, you're having your 14 recommendation meeting now. This Thursday at 9:00 am the County 15 Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to hear this and then 16 August 4th the Las Cruces ETZ is planning to hear this. At this point 17 we don't have any scheduled date for work sessions for the Board of 18 County Commission or the City Council. We're hoping that will happen 19 sometime in the later part of August and certainly no later than 20 September, with hopefully then being able to adopt either September 21 or October the Plan itself. 22 Again, this meeting is for recommendation. Staff is 23 recommending approval of the Plan with the changes that are noted 24 under clarification in your Attachment 1 of the staff report as well as 25 what's presented in the presentation. Based on the findings listed in 26 the Plan and the findings really relate back to the Resolutions that 27 were passed back in 2007 between the City and the County agreeing 28 to develop a regional plan on the basis that a long range planning will 29 result in better intergovernmental cooperation, greater efficiency and 30 analysis and public involvement and, ultimately, a more effective 31 regional response to issues related to growth, economy, environment 32 and transportation. The second finding: the City and County stated a 33 purpose of the regional plan is to provide a policy framework to guide 34 the actions of the City and County for long-term growth and change; 35 and a third, the City and County desired a regional plan based on 36 extensive public involvement; and fourth, approval of the Plan will aide 37 in the update of the future Comprehensive Plans. The County has 38 already started to embark on updating their Plan and the City will follow 39 suit as soon after this Plan is adopted. 40 Again, in your Plan there are various options that you, as a 41 Board, can do for recommendation. You can, of course, recommend it 42 for approval or to recommend denial. If you do choose to recommend 43 denial you will need to state findings to that or to table and postpone 44 recommendation...and that concludes staff's presentation, Mr. 45 Chairman. 46 18 1 Scholz: Thank you, Mr. Michaud. I want to mention after reading the 2 comments and corrections and so on that you attached to this 3 document it seemed to me that the majority of the corrections and 4 additions were to the point. They were expansions, perhaps 5 clarifications, that sort of thing and I thought they were worthwhile. 1 6 thought many of the comments were rather irrelevant. They were 7 people who wanted more specificity in the Plan and, of course, this 8 Plan is a high view, you know, and not something that says, "We do 9 this next," you know. It's not a Comp Plan, in other words, and I think 10 there was some misunderstanding of that by some of the Bodies and 11 some of the individuals that looked at this. Anyway, I certainly 12 appreciate your work on this. You have been the work horse and 1 13 understand that when this is through then you are going to do the City 14 Comp Plan. 15 16 Michaud: That is the plan, Mr. Chairman, and again, it's with both the City and 17 the County effort we got a lot of input for not just the Advisory 18 Committee but, of course, both City and County staff. 19 20 Scholz: There's no relief for the wicked, as we say. All right, gentlemen. 21 Questions for Mr. Michaud or comments? All right, I'll entertain a 22 motion to approve. 23 24 Crane: So moved. 25 26 Scholz: Okay, Crane has moved. 27 28 Beard: Second. 29 30 Scholz: And Beard has seconded. I'll call the role. Commissioner Shipley. 31 32 Shipley: Aye, findings and discussion. 33 34 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 35 36 Crane: Aye. 37 38 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 39 40 Stowe: Aye, findings and discussion. 41 42 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 43 44 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 45 46 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 19 1 2 Bustos: Aye, discussion. 3 4 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 5 6 Beard: Aye. 7 8 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion and the sense of relief 9 that we're pretty close to the end of this. (all laughing) Well, I've been 10 on this for four years, too, so .... All right, thank you again, Mr. 11 Michaud. Appreciate it. 12 13 2. Case Z2837: Application of Area 51 LLC to rezone a 0.25 ± acre tract 14 (K-1) within the Sonoma Ranch East II Master Plan from R-1 b (Single- 15 Family High Density) to C-1 C (Commercial Low Intensity-Conditional) to 16 allow for utility-related land uses - antennas, towers, communication 17 structures and other vertical structures and public/private utility 18 installations. The subject property is located south of the future 19 extension of Sedona Hills Parkway and east of Pagosa Hills Avenue; 20 Parcel ID# 02-37615; Proposed Use: Private Communication Structure; 21 Council District 6. APPROVED 6-1 22 23 Scholz: Okay, our next item of business is case Z2837 and, Ms. Rodriguez; 24 you're going to present this, are you? 25 26 Rodriguez: Yes, sir. 27 28 Scholz: Before you start, I have a question for you: this came before us a 29 couple months ago didn't it? 30 31 Rodriguez: Yes, it did. 32 33 Scholz: Okay, and at that time were there anybody...did you receive any letters 34 of protest or...as I recall there was one letter of protest? 35 36 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. Staff had received one letter of protest 37 but at that Planning and Zoning Commission meeting we had nobody 38 in attendance. 39 40 Scholz: Oh, okay. So none of the people who live in the neighborhood or who 41 were concerned about it came to that hearing. 42 43 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. 44 45 Scholz: Okay...and so why did the City Council kick this back to us? 46 20 1 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, when we brought the Ordinance to City Council for 2 consideration, during that component there was again public 3 notification process ... 4 5 Scholz: Sure. 6 7 Rodriguez: ...and it was during the City Council meeting that at that time staff 8 started to receive inquiries into the zone change request and then staff 9 started receiving comments for opposition. Council, collectively, each 10 Councillor was also receiving comments about the case. There was 11 considerable public participation at the City Council meeting. There 12 were a lot of questions about not only the zone change to change the 13 respective land uses on the property but also questions about the 14 Special Use Permit for the proposed free-standing commercial 15 structure. So at that time Council decided, "Let's remand this back to 16 the Planning and Zoning Commission so we can hear the zone change 17 again from a land use perspective as well as consider the merits of the 18 Special Use Permit and then have those forwarded back to City 19 Council with a recommendation back from this body." 20 21 Scholz: Okay. So we would put both of those forward together again...that's 22 the idea. 23 24 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. What I'm going to ask is we can 25 suspend the rules and hear the zone change request for case Z2837 26 as well as the Special Use Permit SUP-11-01 together and then what 27 we'll do is we'll unsuspend the rules and then vote on them separately. 28 29 Scholz: Right. 30 31 Rodriguez: Typically with a Special Use Permit as it's codified the Planning and 32 Zoning Commission has final authority on Special Use Permits. Zone 33 changes, as you are aware and for the benefit of the public here, a 34 zone change request before the Planning and Zoning Commission is a 35 recommendation to City Council. 36 37 Scholz: Right. 38 39 Rodriguez: Because of the nature of these two cases combined staff is going to 40 recommend to you, as part of the decision tonight, to recommend that 41 the Special Use Permit, that the final consideration, the final authority 42 be rested with City Council tonight. So when I go through the case 43 specifics and when we get to the recommendations staff has already 44 put that into the SUP recommendation; but at the end of this it will be 45 your decision whether or not you want to retain final authority on the 46 SUP. If that's the case then what would happen is, to get to City 21 1 Council, if there is an aggrieved party on the SUP they can appeal that 2 to City Council or you can just say, "You know what? We'll go ahead 3 and make a recommendation up to City Council and City Council. You 4 may hear the zone change and SUP together and please make it final 5 decision." 6 7 Scholz: Okay. Good. That gives us some options then. All right, so you want 8 to move to suspend the rules? 9 10 Rodriguez: Yes, sir. 11 12 Scholz: Yes. Is there a motion to suspend the rules? 13 14 Evans and Shipley: So moved. 15 16 Scholz: It's a tie between Evans and Shipley. Thank you, Commissioners. Is 17 there a second? 18 19 Stowe: Second. 20 21 Scholz: Okay. All those in favor of suspending the rules please say aye. 22 23 All: Aye. 24 25 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. Okay, the rules are suspended. Ms. 26 Rodriguez, take it. 27 28 3. Case SUP-11-01: Application of Verticom on behalf of Area 51 LLC for 29 a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the construction of a new private 30 communication structure on property located south of the future 31 extension of Sedona Hills Parkway and east of Pagosa Hills Avenue 32 directly adjacent to the Jornada water tank site; Parcel ID# 02-37615; 33 Proposed Use: A 65-foot tall disguised commercial communication 34 structure; Council District 6. APPROVED 5-2 35 36 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, just a few housekeeping before we get started. I have 37 my staff presentation in which I'm going to talk about the merits of both 38 development applications together in this PowerPoint and I will try to 39 separate them as best as I can. The applicants for the zone change 40 request and the Special Use Permit are present here so they can 41 answer any specific questions that you may have on the development 42 application. I can answer any questions that you are going to have 43 relating to land use and applicability of the Zoning Code, etc. and then 44 the public is also in attendance. They are requesting to speak before 45 you. There is a presentation and I believe each of you has received a 46 copy of the petition in opposition to the zone change request. 22 1 2 Scholz: Yes, I believe we did. 3 4 Rodriguez: Okay, thank you. So on that note, I would like to go ahead and get 5 started on my presentation. Before you this evening is a zone change 6 request and a Special Use Permit Request for 0.25 acres of land that 7 is located within the Sonoma Ranch East II Master Planned area. The 8 property in question is located just east of an existing single-family 9 residential neighborhood east of Pagosa Hills, which is a Minor Local 10 roadway and it's located just south of the future extension of Sedona 11 Hills Parkway, which is classified on the MPO Thoroughfare as a Major 12 Thoroughfare. The lease area for the Special Use Permit is 0.25 13 acres. The zone change request is for 0.25 acres. What it is 14 proposing is to alter the zoning boundary from R1-b to C-1 C, which is 15 Commercial Low Intensity-Conditional and there are conditions that are 16 being proposed on the zone change request. 17 The area in question is not part of a platted subdivision so there 18 are no specific points of lots to refer to. You are looking at a lease 19 area within a larger boundary, a larger parcel of land. The property in 20 question is located immediately adjacent and east of an existing water 21 tank site that is owned by the City of Las Cruces. There is a 22 subdivision application going forward right now between the owners of 23 Sonoma Ranch Property and the City of Las Cruces to create a lot for 24 the water tank site but that is not germane to this evening's 25 presentation regarding the zone change request or the SUP. 26 As I stated, the zone change request is to Commercial Low 27 Intensity and the Special Use Permit is to allow the construction of a 28 65-foot tall, free-standing, commercial communication structure. The 29 zone change request is for Commercial Low Intensity zoning district. 30 Commercial Low Intensity a neighborhood commercial zoning district. 31 The condition that is attached to the proposed zone change is to 32 restrict all of the commercial land uses in there so you will not have 33 commercial activity with the exception of allowing for utility-related land 34 uses as we, the staff, define those in the Zoning Code to antennas, 35 towers, communication structures and other vertical structures in 36 public, private utility installations only. So what that means is that 0.25 37 acres of land is proposed to be rezoned to a Commercial Zoning 38 District that would only allow for the construction of antennas, towers, 39 communication structures and other vertical structures. 40 The proposed zone change does not constitute approval for the 41 communication structure. It establishes a land use for the ability to 42 move forward for a Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit is 43 what would allow for the actual physical construction of the tower. Any 44 development that would occur on the 0.25 acres, of course, would 45 have to comply with the 2001 Zoning Code with all of our development 46 requirements. 23 1 This is a zoning plat of the subject property. As I stated it is in 2 the Sonoma Ranch East II Master Planned area. The zoning boundary 3 for our reference is, for record keeping for this area, is called Tract "K- 4 1" and Tract K in the original Master Plan identifies the property to be 5 R1-b, which is Single-Family High Density residential land use and 6 they're proposing that 0.25 acres be identified for C-1 C Limited Uses 7 immediately adjacent to Tract "P" which is the Jornada Tank that has a 8 Flood Control and Open Space use designation for the utility purpose. 9 The Special Use permit: the 2001 Zoning Code has an entire 10 section designated for uses such as this and that's Section 38-59, 11 which is the antennas, towers and communication structures. Now it's 12 going to talk about your use provisions as well as your placement 13 provisions for the Special Use Permit. When we talk about use one of 14 the things that the Zoning Code recommends first and foremost is to 15 co-locate on towers, existing towers. If that is not deemed feasible by 16 the applicant then an applicant may choose to go forward with a new 17 construction of a new tower. This is what the applicant has proposed 18 to do. For the specifics of co-location and the ability to do that I would 19 ask that you defer to the applicant to explain that. 20 When you have to construct a new tower our Code is very 21 specific. It says you have to use a Special Use Permit and what that 22 does, basically, if you are in a commercial zoning district, hence the 23 reason for the zone change request then there are placement 24 provisions to compensate for the existing or future residential 25 development. Now do you have a 50-foot Local roadway and a water 26 tank that separates placement provisions from the existing residential 27 development; but you have future residential development that may 28 occur to the north, south and east of the proposed communication 29 tower. 30 When that's taken into consideration there are placement 31 provisions for set back requirements and height requirements. For 32 new communication towers the maximum height allowed is 65-feet. 33 Placement provisions are, in terms here basically, your fall back area 34 so if a tower was to fall back it won't hit any other existing building. 35 This has been taken into consideration for the water tank site because 36 you do have an existing facility. We've looked at the radius for that 37 and placement of the subject proposed tower on the proposed leased 38 area would not negatively impact the existing water tank and then 39 future development to the east or immediately south of the subject 40 property, there've been provisions taken into account for that for future 41 development. Staff would have to regulate where when you come in to 42 do a preliminary plat or whatnot for future development we would have 43 to take that into consideration if the proposed tower is there when 44 future development occurs. So I wanted to clarify that. 45 Set back and placement provisions, as I was going through for 46 communication structures, you look at primary buildable area for the 24 1 parcel-specific zoning district. In this case there's not a parcel, there's 2 a zoning boundary for the lease area which is acceptable. "Structures 3 shall be set back at least one foot for each foot in height from any 4 residential dwelling structure on any adjacent parcel." This would have 5 to be taken into consideration for future development because today 6 immediately south and immediately east there're nine existing 7 dwellings. So all staff can do is anticipate that with the future 8 developer when we look at future development we'll have to take that 9 into consideration. "Any equipment and accessory buildings shall 10 conform to building and accessory maximum heights, minimum set 11 backs." For placement restrictions for the tower itself, as I stated, one 12 foot for each one foot in height plus ten percent. "Set back from any 13 residential use on any adjacent or same parcel:" that is being taken 14 into consideration with the lease area. The third provision, basically, is 15 why we're here this evening is: "Towers shall not be constructed on 16 lots adjacent to property zoned R1-c, basically all of the Single-Family 17 Residential use Zoning Districts, unless approved through the Special 18 Use Permits." 