Loading...
09-08-2011SpecMtg City of Las Cruces PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING "AMENDED" The following agenda will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Las Cruces, New Mexico, at a special meeting to be held on Thursday, Se dptember 8, 2011 beginning at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Room A & B located on the 2" floor of City Hall at 700 N. Main Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. The City of Las Cruces does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, color, ancestry, serious medical condition, national origin, age, or disability in the provision of services. The City of Las Cruces will make reasonable accommodation for a qualified individual who wishes to attend this meeting. Please notify the City Community Development Department at least 48 hours before the meeting by calling 528-3043 (voice) or 1-800-659-8331 (TTY) if accommodation is necessary. This document can be made available in alternative formats by calling the same numbers listed above. I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — August 9, 2011 III. NEW BUSINESS 1. 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 CAC (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. 2. 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. 3. Case S-11-006: Application of Borderland Engineers and Surveyors, LLC on behalf of Troy & Cecilia Pitcher, property owners, to approve a final plat for 5.203 ± acres known as the Mesa Grande Addition Subdivision, Plat No.1, Replat No.1. The final plat proposes to replat one (1) existing tract of land into two (2) new parcels. The subject property is located on the north side of Bataan Memorial West, 0.165 ± miles east of its intersection with Mesa Grande Avenue; a.k.a. 5195 Bataan Memorial West; Parcel ID# 02-19666; Proposed Use: Existing single- family residence and undetermined commercial high intensity uses; Council District 5. 4. Case S-11-017: Application of Prestige Development Group Inc. on behalf of ALPS LLC, property owner, to approve a master plan for 5.351 ± acres known as the Valley Vista Plaza Master Plan. The master plan will allow for the phasing and alternate summary for the commercial development. The subject properties are located on the southeast corner of Valley Drive and Avenida de Mesilla; a.k.a. 1305 S. Valley Drive and 1450 S. Valley Drive; Parcel IDs 02-07035 and 16810; Proposed Use: Shopping/business center; Council District 4. IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION VI. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS VII. ADJOURNMENT 1 SPECIAL MEETING OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 FOR THE 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 Conference Rooms 2007-A & B 5 September 8, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. 6 7 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 8 Charles Scholz, Chairman 9 Godfrey Crane, Vice Chair 10 Charles Beard, Secretary 11 Ray Shipley, Member 12 William Stowe, Member 13 14 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 15 Shawn Evans, Member 16 Donald Bustos, Member 17 18 STAFF PRESENT: 19 David Weir, Director, Community Development 20 Cheryl Rodriguez, Development Services Administrator 21 Adam Ochoa, Planner 22 Helen Revels, Planner 23 Lorenzo Vigil, Acting Associate Planner 24 Harry "Pete" Connelly, CLC Legal Staff 25 Bonnie Ennis, Recording 26 27 I. CALL TO ORDER (6:00 pm) 28 29 Scholz: Good evening and welcome to the Special Meeting of the Planning and 30 Zoning Commission. Today we're going to discuss three cases and one of 31 these is a hold over from...I believe, let's see...we had tabled this...when 32 was it? 33 34 Rodriguez: August 9th 35 36 Scholz: On August 9th, right. Okay. The first thing I'll do is introduce the Members 37 of the Commission who are here. I'm expecting Commissioner Shipley 38 who will sit on the end. Next to him is Commissioner Crane. He's our Vice- 39 Chair and Commissioner Stowe, Commissioner Beard, who's our 40 Secretary and I'm Commissioner Scholz and I'm the Chair of the 41 Commission. 42 43 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —August 9, 2011 44 45 Scholz: We need the approval of the minutes of the last Special Meeting which 46 was held on August 9th. Are there any amendments or additions to the 1 1 minutes? Okay. I only see one and that is under 2, Commissioner Evans 2 "motioned to reconsider." I think it should be "moved to reconsider;" and 1 3 think that error was repeated in the next paragraph as well. All right, I'll 4 entertain a motion to accept the minutes as amended. 5 6 Beard: So moved. 7 8 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved. Is there a second? 9 10 Stowe: I second it. 11 12 Scholz: Okay, all those in favor say aye. 13 14 All: Aye 15 16 Scholz: Those opposed, same sign. All right, the minutes are approved. 17 18 III. NEW BUSINESS 19 20 Scholz: Okay, our next order of business is entitled New Business. I suspect, 21 though, this is not really New Business. We've seen this twice, haven't we, 22 Ms. Rodriguez? 23 24 Rodriguez: Yes, sir. 25 26 Scholz: Once we sent this to the City Council and they tossed it back and then we 27 passed this again...when