19 This is the site plan that staff has received regarding the tower, 20 the placement of the tower itself. You see Tract "K" here, the water 21 tank site and the proposed lease area. You are getting closer in where 22 you see the accessory buildings and the placement of the tower and 23 then another zoomed in placement of that. In addition there are driving 24 aisle requirements for when you have structures, communication 25 structures, there's a driving aisle minimum of 12-feet with one parking 26 space. This is being factored in with the site plan. The site plan does 27 account for a 12-foot minimum improved driving aisle that will run from 28 the subject property into what is the future extension of Sedona Hills 29 and then tie back into the existing public right-of-way. 30 The applicant is proposing to do what we call a "stealth tower;" 31 and what they're proposing is to do is a palm tree so you don't have 32 your typical tower. It gives the impression that it was a palm tree but 33 it's still a communication structure. This shows all of the accessory 34 buildings. There are Urban Design criteria but for the accessory 35 structures they have to be compatible with the color, etc. of the existing 36 or proposed development. Since there is existing development in the 37 area that accessory building will have to be in the same color scheme 38 as that; and then the pole itself up to 20-feet it has to also take into that 39 Urban Design so the monopole will be colored, as well, to help blend 40 in. 41 Here's an aerial map of the subject property. You can see there 42 is a single-family residential development to the west, Pagosa Hills, a 43 Minor Local roadway, the existing tank site and then the proposed 44 tower itself is in this general area where my cursor is located. 45 A Zoning and MPO Thoroughfare map combined: you see the 46 master planned area where you have single-family residential 25 1 development, you have Sedona Hills Parkway, a proposed Collector 2 that will eventually intersect with the future extension of Mesa Grande 3 and then Sedona Hills Parkway will continue on further eastward. 4 Findings for case Z2837: this is where I'll separate the two 5 cases for looking at for the zone case request to establish the change 6 in land uses. The findings specify the location of the subject property 7 south of the future extension of Sedona Hills and east of Pagosa Hills 8 encompassing 0.25 acres of land, which land is currently vacant and 9 undeveloped. The zone change request is from R1-b to C1-C to 10 condition it to restrict it to utility-related land uses only and then a 11 Special Use Permit is required for any antenna, a tower and all other 12 communications structures and the zone change is consistent with the 13 City's Comprehensive Plan. 14 Recommendation for the zone change request is: staff is 15 recommending approval of the zone change request with the following 16 condition: that the land use be limited to utility-related land uses for 17 antennas, towers, communication structures and other vertical 18 structures and other public-private utility installations. 19 Now we go over the findings for the Special Use Permit. 20 Basically, we reiterate some information for the zone change request: 21 ,a Special Use Permit does allow for the construction of a free- 22 standing commercial communication structure." A free-standing is 23 important to note for the Special Use Permit that a free-standing 24 commercial communication structure is not allowed in the R1-b Zoning 25 District but it is allowed in the C1 and the Commercial Zoning District. 26 Any of your commercial zoning districts, this type of structure is 27 allowed. A Special Use Permit is consistent with Section 38-59 of the 28 2001 Zoning Code as well as the City's Design Standards and 29 Stormwater Management Plan. 30 Staff is recommending approval of the Special Use Permit with 31 a myriad of conditions and I would like to go ahead and read those into 32 the record, please. Staff recommendation of approval is with the 33 Special Use Permit being considered by the City Council for final 34 approval pending the final decision of the zone change request for the 35 subject property by case Z2837 by the City Council. The next series of 36 conditions are development-related conditions: that the communication 37 structure shall be measured from the lowest adjacent ground level 38 vertically to the highest point of all structures, whether attached to the 39 ground, the building or other structure. Other structures shall be 40 constructed and installed to the manufacturer's specification and 41 constructed to withstand a minimum of a 75-mile-an-hour wind or the 42 minimum wind speed as required by the City's adopted...this should be 43 not the Uniform Building Code but the City's Building Code which is 44 now the International Building Code. The structure shall be permitted 45 and constructed to meet current adopted City of Las Cruces Building 46 Code Requirements. The structure shall conform to the Federal 26 1 Communication Commission and/or Federal Aviation Administration 2 regulations, if applicable. A business registration is required for the 3 free-standing commercial communication structure. No chain link 4 fencing around the communication structure is allowed along Sedona 5 Hills Parkway. The equipment building associated with the 6 communication structure shall follow an architecture style, construction 7 materials and colors similar to existing buildings within the 8 neighborhood. That is building facades for tower accessory buildings 9 and the first 20-feet of tower shall be painted earth-tones or similar 10 colors to existing structures within the neighborhood and constructed 11 of similar building materials. Improvements to the access must not 12 cover water, valves or vaults. If the grid is raised the developer must 13 raise the valves and/or vaults also. This is a Utility development 14 condition because of the existing water tank's site. 15 Your options this evening when you un-suspend the rules and 16 consider each case independently: for case Z2837 is that you approve 17 the zone change request as recommended by staff; Planning and 18 Zoning Commission may approve the zone change request with other 19 conditions as determined appropriate; Planning and Zoning 20 Commission may recommend denial of the case; or you may table and 21 postpone this case and direct staff accordingly. 22 For the Special Use Permit: approving the Special Use Permit 23 as recommended by staff, which is essentially, instead of you retaining 24 final authority you are going to be a Recommending Body to City 25 Council and; and approve Special Use Permit with additional 26 conditions as determined appropriate; you may deny the Special Use 27 Permit; or you may table and postpone this permit and direct staff 28 accordingly. 29 This concludes my presentation. I'll be more than happy to 30 answer any questions you have related regarding land use and 31 requirements as set forth in our Zoning Code. The applicant is here to 32 talk about specific development proposal for the zone change request 33 and Special Use Permit and can answer any specific questions 34 regarding the tower itself and then, of course, as I stated, we do have 35 members of the public who would like to address the Commission as 36 well. Thank you. 37 38 Scholz: Thank you, Ms. Rodriquez. Are there questions for her? Yes, 39 Commissioner Crane. 40 41 Crane: Mr. Chairman, two points: first, no chain link fence is to be set up 42 along Sedona Hills Parkway. What then is going to be the means of 43 securing this location from that direction? You don't want children 44 running around in there, right? 45 27 1 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, there're other types of walls that 2 can be erected, specifically the Zoning Code prohibits chain link fences 3 as a typical design feature for development. 4 5 Crane: Okay...and a much more important point: if this Commission votes 6 against Z2837 or the SUP or both what is the impact on this project? 7 Does it stop dead? 8 9 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, if the Planning and Zoning 10 Commission recommends denial of the case and City Council upholds 11 that recommendation, essentially this tower cannot be built. The land 12 use as established for Single-Family Residential, High Density 13 Residential stays, R1-b Zoning District stays and a free-standing 14 commercial communication structure cannot be built in an R1-b Zoning 15 District. So if they wanted to continue with the free-standing 16 commercial communication structure they would have to find an 17 alternative location with a zoning designation that would support such 18 a use. 19 20 Crane: Thank you. 21 22 Scholz: All right, other questions? I just have one, Ms. Rodriguez. Do you 23 know how tall the water tank is? 24 25 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I believe our Utilities staff said that water tank site is 26 approximately 37-feet in height. 27 28 Scholz: 37-feet, thank you. All right, may we hear from the applicant, please? 29 30 Soleman: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. My name is 31 Brian Soleman with Sonoma Ranch. I do have a brief presentation. 32 After this particular project was taken to Council and remanded back to 33 P & Z, Sonoma Ranch did organize a meeting with the members of the 34 neighborhood association to answer any questions, any concerns that 35 they have and also provide some illustrations of this particular location. 36 Again, this is the zoning request for the land use at Sonoma 37 Ranch, as requested. This is an aerial which, I believe, was shown in 38 the last presentation. This would be the location of the tower. The set 39 back locations: this is just an illustration to show a possible layout of 40 the surrounding community with a Minor Local here a Major 41 Thoroughfare there and a Major Local on this side; meeting the set 42 back requirement for any potential issues with that. In this particular 43 slide what we did was we went out and took a picture along a few 44 locations, this one looking in an easterly direction, and one of the 45 photos presented at Council was provided by one of the neighborhood 46 associations as shown here. We took an actual tower, a 28 1 communication tower, it is a stealth tower and we placed it to scale in 2 the location. Another photo that was taken was just directly opposite in 3 this direction. This was the picture provided by one of the 4 neighborhood members and this is a picture provided by us with a 5 rendering. Another location was up off of Sedona Hills Parkway and 6 Pagosa Springs looking southeast. That is the picture. Another 7 location is south of the proposed site and that was the picture. 8 We did hold a neighborhood meeting following Council. We had 9 approximately eighteen residents from the neighborhood association, 10 members of Sonoma Ranch and members of Verticom. So, at this 11 time I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 12 13 Scholz: All right, questions for this gentleman. Commissioner Beard. 14 15 Beard: You showed your antenna location from looking above down closer to 16 the tank than the picture that we have. 17 18 Soleman: This particular one? 19 20 Beard: Yes. Your tower looks like it's sitting over to the left property line. On 21 the drawing that we have it's sifting in the middle. 22 23 Soleman: Sure. 24 25 Beard: And I don't know that you would meet the set back requirements if you 26 were sitting on the... yeah, right there. 27 28 Soleman: This particular drawing....and I believe that that's where a lot of the 29 confusion has taken place. This is a zoning map and the circle 30 designates a leader line showing that that's the particular tract that 31 we're rezoning. That's not the location of the tower. So, I think that 32 that may have caused some confusion in the past with some of the 33 residents; but this particular dot is just a leader line designating that 34 that's the tract that we're rezoning. 35 36 Beard: With the tower sifting on the property line does it meet the set back 37 requirements from the tank? 38 39 Soleman: Yes, sir. It does. 40 41 Beard: Okay. 42 43 Soleman: We did work with Verticom. Originally the tower was located on the 44 north side. We did have them relocate it on the south so we could 45 meet the height requirements plus the ten percent set back. 46 29 1 Scholz: All right, any other questions for this gentleman? Okay, thank you very 2 much, sir. I will now open this to public discussion. Now we have a 3 large number of people from the public here who, I think, wish to speak 4 and I understand there is a presentation. I assume it's a slide show. 5 Okay. So, sir, would you come down and identify yourself and why 6 don't you run this for us? 7 8 Soleman: Mr. Chair? 9 10 Scholz: Yes. 11 12 Soleman: May I have the applicant for the SUP come up and I believe they have 13 a presentation here for you. 14 15 Scholz: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were combining this but, of course, we're 16 not. Yes, I would like to hear the applicant for the SUP. Thank you 17 very much. 18 19 Cardinal: Good evening, gentlemen. Denise Cardinal with Verticom on behalf of 20 Verizon and I think everything here has been presented and I don't 21 really have any additional documentation other than what's shown but 1 22 can certainly answer any of your questions. 23 24 Scholz: All right, any questions for this lady? Commissioner Shipley. 25 26 Shipley: I had one question about the addition on the pole of the one antennae, 27 1 believe, that was a microwave at the bottom, underneath the...there. 28 29 Cardinal: Yes. 30 31 Shipley: Is that absolutely necessary to be there? To me that takes away from 32 the...if you're going to have a palm tree it doesn't have a 3-foot 33 antenna stuck there underneath it. 34 35 Cardinal: Right and Verizon would like to use Fiber 021, if available, and will. 36 37 Shipley: As opposed to that? 38 39 Cardinal: As opposed to microwave, yes. 40 41 Shipley: So do I understand you to say that that will come off? 42 43 Cardinal: Yes, if a Fiber 021 is available at this location the microwave will not be 44 used. 45 46 Shipley: So if...is the operative word. Okay. Thank you. 30 1 2 Scholz: Any other questions? Yes, Commissioner Stowe? 3 4 Stowe: Why is this location the best location from a technical point of view? 5 6 Cardinal: I have a Radio Frequency Engineer on hand from Verizon to speak to 7 that. 8 9 Scholz: All right. 10 11 Alaaldin: Good evening. My name is Hamdi Alaaldin. I'm the RFE for Verizon. 12 This particular location that was determined is based on all the existing 13 sites in the city and the way the capacities are getting to each tower. 14 We have to propagate that capacity to 2011, 2012, 2013 and figure out 15 which areas in the city that meet capacity by the time down in the 16 future and we plan based on the locations out of that. 17 So currently, our towers that support the area, by the year 2012 18 will not be able to support that area's capacity and it's mainly because 19 of the growth. There're two reasons: mainly one is growth, more 20 people are using the phones and number two is because of the Smart 21 Phones. The current Smart Phones need a lot more capacity than the 22 traditional phones. We're not able to support it without adding other 23 towers. Unfortunately, all the frequencies that Verizon has in this 24 market consists of eight CDMA carriers, three CDMAPCS carriers, are 25 all going to be capped out by the end of 2012. We have no other 26 choice to support the phones here but split the cell sites and that's why 27 it comes to that spot. 28 1 hope I answered you. I think so. If this site is not used and for 29 some reason you cannot go forward with this site...does Verizon not 30 provide service to Las Cruces? If this site does not happen in that 31 area by the year 2012, somewhere in the neighborhood of mid-to-end, 32 if you are making a voice call during the busy hours and you are the 33 number 61 call, you will get the message of, "There is no service 34 available for you." If you are a daily user we cannot provide you with 35 the speed that we are supposed to by the FCC to provide. 36 37 Stowe: And the location is geographically precise...or are there other locations 38 further to the east or....that would serve the purpose? 39 40 Alaaldin: We opened the area for locations that can take the amount of traffic 41 out of the area that the capacity usage was in that range. So we 42 opened a radius and said, "Within this radius we need to put another 43 tower or we are not going to be able to support the folks in that area." 44 We look at future planning as they show there's going to be roads and 45 folks in the other side and, hopefully, this site will provide to them, as 46 well, in the future. They go out and they search that area and they 31 1 come up with locations. We take that location, we took it into our 2 planning and then we run propagation maps on all the sites that we 3 have and the site that they brought in, the location, the latitude and 4 longitude, geographical location, and we run propagation maps on that 5 and that's how we determine this is a final location for it. 6 7 Stowe: Thank you. 8 9 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 10 11 Beard: Out of curiosity, what kind of band width are we talking about? Is it the 12 G3 type of equivalent or G4? 13 14 Alaaldin: The band width we are talking about is 800, 850 CDMA Megahertz and 15 1900 PCS and it's for 4G and 3G phones (inaudible). 16 17 Beard: 4G, 4G...Okay, I just wanted to know if the antenna sizes or 18 configuration were going to change in the future when you increase the 19 band width. 20 21 Alaaldin: Now, the future planning that we have and other technology called LTE 22 is Long Term Evolution. We already have plans for all that stuff with 23 the current futures that we put in so anything that comes in it will be 24 supported by this structure and the antennas that will go on this tower; 25 unless technology changes, which... 26 27 Scholz: Which it sometimes does, yes. 28 29 Alaaldin: But with the technology that we have today and down the road that's 30 coming, which we have nobody...well, I can't say anybody...but there 31 are forms out there for the LTE and all that stuff. We've already 32 included all those in there and we also included that into our planning 33 and that's why we pick specific locations. Even adding those 34 frequencies this area will be out of capacity and we will come here 35 probably again asking for more sites. It mostly has to do with the two 36 reasons that I mentioned: this area is growing and then the folks are 37 buying more and more of these Smart Phones and they need...and 38 originally when we launched these networks it was more like a bus. 39 You wanted to put in as many people as you want. Today everybody 40 wants to have a Corvette and go as fast as they want and that's why 41 we have to support that. 42 43 Beard: Thank you. 44 45 Scholz: All right, another question. Commissioner Shipley. 46 32 1 Shipley: On the diagram you show there's going to be nine antennas on the top 2 now and you are reserving three more and I assume that's because 3 you'll readjust the antennas when the growth to the east takes place? 4 5 Alaaldin: Exactly. 6 7 Shipley: So that'll cover four directions instead of three quadrants. 8 9 Alaaldin: Exactly. When that area is developed we will take one of the 10 sectors...it is divided into three sectors. Each sector has three 11 antennas. Each antenna serves a purpose: one is for 801, is 1901 12 LTE. We'll take that sector that's facing the west and directly face it 13 east and, obviously, we'll maintain the environmental look of the 14 structure, of the tower. 15 16 Scholz: Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Crane. 17 18 Crane: Perhaps I haven't done my homework but is this antenna exclusively 19 for Verizon? 20 21 Alaaldin: These nine antennas, yes. If anybody wants to go on that they have to 22 go below that structure and put their antennas.... 23 24 Crane: So, bang goes the palm tree again. Right? 25 26 Alaaldin: Yes. 27 28 Crane: So you're gonna have an earth-toned microwave antenna bearing 29 palm tree with additional antennas. How about a pine tree? I mean, 30 it's not indigenous there but at least it would cover more antennas, 31 won't it? (general laughter from the Commissioners and audience) 32 33 Alaaldin: Right. If it would fit the environment; why not? 34 35 Crane: Cottonwood. 36 37 Scholz: All right, anything else, gentlemen? Thank you very much, sir. 38 Okay...and you want to make a presentation. Yeah, go ahead. Just 39 come up and identify yourself, please. 40 41 Cobb: My name is Mark Cobb. I am the President of the MIRMAR 42 Neighborhood Association, which is next to where the proposed tower 43 would be. 44 45 Scholz: How do you spell your last name, sir? 46 33 1 Cobb: C-o-b-b. 2 3 Scholz: Thank you. 4 5 Cobb: But before I begin our presentation I would like to comment on why 6 we're here. I think I heard a comment that why wasn't this resolved a 7 couple months ago. A couple months ago, I believe, the City 8 Commission found that the notification was flawed. As the President I 9 didn't receive notice of when the meeting was to communicate that 10 with the members. I have an e-mail to the City Councillor. I don't 11 remember her name asking her for that date. I never did receive it. 12 13 Scholz: Would you stay on mike, please? 14 15 Cobb: On mike, okay. And secondly, the notification of signs...no one in our 16 neighborhood that we know of saw those. So I think that's why we are 17 here tonight. But what I would like to do tonight would be to present 18 what our neighborhood looks like now and what we envision that it 19 could look like with the tower in the future; and then to recommend a 20 vote against this tonight along with the 160 residents that have signed 21 a petition against this action. I'm not familiar with your equipment... 22 23 Scholz: Ms. Revels, would you help him out, please? Thank you. 24 25 Cobb: Our presentation is going to be brief but we'd like to cover our 26 community and the concerns we have in the process, the questionable 27 need, the result and the future. We represent the MIRMAR 28 Neighborhood and 120 families. We stress our community pride and 29 civic pride in a number of ways. Residents selected Sonoma Ranch as 30 a premier address to retire or raise a family. The neighborhood is 31 involved with their community: the Great American Clean Up, 32 impeccably maintained recreational parks and the Neighborhood 33 Watch. We only have one detraction in our neighborhood with the 34 rusting out water tank surrounded by the "prison" fence and we just 35 don't feel we deserve to have another one at this point. It wouldn't be 36 fair to the neighborhood. 37 As you could see it would be a double whammy because it's 38 going to be twice as tall as the current water tank. A list of probable 39 negative consequences would be: the home values being negatively 40 affected; more obstructed view of the Organ Mountains; a detraction 41 from the natural beauty of the area; and the adjacent lots would not be 42 sold. Even one lot that's not sold would offset the revenue gain. So 43 we ask: is this consideration compatible with the Vision 2040 44 statement for our area? Would you want this in your back yard? We 45 live in a golfing paradise, not in an industrial park. 34 1 We'd like to point out that we feel the zoning application is 2 defective and should be rejected. The property owners did not sign the 3 application. It's required that the application be signed by all property 4 owners. The application has been corrected to show Area 51 LLC as 5 the property owner but without signature. Mr. Matthew Holt is the only 6 listed agent and officer of Area 51 LLC and he did not sign the 7 application. A person who has a power of attorney could do that but, 8 according to the County Clerk's Office records we could not find a 9 power of attorney for that. Mr. George Rawson signed the affidavit on 10 May the 24th stating that he is the applicant for the zone change while 11 page 4 the development statement states that the applicant is Sonoma 12 Ranch Subdivisions LTD. 13 Further, no request for waivers or variances for the following two 14 items exist: a proposed lot size does not meet development standards 15 for C-1 C. There's a requirement that it be 60-feet wide. The northern 16 end is, I think, 16-feet wide. Secondly, the proposed cell tower is 65- 17 feet high. The property is zoned R1. There's an improper set back; it 18 requires a 71-foot set back. But the maximum width of the proposed 19 zoning is only 61-feet, thereby precluding the required set back. 20 Additionally, many of the residents feel that the tower would be a 21 nuisance even if it were to hit the fence around the tank because it's 22 possible it could ricochet into the tank and cause a catastrophic failure. 23 Zoning is a method used by cities to promote compatibility of 24 land and the purpose of the City Zoning Code is to achieve an urban 25 form which supports and enhances a unique environment. The Code 26 is to encourage the most appropriate use of land for the purpose of 27 improving each citizen's quality of life. Low Density Commercial 28 defined uses: generates service activities as a convenience to adjacent 29 neighborhoods, not as a convenience to commercial endeavors. The 30 zoning does not meet the intent of the City Zoning Code. The change 31 will allow for utility-related land uses such as antennas, towers and 32 other vertical structures, not just a cell tower; and the applicant is not 33 bound to the details in the development statement nor is the City 34 responsible for requiring the applicant to abide by the statement. The 35 applicant has already stated that they would allow co-location of other 36 carriers on the antenna. No subdivision plat or building elevations nor 37 renderings were submitted up to this point. The purpose of rezoning is 38 for the installation of a cell tower which is simply not needed. 39 Excellent coverage already exists per data taken from Verizon 40 web sites. There's an average rating of 4.6 out of 5: very few dropped 41 calls, if any. And this slide depicts coverage in the regional area also 42 showing as very excellent. This slide shows the other three Verizon 43 towers in the area so Verizon has room for expansion. They could 44 lease from other towers or they could put more antennas on their 45 current towers. Some data that we have received say you could have 35 1 up to 18 or they could choose an alternate site that does not require 2 rezoning. 3 So we have to ask: is this what we want? This is what Sonoma 4 Ranch could look like in the future. It's just a matter of time. To 5 reinforce our sentiments, again, consider the present and then this is 6 what Sonoma Ranch could look like in the future if this application is 7 not rejected. 8 So this together lists sound application of the City Zoning Code. 9 The intent of the Code is to promote general welfare of community for 10 the purpose of improving each citizen's quality of life. The proposed 11 rezoning does not meet the intent. So please vote no as it's not 12 consistent with the City's Design Standards. It's not needed. It's not 13 the most appropriate use of land. It does not promote and preserve 14 visually attractive and pleasing surroundings and it does not improve 15 each citizen's quality of life. Why lose the ideal community? Stand 16 with the 160 of us that signed the petition against this rezoning. Thank 17 you. 18 19 Scholz: All right, some questions for this gentleman? Commissioner Crane. 20 21 Crane: Mr. Cobb, we had the engineer say that the current system for Verizon, 22 which presumably has those three antennas that you showed along I- 23 25, is going to be overloaded fairly soon and the development you're in 24 is scheduled over years to move, to fill in to the east as it will be all 25 residential, except for occasional commercial. How then do you 26 suggest that people in that area get satisfactory cell phone coverage? 27 28 Cobb: Well, we feel that the current antennas can be added on to. We're not 29 really technicians and we can't say how but we think that's an option or 30 that another site within 700-feet is commercially zoned already, just 31 east of that location. Maybe that could be looked at in the future, too, 32 but I think we would have the same problems that our neighborhood 33 has with that. 34 35 Crane: And what everybody's going to say, "Not in my back yard." 36 37 Cobb: Well, it's possible but I think we have to look at all alternatives and 38 you'll have some true data that shows that the system is saturated, 39 some objective data. 40 41 Crane: Thank you. 42 43 Schulz: Someone else? I'm curious: is there anyone in the room who does 44 not have a cell phone? Ah, there are a couple of holdouts, I see. 45 Thank you very much. I just wanted to check that. How many of you 46 are with Verizon right now? Can I see hands? Okay, that's about half. 36 1 Thank you very much, Mr. Cobb. I have a question for staff. Are you 2 presenting on this? Oh, no, I'm sorry. It was Ms. Rodriquez, wasn't it? 3 Do you have a copy of their presentation, Ms. Rodriguez? 4 5 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, yes, I do. 6 7 Scholz: Would you check it...he pointed out some things on page 10 and they 8 were with regard to..."Property owners did not sign the application. 9 There were different applicants," and then there was, "Their proposed 10 lot size doesn't meet requirements." I don't know if you spoke to those 11 things at the beginning but I'd like to hear your explanations. 12 13 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, if you could give me a moment to look at the 14 application, please. 15 16 Scholz: Certainly. It was their slide 10. 17 18 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, we do have an affidavit, a notarized affidavit by Mr. 19 George Rawson, on behalf of Sonoma Ranch Area 51 LLC, which was 20 originally Sonoma Ranch Subdivision LTLTD Company and then it 21 became Area 51 LLC. Any change between Sonoma Ranch 22 Subdivision LLTD Company and Area 51 LLC, I'd like for the applicant 23 or Mr. Rawson to address the property ownership between those two 24 companies. 25 26 Scholz: Okay. 27 28 Rodriguez: In returns for the Special Use Permit we have a signature for the Chief 29 Financial Officer on behalf of the LLC for Sonoma Ranch East II as 30 well as a signed signature from Verticom on behalf of Verizon 31 Wireless. 32 33 Scholz: Okay. What about the variances, the proposed lot size? 34 35 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, as I addressed in the beginning of my presentation 36 there is not a platted lot. This is a zoning boundary. So, in terms for 37 the set back radius for the adjacent structure, which would be the 38 water tank site, that has been accounted for since there's currently 39 raw, undeveloped land located immediately east or south we can't take 40 right now into consideration the exact set back provision. But when 41 that will have to happen is when future development comes in for 42 single-family residential development and they go through the 43 preliminary plat process. When we're looking at adjacent land uses we 44 will have staff work with the developer at that time to make sure there 45 is appropriate separation and set back provisions for that. 46 37 1 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. Question? 2 3 Shipley: Yes. Just to address that. So that's just basically a taking of someone 4 else's property? In other words if there's a 60...71-foot obstruction, in 5 other words you have to have that radius for the tower to fall. That 6 means that the land that's owned now that abuts that property is being 7 taken without someone's knowledge? 8 9 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, Sonoma Ranch, that entity, is 10 leasing the area to Verizon. They control the property north, east and 11 south so if they sell that property in its entirety or subdivide it off, it's 12 zoned R1-b so any future development will have to go through the 13 preliminary plat process. So it'll be a single, essentially, a sole person 14 owner or an entity that owns it at that time. You can't convey land so 15 there won't be a taking. So when we go through the designing of that 16 subdivision existing development will have to be taken into 17 consideration. You also have an adjacent water tank. There're water 18 easements, etc. that are going to be in there that are going to affect the 19 future development and how that subdivision is going to be laid out. 20 So looking at all those factors will be taken into consideration if and 21 when future development occurs. 22 23 Scholz: All right, thank you. You said the applicant, Mr. Rawson, is here to 24 speak to us? 25 26 Rodriguez: Yes, I'd like for them to address any ownership with regard to their 27 corporate entities. 28 29 Scholz: Thank you. 30 31 Rawson: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm George Rawson with Sonoma 32 Ranch. Sonoma Ranch East II, the parent company that bought this 33 piece of land from the State Land Office approximately six years ago 34 and, as many of you know who are in business you understand that we 35 create limited liability companies to limit our liability as well as to do 36 financing with local banks. This entire piece of property is 320 acres of 37 land and we have three companies. I'm the owner, Dave Steinborn's 38 an owner, Dale Schueller is an owner of all of the companies. There is 39 no shares ownership; we own it all. Currently it is in Area 51. The 40 application was made in Area 51. 41 You know, I'm sorry that not quite everybody understands that 42 when you do business and you create an LLC you hire an attorney and 43 the attorney goes to the State Secretary and she provides the data for 44 your LLC; comes back Area 51 and that Holt registered us and is the 45 registering person within the Secretary of State's Office, he is 46 considered the Register and then all of the rest of the paper is filed 38 1 after that. Unfortunately, it would fill up the data bank for the Dona Ana 2 County database putting everybody's 15 to 20 pages of articles of 3 incorporation, officers, etc. but you can go to the State Secretary of 4 State's Office on their web site and you will find the ownership. So we 5 are Area 51. We are the same ownership. We have been the same 6 ownership for six years. 7 We very, very carefully calculated the location of this tower to 8 the best of our abilities to give the community cell phone service. I will 9 tell you that cell phone service, when you get over to that little area 10 below this, what you may not realize, and I suppose most of you have 11 been there, is this is the highest site in the area. What everybody's 12 failed to say is that this is the highest site. It's why there's towers on 13 Encanto. That's why there's towers on Telshor Boulevard on the old 14 Pioneer Bank Building. They take the highest site. When you drop off 15 this site over the back this sets on a ridge; so everybody below this 16 tank going east will have zero cell phone connection because it's not 17 going over a 60-foot ridge. So that's why this site was chosen. I will 18 tell you that Verizon came to us. We did not call Verizon and say, 19 "Hey, we have the place for you." 20 Some more information for you: four years ago we approached 21 the City Council to paint the water tank and we were rebuffed. There 22 was too many people that had to decide what was gonna go on the 23 tank, what color it was gonna be, the logo we wanted to put on the tank 24 was simply a Sonoma Ranch logo. It would have made the tank look 25 great. It would have cost us $25,000. Well, the rules have changed 26 now and now it's a $100,000 paint job. And I completely understand 27 what the neighbors are talking about the tank. I am not allowed to 28 build a chain link fence around anything that I own. This site that 29 Verizon will have will be a rockwall fence. You won't be able to see 30 through it. We'll have a wrought iron gate that'll be completely covered 31 so you can't see in the cell tower area. 32 Now you'll notice if you've watched very carefully that Brian 33 Soleman, our lead engineer, showed you that we were building a street 34 next to this. All city Minor streets are 50-foot in width so if you take the 35 set back and the tower goes east it's in the city right-of-way. It doesn't 36 hit anybody else. We also know that we are encumbering ourselves 37 with the houses below. If we build houses we'll have to do a buffered 38 area, probably because of the way the city tank sits now their draining 39 their excess water out of their tank on our property so we'll have to 40 create a buffer area below the tank for them to store their water and for 41 us to buffer any construction. 42 1 will tell you that my partners and I have worked on Sonoma 43 Ranch since 1996 and I think we've done a great job of creating the 44 neighborhood. Why would we not think about this tower? I mean, 45 we've put an awful lot of effort into it. This is the best location for the 39 1 City of Las Cruces and for the citizens of Las Cruces and we don't 2 want it to look ugly. Thank you very much. 3 4 Scholz: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Rawson? Thank you very much. 5 Okay, we're still open for public discussion. Now what I'd like to do is, 6 in the interest of time because I know you have all been sitting here a 7 long time and so have we, I would like to limit your presentations from 8 the public to three minutes. Okay? Most of you can speak for three 9 minutes. I know I can and I'm going to have Secretary Beard be the 10 timekeeper here and when he lights up his microphone, there'll be a 11 red light on, then you have about five seconds to finish up. Okay? 12 And, I would ask you that if you have additional information to add to 13 this, then by all means speak. If you are simply going to repeat 14 something that someone else says, well, I wish you'd hold that in; but 15 we'll let you go. Okay, who would like to be first? Come on down. Be 16 sure and give your name and tell us where you live. Excuse me, are 17 you signing autographs, Mr. Binns? Okay, go ahead. 18 19 Binns: My name is Eddie Binns and occasionally we do a little building, a little 20 development. The tower is something that is needed and will parallel 21 one that we installed ourselves and that is on Missouri next to the 22 water tank. Most people never know it's there because it looks like a 23 big pine tree and it does a good job of concealing that tower with 24 multiple antennas in it and it is something that I can ask you to look at, 25 review and show that a tower can go in a neighborhood that is not 26 obnoxious, that it can blend into the appearance of the neighborhood 27 itself. 28 On another subject: we have run surveys trying to figure out 29 what to do in the future in our land development programs. The Qwest 30 telephone delivery people have gone to a cost basis to install 31 telephone lines in subdivisions which, in turn, are passed on to 32 consumer; and in running some analyses of surveys of existing 33 neighborhoods we found that fifty percent of the neighborhood uses 34 cell phone for their communication and not Qwest land lines at this 35 time. I see a trend continuing to move in that direction and we are 36 thinking real seriously whether to put Qwest lines in the streets and 37 charge the consumer for them as compared to servicing them with cell 38 purposes. 39 The nature of phones is kind of interesting. You've heard the 40 conversation that, "You don't need one `cause we've got it there." The 41 antenna that's on Missouri is close to the medical facility and it was 42 necessary to get additional cell service available for the medical 43 personnel that were working at Memorial Medical and the doctors' 44 offices in that area. We had good coverage but additional coverage 45 was needed and this is something that is there and it's real. For the 46 benefit of the community sometimes compromises are made and if we 40 1 don't like palm trees think about a nice, good-looking pine tree that 2 goes up and down. Thank you. 3 4 Scholz: Thank you. Who would like to be next? Yes, the gentleman in the 5 front here. 6 7 Hancock: I'd like to, Mr. Chairman... 8 9 Scholz: Your name, sir. 10 11 Hancock: Members, my name is Wayne Hancock. I live three houses down from 12 where the tower's going to go in. 13 14 Scholz: Okay. 15 16 Hancock: I just bought my house and closed on it May 31St and now I'm going to 17 have a tower to look at, it looks like, and it's going to block a million 18 dollar view. I respect what the other gentleman said about the pine 19 tree. There are other pine trees around that pine tree so it doesn't 20 show up so much but you stick a palm tree out in the middle of the 21 Organ Mountains and you're going to see it. It's going to be twice as 22 tall as the tower is now and I'd like to also draw your attention to the 23 fact that the applications still were not signed by the owners. The 24 gentleman, Mr. Rawson, mentioned who the three owners are. The 25 three owners did not sign the applications. 26 It also says in your Code that the SUP, I believe it's called, will 27 have a comprehensive statement and justification for the proposed 28 structure, location and site. It also says that a communication 29 coverage pattern calculation for the proposed site will be provided 30 along with the application. That was not done. It also states that 31 analytical evidence demonstrating that no other location will suffice 32 was supposed to be submitted with the SUP also was not done. It also 33 states in the procedure that a technical analysis prepared by a 34 professional engineer for the proposed site is required and that will be 35 done and it will be included with the SUP. That was not done. We've 36 had people standing up here saying this about coverage and that 37 about coverage. What we need is facts. That's all I have to say about 38 it. 39 40 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. Someone else? 41 42 Lewis: Good evening. I'm Candace Lewis. I live in Sonoma Ranch East and 43 I'm a cell phone aficionado myself. I know that coverage is important. 44 1 understand about Smart Phones. However, the location of this tower 45 is strongly a question in my mind, especially since I live in that 46 neighborhood. He mentioned the frequency. The representative 41 1 mentioned a radius but he didn't say what the radius was. He 2 mentioned a lat and long but he didn't mention what the lat and long 3 was so I think that there are potentially more sites for this tower. There 4 is commercial zoned land a little bit east. Someone said 700 yards 5 east. Yes, the land immediately to the east, a tower goes down, but as 6 you walk toward the other tank it goes up so this may not necessarily 7 be the highest point available. There's also another cell phone tower 8 about three-quarters of a mile west, a very substantial structure, could 9 be piggy-backed on. There are some other options potentially for this 10 tower rather than having it affecting the livability of the neighborhood 11 that exists now and the future neighborhood that's planned to be right 12 where this tower is right around there. Thank you. 13 14 Scholz: All right. Someone else. 15 16 Shriver: Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Monty Shriver. 1 17 am speaking in opposition to the request. I think the question is: does 18 your staff follow the rules or do they not on what their Code requires? 19 You state that the...this is on the SUP application: "property owners of 20 record...it states Sonoma Ranch East II LLC." Per the tax records it is 21 a different owner. It is Area 51 LLC. Now is it important you have the 22 correct owner on the application? I think it is. As been mentioned 23 previously you are supposed to...the owners are supposed to sign so 24 what do we have on the owners' page for the SUP? Sonoma Ranch 25 East II LLC. I can't read the writing. It's sort of like mine but it says 26 CFO so I assume that's Mr. Zaldo. He is not an officer or an owner; or 27 rather, he is not an owner of Sonoma Ranch LLC and at the County 28 Clerk's Office I could not find where he had a special power of attorney 29 that had been recorded there authorizing him to sign for Area 51 LLC. 30 So the question is: does the City staff really look at these applications 31 and see if they're following what their own requirements state? Thank 32 you. 33 34 Scholz: Thank you. Anyone else wishes to speak with additional information? 35 Yes, I want to go back to the technical gentleman from Verizon in a few 36 minutes but...go ahead, sir. 37 38 Murray: Good evening. My name's Allen Murray. I live in Sonoma Ranch 39 East. I just have a question... 40 41 Scholz: Your last name, sir? 42 43 Murray: Murray, M-u-r-r-a-y. 44 45 Scholz: Thank you. 46 42 1 Murray: I just have a question and it was brought up a couple times by Verizon, 2 the gentleman from Sonoma Ranch and them about the location. 1 3 know at this point there's a new state police headquarters being built 4 out on Sonoma Ranch. I would assume, and assuming gets you in 5 trouble, but that they will probably have to have a tower there for 6 communications since it's going to be a statewide police barracks or 7 some kind of office. I would assume that they would have a tower 8 there. It must be zoned for that type of building or structure and that is 9 also at a high point. You are going up Sonoma Ranch at that point so I 10 don't understand how just a mile or less, from where they're talking, to 11 that same area where the new headquarters is going to be for the state 12 police; if that is already zoned for that kind of structure, would it not be 13 better just to try and build something out there? It's just a question. 14 15 Scholz: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yeah, I want to finish with the public, 16 sir, before we go back to you and talk about technical stuff. You're 17 doing great on the time, by the way, folks. Thank you. 18 19 Martino: Good evening. My name is Fred Martino and I live in the community. 20 First off there is a confusion here evident in terms of what this 21 application is for. It's not for cell phone service. It is for commercial 22 zoning and for the cell phone service of one provider. That is a 23 commercial interest. This is a zoning decision. 24 1 live in the community but, you know, I'm speaking about this in 25 a public policy manner tonight. This area is restricted by covenants. 26 The people who bought homes here had to sign covenants. They are 27 legally responsible to live by the covenants and any future owner is. 28 Not only can a ham operator not buy one of these homes and build a 29 tower on their property they are restricted on the color of the home. 30 They are restricted on putting a travel trailer in the driveway and we're 31 talking about building a 65-foot commercial structure. So you would 32 have this in this neighborhood where the residents are restricted even 33 from the color of the home that they have. 34 It's a community where there have been three spec homes built 35 in the last year. How many communities in this area have that? There 36 have been about a dozen custom built homes built in the last eighteen 37 months just south of where this community is. There are high-voltage 38 power lines that you saw at the end of this presentation. There have 39 been no homes built near those power lines...none...it's a bunch of 40 vacant land creating dust in the community...very clear about what 41 commercial structures do in the community. This area, the City will not 42 permit above ground utilities so if this Board were to approve this 43 tonight you would be saying that cell phone towers are permitted in an 44 area where required utilities, such as electric lines, would not be 45 permitted. So a commercial interest of one company would go above 43 1 the community interest and would go above the interest of a required 2 utility. 3 4 Scholz: You have five seconds. 5 6 Martino: This is absolutely clear and it is extremely upsetting and it said it all at 7 the end of this presentation to have someone come up and say that a 8 chain link fence would not be allowed where there's chain link fence 9 around the water tank right now. 10 11 Scholz: Sir. 12 13 Martino: That says it all. 14 15 Scholz: Sir, your time is up. 16 17 Martino: Absolutely. 18 19 Scholz: Thank you very much. Okay, anyone else in the public? Okay, can we 20 hear from the technician again, please? 21 22 Alaaldin: Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I just want to answer a couple of quick 23 questions that came about. First of all, by adding additional antennas 24 to any tower does not give you anything. We already have enough 25 antennas on all the towers. With an antenna there is no limitation on 26 how much you put into an antenna. Adding an antenna is not going to 27 buy us anything. Number 2 is... 28 29 Scholz: Excuse me, sir. You're suggesting that the location is key? 30 31 Alaaldin: Yes. The location is key but also I want to clarify one point: that 32 although coverage was very important in the early days we're facing a 33 different issue now. We're facing capacity. Coverage is great. There 34 are two types of coverages: outdoor coverage and indoor coverage. 35 What this cell site will provide is more indoor coverage in the area but 36 that is not our prime purpose. That would be our prime purpose for the 37 folks that are going to be there on the east side of the road; but for 38 right now we are looking into capacity and capacity is defined as a 39 fixed number. That number is 60 cell phone calls, which is measured 40 in air language, which is one minute of continuous call on each carrier. 41 When that 61St person comes in there's no capacity for them and this 42 cell site that was presented to you going forward is for capacity. 43 It's true that this gentleman that showed the map of 44 Verizon...we do have coverage but from now on coverage is not an 45 issue. It will be more of capacity, providing more people coming on the 46 network to give them their resources that they need. Obviously we do 44 1 have the community's interest in mind. That's why we presented this 2 as the best possible solution and also we want to make sure that the 3 reason that we're there is because the community is growing and they 4 do need this. We want to make sure that not one person is down and 5 everyone has the right resources to be able to make that call. Thank 6 you very much. 7 8 Scholz: All right. 9 10 Crane: Mr. Chairman, if I may. 11 12 Scholz: Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Crane. 13 14 Crane: Then the solution to the capacity problem is more towers? 15 16 Alaaldin: There are two possible solutions to capacity: buy more frequencies — 17 not available, split the towers into two. Instead of having one tower in 18 the area you take that tower and build another tower adjacent and you 19 redistribute the traffic into two towers instead of having one tower so 20 it's called cell splitting, essentially, you have split your cell into two. 21 For example, a cell site covers five miles. Essentially for what you are 22 doing the best design would be to have another tower to cover two- 23 and-a-half miles and the other would cover the rest of the two-and-a- 24 half miles within the five-mile area. 25 26 Crane: And each would take the same...each would have the same capacity? 27 28 Alaaldin: No, they will not. The studies that we have done are: anywhere in the 29 neighborhood of close to forty percent, just because the RF acts that 30 way. That's why we do antennas. We "down calc" them, we put calcs 31 on them, we narrow beam them, we do all that stuff to try to take more 32 capacity on that tower. But, unfortunately, the best solution would be 33 frequency, which is not available; second solution would be cell 34 splitting. That's why we're doing it. 35 36 Crane: So the future is not good for the East Mesa if it doesn't get more 37 towers? 38 39 Alaaldin: Exactly. 40 41 Crane: Okay. Thank you. 42 43 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley. 44 45 Shipley: You said the coverage is five miles. Is that radius? 46 45 1 Alaaldin: It depends all on where the towers...every tower has its own sort of 2 identity... 3 4 Shipley: Propagation. 5 6 Alaaldin: Exactly! Propagation. If it's on the top of a mountain it can cover as 7 far as the eyes can see but if it's in a residential or a downtown area 8 it's about a quarter-to-half-a-mile at the most and it all depends on the 9 clutter and how the RF gets blocked. Each cell phone talks to the 10 tower at 800 times per second. It has to have a... the more you put on 11 a cell tower the less that radius becomes. So if you have one person 12 on one tower you might cover fifty miles; but if you have 50-60 on that 13 tower that shrinks down to about twenty miles because it's all power 14 allocation. The more you give power to a user the less power you 15 have to give to the next user. 16 17 Shipley: Thank you. 18 19 Scholz: All right, any other questions for this gentleman? Thank you very 20 much. All right, I'm going to close this to public discussion and, 21 gentlemen, what is your pleasure? 22 23 Crane: Mr. Chairman, if we move that this be approved then we can have a 24 discussion among ourselves, can we not? 25 26 Scholz: Well, yes, that's the intent. Obviously, in order to vote on this we have 27 to reinstate the rules. 28 29 Crane: Correct. 30 31 Scholz: But we're not at that point yet. 32 33 Crane: Right. Well, I'm disconcerted by a couple of things. One is this...1 34 forget who the member of the public was that brought it up but he was 35 quoting it as an official document to the effect that we were supposed 36 to have had an adversary kind of relationship on the technical 37 questions and that we, the Commission, were not provided with that or 38 the public was not provided with it and there were several points, 1 39 think he made three areas in which this information was lacking. 40 Secondly, the pictures we were shown of the nice green, 41 fronded palm tree atop its earth-colored pole didn't look to me to be too 42 bad. I wouldn't welcome it in my neighborhood but I've got a red and 43 white "squarish" microwave tower in my neighborhood, which is down 44 near where Comcast is and it attracts lightning nicely. I don't like it but 45 1 recognize that it's got to be there. 46 1 But if that antenna grows to have co-located antennas on it of 2 other companies on it below the fronds of the palm tree then the palm 3 tree isn't going to work as a disguise. You could end up with a truly 4 ugly device like the one, which we've seen pictures of which has the 5 microwave antenna on it, which we've been told will probably or 6 certainly not really be there. 7 And I wonder where there's part of this we couldn't require of 8 Verizon, if it does put this in, to obscure everything below within the 9 palm fronds. In other words: not co-locate for any other companies. 10 Now, other companies will come along and say, "We need a tower, 11 too," and I certainly would not be happy to see another one go up 12 there. I'm not quite sure how to get out of this dilemma but right now 13 we are talking about the Verizon application. So that is on my mind 14 tonight and I would like to, perhaps, see that made a condition: that 15 the antenna be relatively simple and the palm tree...so the palm tree 16 that services is disguised. Thank you. 17 18 Scholz: All right, someone else. Commissioner Shipley. 19 20 Shipley: Well, there's a couple things: number one there was the talk about a 21 pine tree would be more appropriate and I haven't seen anything to 22 that effect but maybe that's something that could be explored if the 23 palm tree is not reasonable because it's pretty much a single column 24 and maybe the palm tree would work...or excuse me, a pine tree... 25 26 Scholz: Pine tree. 27 28 Shipley: ....would work better. Secondly, I just want to highlight the fact that in 29 the presentation there was a couple of times it was alluded about the 30 City's process and it talked about, "...for the purpose of improving each 31 citizen's quality of life." 32 1 think the most important thing is to promote the health and 33 safety of the citizens of this community and a cell tower does that 34 because the fact that if you need to make a 911 call the number one 35 thing you want to do, certainly, is that when you pull your phone out for 36 some reason to save someone's life it works. It doesn't do you a bit of 37 good if you can't use your phone throughout the community. So 38 improving the view is important to all of us. That's why we have 39 Design Standards and that's why we follow those. That's why we are 40 having this debate tonight. But the most important thing is safety, not 41 necessarily someone's view. That palm tree in a matter of months will 42 be just like everything else. Nobody spends much time out sitting on 43 their front porch; they're out in the back yard looking in the other 44 direction for most of the people and I don't see that as a deterrent. 45 1 think if there's a better option, if maybe we should question 46 whether or not we could some other means to do that. I do know from 47 1 a former job that I had working in this cellular business that 2 propagation is important and it doesn't have to be the ultimately the 3 tallest place; but the height is important to get the signal, for that 4 antenna to be able to receive and transmit and they do overlap things 5 and they do these propagation studies. Why they're not presented I 6 don't know. Maybe we would be able to table this...that's one thought 7 and bring those back so we can show the public what kinds of studies 8 were done and what the location options are. That could also be done. 9 But over and all I think, you know, it's something that needs to be 10 resolved and we need to decide how we want to handle it. 11 12 Scholz: All right, someone else? Commissioner Beard: 13 14 Beard: I have mixed feelings about this. If we don't approve the antenna I can 15 see in the future that people are going to start getting upset about 16 losing or being dropped on their calls. I have a service in my part of 17 town and I get dropped on occasion in my house and it bothers me a 18 lot. Now I don't have an antenna sitting next to me but I think I'd rather 19 have that antenna in sight than to be dropped. 20 The other thing is, and I concur with the safety issue there: 21 don't know enough technically if there's another location that can serve 22 the same purpose. You have to sort of go by Verizon saying that, 23 "This is the spot." Whether it is the only spot I do not know. I didn't get 24 that out of this conversation. The thing that's really hard and why it 25 becomes a two-way thing is that there are 60 applicants that have 26 signed this petition to oppose this antenna. How many? ...160, I'm 27 sorry. And we usually listen to the people when they say they don't 28 want something or they do want it we usually listen to them and it's 29 hard to believe that so many people are opposing this antenna to me. 30 It really does...I think it's a big issue. That's all I have. 31 32 Scholz: All right, anyone else? I would point out there was one misconception, 33 1 think, voiced in the public's presentation and that was that the tower 34 would be twice as high as the water tank. Actually the water tank's 37- 35 feet high so that's 65... that's what? 28-feet, something like that? 30- 36 feet? Okay. Not quite the same. All right. Minor point. Any other 37 discussion? Yes, Commissioner Evans. 38 39 Evans: Yes, Chairman Scholz. I really sympathize with the public and the 40 efforts that they went through to consolidate a well thought-out plan for 41 opposition to this effort; but I think Sonoma Ranch, as a general rule, 42 you know, they have underground utilities for electricity and that sort of 43 thing which is a really nice benefit to their community. Unlike my area 44 in Four Hills, you know, we have them above the ground and it's not as 45 pleasant to look at. I also happen to be the owner of a piece of 46 property with two towers directly in the back yard. As much as I don't 48 1 like them I think they are a benefit to the community and they need it; 2 but I do understand and recognize your concern. Thank you. 3 4 Scholz: Thank you. Anyone else? All right, I'm going to entertain a motion to 5 approve. 6 7 Shipley: No, we need to reinstitute the rules... 8 9 Scholz: I'm sorry. We have to...let's see....where are we here? We must rise 10 from the suspension of the rules. 11 12 Shipley: I so move to reinstate the rules. 13 14 Scholz: All right, is there a second? 15 16 Beard: Second. 17 18 Scholz: All right, it's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. 19 20 All: All. 21 22 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. Okay, we have risen from the suspension 23 of the rules. That means that the first item we vote on is case Z2837. 24 Is there a motion to approve? 25 26 Crane: A point of information, Mr. Chairman. 27 28 Scholz: Yes. 29 30 Crane: I would like to move that this matter be tabled rather than approved. 31 May I make that motion? 32 33 Scholz: Yes, you can. 34 35 Crane: I move that case Z2837 be tabled until the applicant can come up with 36 the technical information to assure us that this is the only practicable 37 site for the location of the cell phone tower. 38 39 Scholz: All right, and I see our gentleman from Legal is coming to tell us 40 something. As I recall, Commissioner Crane, we have to have the 41 permission of the applicant to table an item like this. Ms. Rodriguez. 42 43 Rodriguez: For due process rights to the applicant, because there's a motion to 44 table we'd like the applicant to have a say on this... 45 46 Scholz: Certainly. 49 1 2 Rodriguez: ...for their due process. 3 4 Scholz: All right. 5 6 Rawson: I'm George Rawson from Area 51, signed on that sheet of paper. I've 7 done everything you've asked me to do. We went to City Council; at 8 City Council we made the same presentation. They basically asked us 9 to go back and have a meeting with the members of the neighborhood 10 so that no matter what everybody was included. I would tell you that I 11 think that 166 signatures probably represents about 60 households out 12 of 225 lots out there. So I would rather...we are not interested in a 13 table. 14 15 Scholz: Okay. 16 17 Rawson: We've been in this process for eight months, keep giving more 18 information, more information and we need to know where to go. 19 Thank you. 20 21 Scholz: Thank you. Excuse me, Commissioner Crane, was there a second to 22 your motion? 23 24 Crane: You didn't ask for one, Mr. Chairman. 25 26 Scholz: Pardon me? 27 28 Crane: You didn't ask for one. 29 30 Scholz: Well, is there a...(several people speaking at the same time) 31 32 Beard: I second it. 33 34 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, since there's a motion on the table and it's been 35 seconded you'll have to vote on that motion. 36 37 Scholz: Yes, I understand. 38 39 Rodriguez: Thank you. 40 41 Scholz: Okay. I'm going to call the role. Commissioner Shipley. 42 43 Crane: Point of order, sir. Didn't we just hear that the applicant has the right to 44 quash a request to table? 45 50 1 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. The applicant has weighed in on their 2 due process rights. They have indicated to you that they would like to 3 move forward so, since there is a motion on the table you will have to 4 take that into consideration when you're voting on this motion. 5 6 Crane: So it remains that we may vote on this issue? 7 8 Scholz: Yes? 9 10 Crane: Yes, and table it. 11 12 Abrams: If I may make a suggestion, gentlemen. The applicant has indicated 13 he's not interested in tabling this so what we'll have to do now is just 14 vote up or down. So rather than vote to table the item, let's just vote 15 on the main motion. 16 17 Scholz: All right. I'll take that as a legal opinion. Thank you very much. Okay, 18 so the motion to table is, in effect, null and void because they're not 19 interested in doing that. So what we have to do now is vote yea or nay 20 on this issue. We've had this situation before, if I recall so it's not 21 unusual. Yes, Commissioner Shipley? 22 23 Shipley: I just have a question before we do another motion: but we said 24 something about a pine tree versus a palm tree. Would the residents 25 that live there appreciate a pine tree over a palm tree? 26 27 Scholz: I don't know and .... 28 29 Shipley: Can we not ask for a show of hands? 30 31 Scholz: Frankly, I think that would confuse the issue. I think the Community 32 Development people could negotiate with the applicant if, in fact, this is 33 approved to get something that disguises, you know, the antenna in 34 the best possible way. But I don't think that's within our purview right 35 now. 36 37 Shipley: We could make that a condition. 38 39 Scholz: Yes, you could make that a condition. 40 41 Shipley: That's why I'm asking it for input. 42 43 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. For the Special Use Permit the motion is 44 always in the affirmative. If you want to add the condition that an 45 "and/or" option for the pine tree that that allows some flexibility for 46 design criteria for the applicant. 51 1 2 Scholz: Right. At the moment, though, we're not voting on the Special Use 3 Permit. We're voting on... 4 5 Rodriguez: Case Z2837... 6 7 Scholz: Excuse me, case Z2837. Commissioner Crane, your light is still on. 8 9 Crane: Yes. I still want to clear up this matter of this apparently missing 10 technical information. We had a member of the public insist that this 11 information should have been provided and he seemed to be quoting a 12 City document. What is the Planning Department's view of that? 13 14 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, the site plan should have had that information on there 15 for the technical evidence but the licensed professional engineer for 16 the applicant has testified this evening on analytical evidence so he's 17 verbally testified. The written document in reviewing the file is absent 18 but between the neighborhood meeting and tonight's public hearing the 19 technical evidence has been discussed by a licensed professional 20 engineer. 21 22 Scholz: So you're suggesting that the staff accepts this as the evidence? 23 24 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, at this point staff would accept that as the evidence in 25 light of Commissioner Shipley's comment about safety and welfare. 26 27 Scholz: Thank you very much. 28 29 Crane: But the licensed engineer we heard from, the gentleman who spoke 30 again recently, is an employee of Verizon and hardly in a position to 31 make a disinterested presentation. 32 33 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, that is correct but I do not have a 34 licensed professional engineer on staff who could dispute or refute 35 information. That is going to have to be in concert with the FCC, 36 essentially. 37 38 Crane: Thank you. 39 40 Scholz: All right, I'll entertain a motion to approve case Z2837. Commissioner 41 Stowe. 42 43 Stowe: So moved to approve the zone change with the limitation or the 44 condition that the land use is limited to utility-related land uses for 45 antennas, towers, communication structures and other vertical 46 structures and public-private utility installations. 52 1 2 Scholz: Thank you. Is there a second? 3 4 Evans: I second. 5 6 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved by Stowe and seconded by Evans. I am going 7 to call the role. Commissioner Shipley. 8 9 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 10 11 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 12 13 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 14 15 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 16 17 Stowe: Aye, based on findings, discussion and site visit. 18 19 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 20 21 Evans: Aye, findings, discussion. 22 23 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 24 25 Bustos: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 26 27 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 28 29 Beard: No, findings, site visit. 30 31 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings and discussion. So the final count 32 is 6 to 1 approved. We'll go to the second item which is the Special 33 Use Permit. Now you understand if we vote the approval of this with 34 conditions then what we're doing is sending this to the City Council for 35 their final approval. Okay? Normally the Special Use Permits would 36 be approved by us but staff has recommend that we put this all 37 together in a package and give it back to the Council, much as they 38 gave to us. All right, additional discussion on the SUP-11-01. Did you 39 want to include.... 40 41 Shipley: Yes, I'm just looking for the conditions that were here already...there 42 we go. 43 44 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, if there are additional conditions that the Commission 45 would like we can read those into the record in light of reading all of 46 these again into the record. I've already read them into the record so 53 1 you can make the motion as the conditions that staff has previously 2 read into the record. 3 4 Scholz: Thank you. 5 6 Crane: Mr. Chairman? (several voices at the same time) 7 8 Shipley: I move to approve SUP-11-01 with the additional condition that the 9 option be given for either a palm tree or a pine tree based upon input 10 from the citizens. 11 12 Scholz: All right. 13 14 Crane: Mr. Chairman! 15 16 Scholz: Yes. 17 18 Crane: Point of order...I would like a somewhat related but somewhat different 19 condition. How would we handle that? 20 21 Scholz: Well, actually we have to vote on this condition first. 22 23 Shipley: (inaudible- microphone not turned on) 24 25 Scholz: Right. 26 27 Crane: Well, we've got yours on the... 28 29 Shipley: I'm just saying that if you've got a different condition that relates to 30 this? 31 32 Crane: Yes. 33 34 Shipley: Then that... (several people speaking at the same time) All right, let's 35 hear it so we can modify.... 36 37 Crane: Okay. Okay. My condition would be that whatever hangs on that 38 tower, whatever antennas on that tower would be concealed by the 39 palm tree structure...period. In other words, they can't put anything on 40 it that would have to be covered by a pine tree...no antennas below 41 the first tier so that the pine tree is circular, roughly spherical. A palm 42 tree structure would conceal all the antennas for the future. That's the 43 idea I have now mixed with yours so we have a problem with 44 conditions. 45 54 1 Shipley: Are you giving these people a choice or are you telling them what they 2 have to have? 3 4 Crane: I believe Mr. Shipley wants to give them a choice and I don't... 5 (audience laughing)...so we've, as I say, we have conflicting 6 conditions. 7 8 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, if I may. From what I'm hearing is: Commissioner 9 Shipley is looking at design for either a mono-palm or the mono-tree. 10 Commissioner Crane, what you're saying is: all antennas, regardless 11 of it's in a palm tree or in a pine tree, need to be concealed. It's based 12 off of testimony presented earlier, you have a palm tree at the top and 13 if you want to co-locate by additional providers they would be below 14 that. So what you're asking is for all antennas to be concealed. Is that 15 correct? 16 17 Crane: Right. In other words I would like to kill the co-location. I think a pine 18 tree disguise is acceptable, marginally, and it's a compromise; but that 19 a pine tree...if a pine became necessary because there are more 20 antennas that's to be built onto an antennas practically at the ground 21 level and I think that would be an eyesore. 22 23 Scholz: Commissioner Crane, I'm thinking that what you've just said is in 24 conflict with what Ms. Rodriguez just said. What she suggested was 25 that you were thinking that the antennas would be concealed by some 26 structure, a pine or fronds or something like that; and now you're 27 saying we can't have co-location. Well, I don't believe that's an issue. 28 If you want to say they can't co-locate on that tower that's another 29 condition. 30 31 Crane: My understanding was if they co-located the other companies' 32 antennas would be lower down and, therefore, would not be concealed 33 by the palm tree. 34 35 Scholz: Well, then my suggestion is that you say that all antennas be 36 concealed. That simplifies it. 37 38 Crane: Very well. I vote for that. 39 40 Scholz: Let's not put in things that we don't need to put in. 41 42 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, just to let you know, the Zoning Code does state if you 43 do co-locate it has to be integrated into the architectural feature. 44 45 Scholz: Well, there you go. So I don't think this amendment is actually 46 necessary...or this condition is necessary. 55 1 2 Crane: Yes, but the architectural feature could be, with Commissioner 3 Shipley's arrangement, a pine tree. Could it not? 4 5 Beard: Could I make a comment? 6 7 Scholz: Yes. 8 9 Beard: When that neighborhood is developed it is less likely to be a pine tree. 10 It is more likely to be palm trees that are going to be in that 11 neighborhood when it's developed so I don't think that we want to put a 12 stipulation that it has to be a pine tree. 13 14 Crane: Agreed. 15 16 Shipley: Oh, okay. 17 18 Crane: I want a palm tree but .... 19 20 Scholz: Well, yes, and I think that since the Code requires that it's going to 21 be...what did you say, Ms. Rodriguez? 22 23 Rodriguez: In order for future co-location, if that was to happen, it has to be 24 integrated into the existing architectural feature. 25 26 Scholz: There we go. Yeah. Okay. Does that satisfy anyone? 27 28 Commissioner Crane and other speaking at the same time. 29 30 Crane: No, not quite, because if the... 31 32 Scholz: Excuse me, Commissioner Crane. Commissioner Evans. 33 34 Evans: I'd like to move that we approve the case as stated without additional 35 recommendations and then vote on that and see what happens. 36 37 Scholz: Let the chips fall where they may or the palm fronds falling where they 38 may. 39 40 Evans: (inaudible— microphone turned ofo 41 42 Scholz: I'm sure it's not. All right, Commissioner Shipley. 43 44 Shipley: Since I made a motion and it didn't get seconded; but the point is we 45 have discussion of that motion so let me just state I agree that 46 whatever is on the palm tree has to be concealed. The microwave 56 1 tower below that decorative part shouldn't be there. Okay? So I'm 2 okay with saying whatever they want. What I was trying to say is that if 3 a palm tree is out of character for that neighborhood and a pine tree 4 would be better, it has to still conceal the antennas. 5 6 Scholz: Yes, it does. 7 8 Shipley: And that's all I really want to say. 9 10 Scholz: Okay, so is there a second to your motion...or are you going to make a 11 motion now, Commissioner Evans. 12 13 Evans: I believe I just did. 14 15 Scholz: You moved the approval of SUP-11-01 as... 16 17 Evans: With the conditions as stated by Ms. Rodriguez earlier. 18 19 Scholz: Previously stated. Okay. Is there a second for that? 20 21 Bustos: Second. 22 23 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved... 24 25 Crane: Excuse me, sir. I didn't hear the conditions. 26 27 Scholz: Excuse me, sir. It's been moved by Evans and seconded by Bustos. 28 29 Crane: I didn't hear his conditions. 30 31 Scholz: Oh, it's with the previous stated conditions, the ones that Ms. 32 Rodriguez read into record. 33 34 Crane: All right, the ones that were read into the record...got that. 35 36 Scholz: I'm going to call the role. Commissioner Shipley. 37 38 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 39 40 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 41 42 Crane: Nay, findings, discussion and site visit. 43 44 Scholz- Commissioner Stowe. 45 46 Stowe: Aye, site visit, discussions, findings. 57 1 2 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 3 4 Evans: Aye, findings, discussion. 5 6 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 7 8 Bustos: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 9 10 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 11 12 Beard: Nay, findings, discussion and site visit. 13 14 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion and site visit. So it 15 passes 5 to 2. All right, so this goes to City Council then for the final 16 approval. 17 18 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. I don't have the tentative dates before 19 me but what will happen is: I will have to look, for the benefit of the 20 public here, before they leave is that what will happen is we will look at 21 a first reading of the Ordinance. There is no public notification for that 22 but what we can do...there're no certified letters that go out for that; 23 but what staff can do for the first read is notify the neighborhood 24 association electronically and they can disperse it to their 25 representatives. 26 27 Scholz: Certainly, I was hoping you would do that. 28 29 Rodriguez: Actually, what happens at a first read is there's really no public 30 discussion etc. It's basically Council saying, "Bring an Ordinance 31 forward." When we're actually at the final decision for the Ordinance, 32 for the benefit of the public, you will again receive certified mailings out 33 to the property owners consistent with our notification as adopted in 34 the 2001 Zoning Code and we will also electronically notify the 35 neighborhood association so they, too, can get to a broader audience 36 as the purpose of the neighborhood association is. 37 38 Scholz: Thank you very much. I'm going to call a ten-minute recess so we will 39 reconvene at a quarter-to-nine. 40 41 (TEN MINUTE BREAK) 42 43 4. Case Z2839: Application of Manuel and Martha Moreno and Rafael E. 44 Marquez to rezone a 6.37 ± acre lot and a 0.737 ± acre lot from C-2 45 (Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity). The 46 subject properties are located east of Morningside Drive and north of 58 1 Bataan Memorial West; a.k.a. 0 Bataan Memorial West and 0 2 Morningside Road; Parcel ID# 02-22393 and 02-22394; Proposed Use: 3 Event Center, Council District 5. APPROVED 7-0 4 5 Scholz: Our next case is case Z2839 and, Ms. Revels, you are going to 6 present it to us. 7 8 Revels: Yes. Good evening, everyone. My case, Z2839, is located east of 9 Morningside Drive and north of Bataan Memorial West, a.k.a 0 (zero) 10 Bataan Memorial west and 0 (zero) Morningside Road. It 11 encompasses 7.10 acres and they're proposing to rezone from C-2 to 12 C-3. Actually this is two parcels: there's this tract of land here and this 13 of land here. 14 Case specifics for tonight: the two tracts of land are located, 15 again, east of Morningside Road and east of Bataan Memorial. The 16 property is currently zoned C-2. It was zoned C-2 back in March 17, 17 1986 as part of the initial zoning for the annexation of the East Mesa. 18 The C-2 zoning back from the 1981 Zoning Code did allow for the 19 proposed use as being requested tonight for an events/convention 20 center. The proposed zoning tonight being requested is for C-3 and 21 the proposed zoning will allow the proposed event center use. 22 Currently under the 2001 Zoning Code an event center/convention 23 center/exhibition hall are not allowed in C-2 zoning. A final plat shall 24 be submitted to replat the two tracts of land into one distinct lot. 25 Primary access for this development will be from Bataan Memorial 26 West, a Minor Arterial roadway. Morningside Road is a Local roadway 27 and it shall serve as access for emergency services only, and to the 28 north end of the property there is a Local roadway called Lemo Road 29 and there shall be no commercial access off of this roadway. A 30 bufferyard is required along the north and east side of the property to 31 separate their residential uses from the commercial use being 32 proposed here on the subject property; and this can be achieved by 33 either a 15-foot semi-opaque screen or a 10-foot opaque screen. 34 Here is an aerial of the subject property here and, as I was 35 saying, to the north there's residential use along here and along the 36 east side of the property. There's also residential use along the west 37 side of the property but it is separated by the Morningside Road here, 38 which provides a buffer, and then also there will be buffer requirements 39 on the said property. 40 Here is a Zoning and Thoroughfare Map and you can see 41 Bataan Memorial West is an existing Minor Arterial. Morningside Road 42 is a Local roadway. We have Lemo Road, which dead-ends right at 43 that intersection, right at the corner of this property here, so no access 44 off of Lemo will be allowed. Morningside shall be used for emergency 45 services only and entrance in and out of this proposed development 46 will be off of Bataan Memorial. 59 1 Findings: the subject tracts of land are located east of 2 Morningside Road and north of Bataan Memorial West and 3 encompasses 7.10 acres. The two tracts of land are currently vacant 4 and undeveloped. The zone change request from C-2 (Commercial 5 Medium Intensity) to C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) would allow the 6 use of an events center. Primary access to the proposed events 7 center will be from Bataan Memorial West, a Minor Arterial. 8 Morningside Road, a Local roadway shall serve as access for 9 emergency services and there shall be no access from Lemo Road, a 10 Local roadway. A bufferyard is require along the north and east side of 11 the property and shall consist of either a 15-foot semi-opaque screen 12 or a 10-foot opaque screen to separate the residential uses from the 13 commercial uses to the north and to the east. Fifteen percent of the 14 total parking area shall be landscaped. Our Planning staff did 15 recommend that buffering requirements include tall shade trees around 16 the perimeter of the property to help buffer the noise, lights and traffic 17 from the adjacent residential use. Staff also recommends 18 conformance to the Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive 19 Plan, which is Goal 3, Policy 3.9.4 and Goal 3, Policy 3.10.5 to help 20 mitigate the mixed land use, the residential use next to the commercial 21 use. A computer model fireflow analysis may be required for new 22 construction and will be determined during the building permit process. 23 A final plat will be required to be submitted to replat the two tracts of 24 land into one distinct lot. The zoning request is consistent with the 25 Goals, objectives and Policies of our Comp Plan. 26 Staff recommendation tonight is to approve the zone change 27 with the following conditions: number 1 would be that land use for the 28 proposed C-3 (Commercial High Intensity) zoning designation be 29 limited to an events center only; the developer shall comply with all 30 requirements of the 2001 Zoning Code, as amended, including 31 adequate buffering between the proposed development and the 32 residential uses to the north and east; number three, tall shade trees 33 around the perimeter of the property shall be required to help buffer the 34 proposed use from the residential uses adjacent to the property; the 35 developer shall comply with the Urban Design Element of the 36 Comprehensive Plan, Goal 3, Policy 3.9.4 and Goal 3, Policy 3.10.5 to 37 help mitigate the mixed land uses; access to this proposed C-3 38 property shall be from Bataan Memorial West only, Morningside Road 39 shall only be used for emergency services and there shall be no 40 commercial access off Lemo Road; and all new utilities shall be placed 41 underground. 42 So your options here tonight are to: approve the zone change 43 request as recommended by staff; approve the zone change with any 44 conditions deemed by this Body; deny the zone change request; or 45 table or postpone the zone change request. Thank you. 46 60 1 Scholz: All right, Ms. Revels. Questions or comments for her? Commissioner 2 Crane. 3 4 Crane: Ms. Revels, would you go back to your conditions, please? 5 6 Revels: Um-hmm. 7 8 Crane: Back up one more...I may be misunderstanding the second bullet: the 9 zone change request from C-2 to C-3 would allow the use of an events 10 center only? Does that mean only an events center can be put on C- 11 3? 12 13 Revels: That's correct. We are limiting the land use because of the nature of 14 the residential uses around the property. As you notice most of the 15 majority of the property here is zoned C-2, but a lot of the property is 16 used for residential and is not being used as commercial use. So 17 we're limiting the proposed use because they have a plan, they have 18 decided they want to put in an events center here, so they have a plan 19 so we've limited that one of the conditions is to limit the use on this 20 property that it will be an events center so you can't have a big 21 commercial ... I mean a Wal-Mart or something like that come in. 22 23 Crane: Thank you. 24 25 Scholz: I have a couple of....Commissioner Shipley, go ahead. 26 27 Shipley: One question: can you explain the fireflow analysis, please? 28 29 Scholz: That was one of mine, too. 30 31 Revels: Okay, I'm not sure exactly what that is. I know that the Fire 32 Department determines, once a building permit is submitted, whether 33 or not that is going to be required if additional fireflow is needed for that 34 area or if any improvements are needed to provide the fireflow then 35 this will be needed to do that. 36 37 Shipley: In other words they will need a pumping station to boost the pressure? 38 39 Scholz: I see a fireman coming to our rescue here. 40 41 Dubbin: Mr. Chairman... 42 43 Scholz: Please identify yourself. 44 45 Dubbin: Mark Dubbin, Fire Protection Engineer with the Las Cruces Fire 46 Department. 61 1 2 Scholz: Thank you. 3 4 Dubbin: In some cases where we have rural development, depending on the 5 water provider and the history of the area, what the development 6 history has been; occasionally a fireflow computer analysis like we 7 produce for the City is required to make sure we have adequate 8 fireflow for the construction. Since we don't know the size of the 9 building or the type of construction that question can't really be 10 answered at this time. 11 12 Scholz: What is fireflow, specifically? Are you talking about water pressure? 13 14 Dubbin: Water quantity and pressure. 15 16 Schulz: Okay. Thank you. I had a question: it said that there's no access off 17 of Lemo. 18 19 Revels: Um-hmm. 20 21 Scholz: Now, when I looked at that property this afternoon I came in off of 22 Porter and went up to Lemo and then down Morningside and the 23 reason I did that is because that was the only way I could access the 24 property unless I drove an extra two miles down the road. 25 26 Revels: Yes, sir. They would have to take the Holloman Exit and come back 27 around onto Bataan Memorial. 28 29 Scholz: Well, that creates an interesting problem because Bataan Memorial 30 West is only one way going west. That means that the majority of the 31 people who come from Las Cruces or come from other than that 32 particular area of that neighborhood are going to have to go way out of 33 their way in order to get back to use the Bataan Memorial West 34 entrance. 35 36 Revels: That's correct and the replat process does not require for any road 37 improvements to Lemo and Morningside and if you did go out there 38 you noticed that the pavement ends right at the edge of that property 39 and it's not developed any further to the east. 40 41 Scholz: Yeah. Well, it seems to me that what's going to happen is people are 42 going to take that route because it's closer to come in, you know, 43 Porter and then sneak around the back. 44 45 Revels: But there will not be a way to get in off of Morningside. It will be 46 locked. It will be a gated, locked area for emergency services only. 62 1 2 Scholz: Oh, I see. So in other words they won't be able to get in. 3 4 Revels: Yeah, they won't be able to get in. 5 6 Scholz: What will they do? Will they drive backwards on Bataan Memorial 7 West? 8 9 Revels: I hope not! 10 11 Scholz: Well, I hope not either; but I know how clever people drive around 12 here. Well, that was my concern. 13 14 Crane: Mr. Chairman. 15 16 Scholz: Yes, Commissioner Crane. 17 18 Crane: It's a local events, events center. The locals are going to know how to 19 get there. 20 21 Scholz: Well, I hope you're right. My experience is that people take the 22 shortest way to get to things. In fact I saw some interesting driving on 23 Highway 70 when I came back this afternoon. Okay. Well, that was 24 my question anyway. May we hear from the applicant, please? 25 26 Lilley: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Dan Lilley, Lilley 27 Engineering. I prepared the traffic analysis for the applicant, Mr. 28 Moreno, and I asked him if I could come up here ahead of time 29 because I've got a prior engagement that I have to get to; but I can 30 address or 1 would like to address some of the questions we had that 31 you brought up about access. 32 The actual traffic analysis, the actual roadway network and, 1 33 believe, I don't want to correct or change anything that's been said by 34 staff because the presentation gave you a good idea of what we're 35 looking to try to do. I do believe that Lemo Road directly north of the 36 property is the unimproved section of Lemo Road. The rest of it's 37 paved all the way out. The road cross-section actually handles the 38 traffic that we're talking about in the events center; best case scenario 39 we have 300 parking spaces and we have 300 cars, which may or may 40 not ever occur but is probably on a weekend deal or a Saturday deal 41 where we have a time span of, you know, three or four hours across 42 time so when we talk traffic, we usually talk about peak hour or impact 43 on the neighborhood and on the community and on the road network 44 during the peak hour. 45 A restriction to access only Bataan Memorial causes the 46 obviously mentioned concerns about: okay, traffic basically has to 63 1 come in right in-right out. If we were actually allowed to come in and 2 use Porter Road and come through Lemo or exit this way it flows the 3 traffic a lot better if there are a couple more access points; and that's 4 just something that I would just request that maybe that the concern 5 that a recommendation being that access only from Bataan Memorial, 6 we only get that by NMDOT approval and we have held off requesting 7 their approval for a driveway permit until the actual zoning change has 8 come through. But that little piece of property that you see that we're 9 being requested to replat and absorb into the larger parcel was 10 purchased by Mr. Moreno with the thought that maybe he would have 11 to do this. He would have to access to Bataan. It's my opinion that 12 access to Bataan either by Morningside or a driveway would be the 13 same thing: it would be access to Bataan. Morningside is actually 32- 14 feet plus or minus wide driving surface. A driveway into the property 15 would only have to be 25 to 27-feet wide. So we have right here 16 currently an existing location that would be a good ingress and egress 17 for the traffic. 18 Now secondary access or additional access, I'm in front of you 19 at other times with a subdivision with thirty houses on it and I have to 20 have a second access to it other directions. If we start talking about 21 emergency use only, then we're talking maybe a gate or something on 22 the property and then we're talking to open the gate that it has to have 23 a siren device on it or something or...we aren't allowed to lock these 24 gates any more. They have to be accessible to emergency vehicles. 25 So to throw a gate on a portion of the property to prevent access only 26 under emergencies is an added expense. It does nothing but constrict 27 the flow to one direction. 28 Now we have 300 cars coming up, best case scenario. 29 Hopefully, the Morenos would have 300 cars there and that's what they 30 would like; coming out all accessing Bataan Memorial on that one 31 particular point. They come out, come out, and they all go in right 32 there; whereas, the other way they could actually go up and turn and 33 go north on Porter. They could go south. As you say, it's a 34 neighborhood events center. They may go north off of Porter. They 35 may not go to the Highway. They may go straight off of Porter straight 36 south. There're many directions they can do and a lot of times when 37 you deal with traffic study or a traffic analysis the idea is to flow it 38 different locations and this particular area, the size of the streets, the 39 load that we're talking about putting on it, the existing traffic is next to 40 nothing. 41 Even the traffic on Bataan Memorial in that location is very 42 minimal if you've ever driven it and something that, in the future if by 43 any chance this whole area blooms into a huge commercial site, there 44 may be a need for something bigger and better. But as anybody that's 45 lived in this area long enough knows that this area is not in a blooming 46 location. We have a local individual that was told by the ETZ that the 64 1 place that he wanted to do, that he owned, was inadequate. Go find a 2 piece of commercial property that's better accessed. So Mr. Moreno 3 found this piece of property right here, better access, by Bataan 4 Memorial, Porter Road, even Lemo Road and those things I would like 5 to just let you know that limiting...do what you may, but limiting his 6 access to one point is detrimental to the traffic flow in general in the 7 whole area. I'd be glad to answer any questions you guys have or any 8 concerns. I've walked the site, been to the site, did traffic counts, 9 things like that. 10 11 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley. 12 13 Shipley: Mr. Lilley, I'm looking at your....you said Mr. Lilley is that right? 14 15 Lilley: Yes, sir. 16 17 Shipley: Okay. I'm looking at your report that says that the complete build out 18 of 23,000 square feet and will have a minimum of 230 and a max of 19 350 vehicles and I think what they're trying to say is that by limiting the 20 access out onto the Minor Arterial you're not having traffic run through 21 the neighborhood. Obviously, if they wanted to drive out onto Bataan 22 Memorial, make an immediate right after they get out and go the other 23 direction they probably won't do that because it's easier to access 70 24 and go into town if they're going into town or do a u-turn at the next 25 intersection and go east if they're going east. So it puts the traffic on a 26 road that's designed to handle that. It's a one way road, two lanes, 27 etc. I think that's the logic behind what staff has said and it makes 28 more sense to me. I wouldn't want 250 cars running by my house after 29 they've had a wedding reception or something like that and getting wild 30 and crazy and drinking and all that. That's the problem that you 31 preclude by doing it the way that they're doing it. Right? I think that's, 32 in my estimation, that's the logic behind what's being done here. 33 34 Scholz: All right, anything else? Thank you. Commissioner Stowe. 35 36 Stowe: A question going north on 1-70 how far is it to the first place where you 37 can do a u-turn to come back on Bataan West? 38 39 Lilley: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Stowe, you are looking at about two-quarters 40 of a mile plus or minus to the next interchange. 41 42 Stowe: Less than a mile. 43 44 Lilley: I believe so, yes, sir. 45 46 Stowe: Thank you. 65 1 2 Scholz: That's the Holloman Road, you mean. 3 4 Stowe: Holloman... 5 6 Scholz: All right, thanks, Mr. Lilley. 7 8 Lilley: Thank you. 9 10 Scholz: May we hear from the applicant, please? 11 12 Baldonado: Sir, I'm not the applicant but I'm speaking in behalf of the applicant if 13 you have any questions and all... 14 15 Scholz: Would you identify yourself, please? 16 17 Baldonado: Greg Baldonado. 18 19 Scholz: Thank you. Do we have any questions for this gentleman about the 20 property? Yes, Commissioner Shipley. 21 22 Shipley: The first question is that when I read the application, obviously it's an 23 event center, I think of bands, those kinds of things that produce loud 24 noises and that. It doesn't specify that in here what kind of, you know, 25 events we're talking about, you know...wedding receptions, DJs, 26 bands, etc. The other thing is: there's no mention, you know, it says a 27 23,000 square foot building; we don't have anything to look at to see if 28 it fits in with the neighborhood and I've always would like to see plans 29 that show what the architecture's going to look like, at least from the 30 outside, so we've got an idea how it's goes with the neighborhood. 31 Secondly...or thirdly, I guess, is the height of the building. Do you 32 know what the height will be on that building? 33 34 Baldonado: I'm not exactly sure but...I understand there were some elevations, 35 maybe, perhaps, brought in to the staff that...you know? 36 37 Revels: The proposed site plan that I included in your packet is what I had 38 gotten but all the comments that you are bringing up will be addressed 39 during the building permit process, like the Urban Design elements and 40 the buffering and the parking and those things will be addressed during 41 the building permit process. 42 43 Scholz: Yeah, we really are only addressing the zone change right now. 44 45 Baldonado: But to answer some of your questions, you are right. There will be 46 band music, DJ music, weddings, quinceaneras, receptions and so 66 1 forth taking place and the applicant has stated to me that construction 2 will be out of cinder block or concrete block so it will be a solid wall in 3 which it'll absorb a lot more noise that the typical metal stud frame 4 construction or two-by-four construction, so it'll be a solid building. As 5 far as the height it'd be limited to whatever the City Code allows or the 6 International Building Code but I would imagine it wouldn't be any taller 7 than 20-feet at its highest point and that's perhaps too high to the 8 mechanical units on the roof or something like that. But all that will be 9 scrutinized during the permit process. 10 11 Scholz: All right, thank you. 12 13 Baldonado: And I'd like to point out what Mr. Lilley was referring to, to the traffic 14 flow...if the Commissioners or the staff would allow, perhaps, a one- 15 way entrance only off of Lemo to where it'll restrict just cars entering 16 the site from that direction because by natural choice people will turn 17 on Porter and turn on Lemo if they were to refer to a map on the 18 Internet and they'll naturally think that's one way to go. I believe that 19 this will not only serve as an emergency access for the Fire 20 Department but also it'll control traffic just going into the project and will 21 direct traffic existing out towards Bataan Memorial West by constricting 22 the entrance there at the intersection of Lemo and Morningside Road. 23 So if you would consider that condition we would surely appreciate it. 24 It'll help a lot with the traffic flow and will keep traffic from exiting back 25 on Lemo towards Porter, thereby just making it an entrance only. 26 27 Scholz: Well, that'll be up to staff to take care of that. 28 29 Baldonado: Okay...well, I'll be glad to answer... 30 31 Scholz: I don't want to make that a condition of the zoning, frankly. Any other 32 questions? Thank you very much, sir. 33 34 Baldonado: You are welcome. 35 36 Scholz: All right, anyone from the public wish to speak to this? Yes, sir. 37 38 Howdeke: My name is Frank Howdeke and I live there on the corner of 39 Morningside and Porter, I mean Morningside and Lemo and, like he 40 was saying, I don't think I would like a whole bunch of traffic passing 41 right in front of my house, back and forth or whatever, you know...and 42 also, I was wondering...as far as the Noise Ordinance how they late 43 they can stay and if we've got to go to work we don't want a bunch of 44 music or...until two or three o'clock in the morning. There's a bunch of 45 elderly people that live there, you know, that they don't want a bunch of 46 noise. And also, changing it from C-2 to C-3 they can sell it after a 67 1 year or so and then they can try and stick a buyer in there or 2 something like that that'll cause more problems. 3 4 Scholz: Well, I believe the restriction was that it has to be an events center and 5 that was it. It can't be anything else. So when the zoning is changed 6 it'll be for that specific purpose and nothing else can be done that way; 7 because I know that C-3 allows a whole bunch of uses, you know, 8 including junkyards and things, but that won't be allowed. 9 10 Howdeke: Okay, that's all I got, I guess. 11 12 Scholz: Thank you very much. 13 14 Howdeke: Thank you. 15 16 Scholz: Anyone else? Yes, sir. 17 18 Moreno: Good evening, you guys. My name is Adrian Moreno. I'd like to touch 19 base on this. I'd like to see this approved for a couple of reasons: it 20 could be a positive attraction for the neighborhood. There's nothing 21 going on, on the East side. There's zero commerce, there's nothing. 22 It's dead. This could be something nice to see. I've seen the 23 blueprints on it and the one thing that I really liked about the building is 24 the construction. It's going to be so sturdy, it could be used as a 25 shelter for, you know, heavy rains, high winds, a tornado shelter. It's 26 going to be cinder block and there's going to be big, old fridges in there 27 you can put people in there and that'll shelter some people. 28 29 Scholz: You're thinking of the storm we had this evening... 30 31 Moreno: Yeah. I'm like... 32 33 Scholz: I was looking at the ceiling myself. 34 35 Moreno: Right. Also, jobs will be created, something that is a need in this town, 36 especially for young people. There's nothing going on here. It's hard 37 to find jobs. Granted, it'll be 20-25 jobs but that's 25 jobs we did not 38 have. Also it would make a...I guess you could say...during the 39 construction there would be jobs created for that short period of time to 40 construct it and it's not like it's going to be make and subcontracted out 41 to some company in Albuquerque or whatever. It's going to be owned 42 locally and run locally. Nice building and I'd like to see it approved. 43 44 Scholz: Thank you. 45 46 Moreno: Thank you. 68 1 2 Scholz: Anyone else? Yes, sir. 3 4 Knoll: My name is Bob Knoll and I own the property that's a little "U shape 5 that's on your diagram there where I have a hot rod shop and this 6 sounds fine. The only thing is: how late will...I'm an old guy and I go to 7 bed like 7:00 so...is the music going to on `til 2:00 or 3:00 in the 8 morning? And is there going to be liquor on the property? 9 10 Scholz: I don't know. 11 12 Knoll: Is it's something that's subject to getting a liquor license? 13 14 Scholz: I assume it is. You know, I really don't know and I don't think that's 15 within our purview tonight to talk about that; but I appreciate you 16 bringing it up. 17 18 Knoll: Okay. Thanks. 19 20 Scholz: Um-hmm. Yes, sir, you want to respond to that? 21 22 Baldonado: Yes, sir. Greg Baldonado, again. In speaking to my clients, the 23 applicants, they plan on being open no later than 1:00 am and there 24 won't be any liquor on the premises. And from what the staff says as 25 are part of the conditions is a buffer all the way around the property 26 with tall shade trees. Certainly that'll buffer some of the car noise and 27 some of the headlights and the developers' also plan on constructing a 28 6-foot cinderblock or rockwall all around the property so the building 29 itself being made out of cinderblock and all the things taking place 30 inside, certainly will not allow the noise to come out and bother the 31 residents. So we think it's a good building and we'll try to please the 32 neighbors as much as possible. Thank you. 33 34 Scholz: Thank you. Commissioner Crane. 35 36 Crane: A question for Ms. Revels: I think there's been a little conflict about 37 whether or not there can be liquor served in this place. We've heard 38 there cannot be a bar and that bars cannot be put in this C-3 place. If 39 there's a wedding reception there are they going to be prohibited from 40 opening a bottle of champagne? 41 42 Revels: I believe that any convention center or exhibition hall that has a party 43 and they want to serve alcohol they have to get like a picnic license 44 from the local bar or some sort or something like that. I mean, you do 45 have to have a liquor license in order to serve alcohol so they would 69 1 have to rent that license from...I don't know...the liquor company or 2 something of that nature. 3 4 Crane: Thank you. 5 6 Scholz: All right, I'm going to close this then to public discussion. Gentlemen, 7 what's your pleasure. 8 9 Crane: I move that case Z2839 be approved with the conditions that the City 10 has established. 11 12 Shipley: Oh, this was not read into the record, was it? 13 14 Scholz: Pardon me? 15 16 Crane: It's the Johnny Ray Smith's objections. 17 18 Scholz: No, we didn't do that. (To Commissioner Shipley) Would you like to 19 do that? 20 21 Shipley: I would be happy to but I have one question about that. I'd like to see 22 the map where it shows...it's talking about Wilt Road. Where is that in 23 relation to his property? That's what I was... 24 25 Scholz: He says he lives on Wilt Road. Excuse me, for the public this is a 26 letter from Johnny Ray Smith which was received Wednesday, the 27 20th 28 29 Shipley: Do you want me to go ahead and read it? 30 31 Scholz: Please. 32 33 Shipley: It says, "Regarding case Z2839, my concerns are primarily: 1) outdoor 34 lighting, how high are the masts; 2) nighttime noise levels; 3) drainage 35 water from Wilt Road drains through my property at times, and; 4) 36 traffic backing up to Wilt Road; 5) blowing trash from parking lot"...and 37 he prefers to be contacted by mail, phone or e-mail. Yeah, and his 38 address is 5525 Wilt Road. But I guess the question I had regarding 39 this was the drainage, because this has got on-lot ponding so it 40 shouldn't affect that, I didn't think but... 41 42 Revels: That is correct. The commercial development would have to retain the 43 water on site and the gentleman's property in question is this piece of 44 property right here and this is Wilt Road here. 45 46 Shipley: Okay. 70 1 2 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, if I may add on to the drainage requirements. If there 3 are any historical flows they are required to be able to pass through the 4 site and any water that is generated on the site itself has to be retained 5 on the site itself; but historical flows have to be able to pass through. 6 7 Scholz: All right. Thank you. Okay...so, a motion to approve? 8 9 Crane: I already moved that, sir. 10 11 Scholz: You did. Okay, a second, then. 12 13 Evans: [ second. 14 15 Scholz: Okay. Crane moved and Evans seconded. I'll call the role. 16 Commissioner Shipley. 17 18 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 19 20 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 21 22 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 23 24 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 25 26 Stowe: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 27 28 Scholz: Commissioner Evans: 29 30 Evans: Aye, findings and discussion. 31 32 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 33 34 Bustos: Aye, findings and discussion. 35 36 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 37 38 Beard: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 39 40 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion and site visit. 41 42 Revels: Commissioner Scholz, I just wanted to clarify that we did approve this 43 with the conditions that I did read into the record earlier. 44 45 Scholz: Yes. 46 71 1 Revels: Okay. 2 3 Scholz: As a matter of fact, I believe Commissioner Crane did say that. 4 5 5. Case Z2840: Application of Susan J. Frary to rezone from R-2 (Multi- 6 Dwelling Low Density) to C-2C (Commercial Medium Intensity- 7 Conditional) and to numerically deviate from the required ten (10) foot 8 opaque bufferyard to a zero (0) foot opaque bufferyard on a 0.17 ± acre lot 9 located on the north side of Willoughby Avenue 150± feet west of its 10 intersection with Main Street in Area 3 of the Alameda Depot 11 Neighborhood Overlay; a.k.a. 132 W. Willoughby Avenue; Parcel ID# 02- 12 04369. Proposed Use: A single-family residence and a commercial art 13 studio with a sculpture garden; Council District 1. POSTPONED TO 14 MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 2011. 15 16 6. Case PUD-10-02: Application of Quantum Engineering Consultants Inc. 17 on behalf of Lord Williams & ETAL C/O Randy McMillan for a Concept 18 Plan for a Planned Unit Development known as the Dave McTimski, Inc. 19 PUD. The subject property encompasses 15.503 ± acres and is located 20 on the southwest corner of Northrise Drive and Roadrunner Parkway 21 immediately adjacent to Las Cruces Fire Station #6; Parcel ID# 02- 22 41024. Proposed Use: The PUD proposes limited commercial, office 23 and multi-dwelling residential uses; Council District 6. APPROVED 7-0 24 25 Scholz: Next up is a thick packet: PUD-10-02 and PUD-10-03. Do we have to 26 divide this to discuss it? Mr. Ochoa. 27 28 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, we could suspend the rules and hear both cases 29 together. 30 31 Scholz: We do. Okay, let's vote to suspend the rules. I'll entertain a motion to 32 do that. 33 34 Bustos and Crane: So moved. 35 36 Scholz: It's been moved. I think that tie between Bustos and Crane...and a 37 second? 38 39 Beard: And a second. 40 41 Scholz: And a second from Beard. All those in favor say aye. 42 43 All: Aye. 44 45 Scholz: Thank you. Those opposed same sign. 46 72 1 7. Case PUD-10-03: Application of Quantum Engineering Consultants Inc. 2 on behalf of Lord Williams & ETAL C/O Randy McMillan for a Final Site 3 Plan for a Planned Unit Development known as the Dave McTimski, Inc. 4 PUD. The subject property encompasses 15.503 ± acres and is located 5 on the southwest corner of Northrise Drive and Roadrunner Parkway 6 immediately adjacent to Las Cruces Fire Station #6; Parcel ID# 02- 7 41024. Proposed Use: The PUD proposes limited commercial, office 8 and multi-dwelling residential uses; Council District 6. APPROVED 7-0 9 10 Scholz: All right, we have suspended the rules. Mr. Ochoa, take it away. 11 12 Ochoa: Adam Ochoa, Development Services, for the record again. The next 13 two cases we have tonight, gentlemen, are.....(computer issues took a 14 few moments) There we go. 15 16 Scholz: I thought we were going to have to face the Blue Screen of Death there 17 for a while. 18 19 Ochoa: The next two cases tonight, gentleman, are PUD-10-02 and PUD-10- 20 03. They are the Concept Plan and Final Site Plan for a Planned Unit 21 Development known as Dave McTimski, Inc. PUD. The city map 22 shows the subject property, kind of an "L" shape here, with frontage 23 along Northrise Drive and Roadrunner Parkway. It is currently zoned 24 PUD, as you can see there, and found directly north of the Alameda 25 Arroyo and the Las Cruces Dam. 26 The subject property is located in the southwest corner of 27 Northrise Drive and Roadrunner Parkway immediately adjacent south 28 of the Las Cruces Fire Station #6. Currently it encompasses 29 approximately 15.503 acres and is currently undeveloped. It is located 30 within Northrise Business Park. 31 The proposed Concept Plan and Final Site Plan for the Dave 32 McTimski, Inc. PUD are set forth to replace a portion of an existing 33 Concept Plan for a single-family development known as Remington 34 Estates on the subject property. The proposed PUD will allow limited 35 commercial, office and multi-family residential uses, as well as the 36 applicant is also proposing a mixed-use option if a developer would like 37 to come in and use that option, as well, with their own mixed-use 38 development standards as found within your packets. The existing 39 zoning designation of PUD or Planned Unit Development may remain 40 on the subject property, just a different Planned Unit Development that 41 will actually oversee the property now. The Dave McTimski, Inc. PUD 42 will have access off of Roadrunner Parkway and Northrise Drive 43 through designated shared driving aisles, which each proposed lots in 44 the future will be utilizing. The subject property will be required to 45 follow all Development Standards of the Dave McTimski, Inc. PUD and 46 the 2001 Zoning Code, as amended. The applicant has proposed 73 1 various development standards for the PUD itself from more 2 landscaping, requiring different landscaping, set backs, buffering and 3 so on but it is still referring to the 2001 Zoning Code for other 4 standards when it comes to parking requirements, bicycle parking and 5 so on. 6 The Final Site Plan outlines three different planning parcels that 7 may be developed either individually, together and/or in any order as 8 the developer wishes. Planning Parcel 1, which essentially runs the 9 entire length of Northrise Drive, the northern portion of the property, is 10 proposed to have five lots or less. Planning Parcel 2, which is the 11 more northern parcel, which you can go a little forward, if you can kind 12 of get a better understanding what I'm talking about. Like I said, 13 Planning Parcel 1 runs along Northrise Drive; Planning Parcel 2, the 14 most northern part on Roadrunner Parkway, and Planning Parcel 3 on 15 the most southern part of Roadrunner Parkway. Planning Parcel 2 is 16 supposed to have four lots on the subject property and Planning Parcel 17 3 is supposed to have four lots, as well. Each lot will be required to 18 follow all development standards of the Dave McTimski, Inc. PUD and 19 the 2001 Zoning Code, as amended. 20 As part of the PUD process the applicant is required to provide 21 a public benefit for private incentives to not follow the Code. One 22 incentive the applicant is proposing is a public walkway or pathway trail 23 approximately 650-feet in length. This will be constructed with the 24 development to the south of the subject property within the Las Cruces 25 Dam area. This will be dedicated to the City and the actual walkway 26 can be connected to the existing pathway that runs along the Dam, as 27 well. The applicant is also proposing a new bus shelter to be located 28 along Roadrunner Parkway, which would be in accordance with any 29 City of Las Cruces Standards. The exact location of the bus shelter 30 will be coordinated with the proper City departments when that comes 31 to fruition. 32 Here is an aerial of the subject property, seeing the striped "L" 33 shape here, as I said. It is undeveloped with some developed to the 34 north, some office units, I believe this is a medical center; and to the 35 east of it being an assisted living facility. It is located along Northrise 36 Drive, which is Collector designated roadway by the MPO, and 37 Roadrunner Parkway, which is a Principal Arterial roadway. 38 Here is a layout of the Concept Plan. I know it's really small to 39 read but, again, this basically lays out all the requirements that the 40 Planned Unit Development will be following; and the Final Site Plan, as 41 well, kind of showing what, for instance, the property may be 42 developed as, primarily, I believe, the applicant has said would be 43 limited to commercial, office and possibly multi-family residential uses 44 on the property. 45 On July 6th the Development Review Committee or DRC 46 reviewed the Concept Plan, Final Site Plan for the proposed Dave 74 1 McTimski, Inc. PUD. The DRC recommended approval without 2 conditions for the Concept Plan of the PUD known as Dave McTimski, 3 Inc. PUD and for the Final Site Plan as well. The recommendation of 4 the Planning and Zoning Commission for the Concept Plan and the 5 Final Site Plan will be forwarded to the City Council for final 6 consideration. 7 For your options tonight, gentlemen, when you vote on this it will 8 be two separate things. Your options for case PUD-10-02 are: 1) vote 9 "yes" to approve the case as recommended by DRC for case PUD-10- 10 02; 2) to vote "yes" to approve the request with additional conditions as 11 deemed appropriate by the P & Z; 3) to vote "no" to deny the request 12 or; 4) vote "no" to table or postpone and direct staff accordingly. 13 As well for case PUD-10-03 your options are: 1) vote "yes" 14 recommended by DRC; 2) to vote "yes" to approve the request with 15 additional conditions as deemed appropriate by the P & Z; 3) to vote 16 "no" and deny the request or; 4) table or postpone and direct staff 17 accordingly. 18 That is the conclusion of my presentation. The applicant is here 19 to answer whatever questions you might have for him, anything 20 specific he can answer for you and I stand for questions, as well. 21 22 Scholz: Thank you, Mr. Ochoa. Any questions for this gentleman? All right, 23 may we hear from the applicant, please? 24 25 Pillar: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Marty Pillar representing the 26 owners of the property. What we are doing with the PUD, this is an 27 approximately 15 acre parcel that comprises a little more than one half 28 of what is now known as Remington Estates, the adjacent 13 acre 29 parcel which will be the next case you will be hearing is the remainder 30 of the property that is zoned with the Remington Estates PUD at this 31 time. 32 This parcel was split out in 2008 and the Good Samaritan 33 Society purchased that property and that's why we're coming in, in two 34 separate PUDs on this property now. The "L" shape to this property 35 led to the three planning parcels...you can see coming off Roadrunner 36 Parkway there is an access and utility easement that goes into the 37 Good Sam parcel and that made a good split point for a planning 38 parcel. Also coming off the day care center here made a good split for 39 these lots along Northrise, these four along Roadrunner and these four 40 along Roadrunner. We are looking to have this approved as the 41 Planning Unit Development for Concept Plan and the Final Site Plan to 42 move forward and I'll be here to answer any questions that you may 43 have. 44 45 Scholz: All right, questions for this gentleman? Commissioner Shipley. 46 75 1 Shipley: Just one question: on the attachment 1 for the Development 2 Statement for Zoning Applications...I don't know if this is for Adam or 3 for the applicant but in the detailed description of the intended use of 4 property it says, "...sell property in individual parcels, split out utilizing 5 the CLC administrative replat process and have property developed 6 under uses allowed in the R-4 1981 CLC Zoning Code." Shouldn't that 7 be the 2001 Code? You don't refer back to something that's.... 8 9 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, when this was first brought 10 forward to staff for planning its development the applicant was trying to 11 utilize Development Standards of the 1981 Zoning Code, in other 12 words, land uses from the 1981 Zoning Code. After much deliberation 13 between the applicant and staff, staff felt it more appropriate that the 14 applicant actually not defer anything of the 1981 Zoning code since 15 that is no longer being followed and actually make up his own 16 development standards for land uses and whatever other development 17 standards he wanted from the 1981 Zoning Code. So this here is just, 18 unfortunately, the original development application that he turned in for 19 the Planned Unit Development and that's essentially why it says the R- 20 4 uses. But, like I said, the uses that he is proposing on the Planned 21 Unit Development are uses found in the R-4 Zoning designation of the 22 1981 Zoning Code, sir. 23 24 Shipley: So not the 2001...because he purchased the property 25 in...what...2006? So that 2001 code was in effect when he purchased 26 it. 27 28 Ochoa: That is correct, sir. But the subject property itself actually, with the 29 Planned Unit Development it had before, the Remington Estates, was 30 still following the R-4 Development Standard requirements of the 1981 31 Zoning Code. 32 33 Shipley: Thank you. 34 35 Scholz: Other questions? I just have one: where did the name McTimski 36 come from? Is there a principal named that? 37 38 Pillar: No, the name Dave McTimski is from the various partners in the 39 development. 40 41 Scholz: Okay, so it's a made up name. 42 43 Pillar: Yes, there are four different ones. 44 76 1 Scholz: Right. Okay...I was going to say it sounded like something out of 2 Saturday Night Live. I was wondering. Okay. Any other questions? 3 Yes, Commissioner Stowe. 4 5 Stowe: A comment: from the site visit it looked like a large quantity of landfill 6 will be required to bring the levels up to what's at the existing 7 properties at the corner. It seemed to be between six or seven feet 8 and more going away from the roadways in each case. 9 10 Pillar: Yes, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Stowe, what we'll be looking to 11 do with this property is both the Dave McTimski, Inc. PUD area and the 12 Good Sam PUD area, the dirt work will be done at the same time to 13 balance the site. The Good Sam area has quite a bit of fill material in it 14 that will be taken out of there, put up on the Good Sam Site and there'll 15 be retaining structures running along the property on the north side of 16 the Good Sam and south side of the Dave McTimski and along the 17 east side of Good Sam, west side Dave McTimski to the access road 18 so that's how we'll be doing the fill. Yes, sir, you are correct. 19 20 Stowe: All right, thank you. 21 22 Scholz: Okay. Anyone from the public wishes to speak to this? All right, seeing 23 and hearing none I am going to close the public participation. 24 Gentlemen, I will hear a motion to approve. Oh, I'm sorry. We have to 25 rise from the...what were we...confusion...that...right...we have to 26 reinstate the rules. 27 28 Shipley: I move to reinstate the rules. 29 30 Scholz: Okay, is there a second? 31 32 Crane: Second it. 33 34 Scholz: All those in favor say aye. 35 36 All: Aye. 37 38 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. Thank you. The rules are reinstated so 39 we can vote on case PUD-10-02. Is there a motion to approve? 40 41 Crane: So moved. 42 43 Beard: Second. 44 45 Scholz: Okay, it's been approved and...there were no conditions on this. 46 Second from.... 77 1 2 Shipley: Approved by Crane and... 3 4 Scholz: Seconded by Beard? Okay. I'll call the role. Commissioner Shipley. 5 6 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion and site visits. 7 8 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 9 10 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 11 12 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 13 14 Stowe: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 15 16 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 17 18 Evans. Aye, findings, discussion. 19 20 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 21 22 Bustos: Aye, findings, discussion. 23 24 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 25 26 Beard: Aye, findings, discussions and site visit. 27 28 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion and site visit so it 29 passes 7-0. Okay, I'll entertain a motion to accept PUD-10-03. 30 31 Beard: So moved. 32 33 Scholz: Okay, Beard moves. Is there a second? 34 35 Stowe: Stowe seconds. I'll call the role. Shipley. 36 37 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion and site visits. 38 39 Scholz: Crane. 40 41 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 42 43 Shipley: Stowe. 44 45 Stowe: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 46 78 1 Scholz: Evans. 2 3 Evans. Aye, findings, discussion. 4 5 Scholz: Evans, your mike wasn't on. 6 7 Evans: Aye, findings, discussion. 8 9 Scholz: Thank you. Bustos. 10 11 Bustos: Aye, findings, discussion. 12 13 Scholz: Beard. 14 15 Beard: Aye, findings, discussions and site visit. 16 17 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion and site visit so it 18 passes also 7-0. 19 20 8. Case PUD-10-06: Application of Quantum Engineering Consultants Inc. 21 on behalf of the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society for a 22 Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development known as the Good 23 Samaritan Society Village II PUD. The subject property encompasses 24 13.223 ± acres and is located on the southwest corner of Northrise Drive 25 and Roadrunner Parkway immediately adjacent to Las Cruces Fire 26 Station #6. Parcel ID# 02-41025. Proposed Use: A senior citizen multi- 27 dwelling development offering apartments, townhomes, assisted living 28 quarters, nursing care and other related uses. The PUD also proposes 29 limited commercial, office and multi-dwelling residential uses if the senior 30 citizen development does not occur; Council District 6. APPROVED 7-0 31 32 Scholz: All right, that brings us to our last case tonight. This is case PUC-10- 33 06. Mr. Ochoa, you are up again. I think we're all still awake, aren't 34 we? 35 36 Ochoa: I don't think the computer is, though. 37 38 Scholz: The computer isn't, yes. Well, that's the old stuff. Now let's see 39 something new. Commissioner Shipley just suggested that the 40 computer didn't get its dinner. That's why it's acting up. 41 42 (Computer and PowerPoint presentation still not available) 43 44 Ochoa: I'll go ahead and just present the next case PUD-10-06 without 45 PowerPoint. We should be okay. 46 47 Scholz: We all have copies so we're cool. 79 1 2 Ochoa: The last case for tonight, gentlemen, is PUD-10-06. As you saw on the 3 map before it is actually the square lot directly south of the "L" shaped 4 lot that we just recently approved. This subject property is known as 5 the Good Samaritan Society Village 11 Planned Unit Development and 6 this is an actual Concept Plan only for the proposed Planned Unit 7 Development. The applicant is proposing that the subject property will 8 be developed as a senior citizen development offering different types 9 of living arrangements with nursing care and assisted living and so 10 forth on the property and also proposing some limited commercial, 11 office and multi-family uses if that senior citizens development does 12 not come into fruition in the future. 13 The subject property encompasses approximately 13.223 acres 14 and is being proposed to actually have direct access through a private 15 roadway to Roadrunner Parkway. The applicant is proposing to limit 16 the maximum number of dwelling units on the subject property to 200 17 max; and I believe he has stated why that is in the actual Planned Unit 18 Development that he's provided. 19 The applicant is, just like in the previous Planned Unit 20 Development, proposing his own development standards for set backs, 21 landscaping and some parking requirements. He is deferring to City of 22 Las Cruces requirements for buffering, bicycle parking and so forth, 23 which is not covered with this Planning Unit Development. Again, this 24 is only a Concept Plan that we are trying to approve tonight and this 25 square parcel is the other have of the currently existing Remington 26 Estates Single-Family Residential Concept Plan that is in effect now. 27 So with this one that Remington Estates development will basically be 28 rescinded with this. 29 With that...DRC did review Planned Unit Development on July 30 6, 2011 and recommended approval for the proposed Concept Plan for 31 the Good Samaritan Society Village II Planned Unit Development. 32 Your options tonight, gentlemen, are: 1) to vote "yes" and approved the 33 proposed Concept Plan for the Planned Unit Development as 34 recommended by the DRC; 2) to vote "yes" and approve the Planned 35 Unit Development Concept Plan with additional conditions as deemed 36 appropriate by the Commission; 3) to vote "no" and deny the proposed 37 Concept Plan for the Planned Unit Development and; 4) to table or 38 postpone and direct staff accordingly. That is the conclusion of my 39 presentation. The applicant is still here if you have any questions for 40 him and I stand for questions as well. 41 42 Scholz: Well, 1 really enjoyed the visuals, Mr. Ochoa. Any questions for this 43 gentleman? No? Well, we will hear from the applicant then. 44 45 Pillar: Marty Pillar here for the development of the Good Sam. One item that 46 1 would like to bring up that Mr. Ochoa spoke on is: we are requesting 80 1 a variance on the parking stalls required for the senior citizens 2 development, to have one to two. Any other development, other than 3 the senior citizen development assisted living, will follow the City 4 Zoning Code and also the applicant is requesting one bicycle parking 5 stall for every eighty bedrooms in the senior citizen development. 6 Otherwise, any other use on the property will meet the existing City 7 2001 Zoning Code. I just want to make sure that was... 8 9 Scholz; That was clear. Right. 10 11 Pillar: Yes, and then I stand for any other questions. 12 13 Scholz: I had one about access: did you say 200 dwelling units or are we 14 talking about a capacity of 200 persons? 15 16 Pillar: No, how we came up with the 200 dwelling units: in the International 17 Fire Code one access into the site if you have a maximum of 300 18 dwelling units and each building is sprinkled for fire protection, you 19 have a maximum of 200 dwelling units. 20 21 Scholz: Okay. Yeah, right, there's no second exit or anything like that. Is that 22 a two-lane road, a divided center two-lane that you've proposed? That 23 private road? 24 25 Pillar: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Right now it's proposed as 70-feet wide. It does 26 have a center median and the lanes are wide enough to have two cars 27 going east and two cars going west. 28 29 Scholz: Okay, thank you. Some other questions? Well, it's been a lot of heavy 30 lifting but thank you very much. All right, anyone from the public wish 31 to speak to this? No? All right, I'll close it to the public and I'll entertain 32 a motion to approve. Gentlemen? 33 34 Stowe: So moved. 35 36 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved. Is there a second? 37 38 Evans: Second. 39 40 Scholz: Okay, moved by Stowe and seconded by Evans. I'll call the role. 41 Commissioner Shipley. 42 43 Shipley: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 44 45 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 46 81 1 Crane: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 2 3 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 4 5 Stowe: Aye, findings, discussion and site visit. 6 7 Scholz: Commissioner Evans. 8 9 Evans. Aye, findings, discussion. 10 11 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 12 13 Bustos: Findings, discussion, aye. 14 15 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 16 17 Beard: Aye, findings, discussions and site visit. 18 19 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion and site visit so it 20 passes 7-0. 21 22 VII. OTHER BUSINESS 23 24 Scholz: Looking at our schedule we have Other Business. Is there any Other 25 Business before us? 26 27 Ochoa: No, sir. 28 29 VIII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 30 31 Scholz: Any other public participation? Mr. Binns has already left, I guess. 32 33 IX. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS 34 35 Scholz: Any staff announcements? 36 37 Ochoa: No, sir, nothing there. 38 39 X. ADJOURNMENT (9:43 pm) 40 41 Scholz: All right, thank you very much folks. We are adjourned at 9:43. Thank 42 you. 43 44 45 46 Chairman Date 47 82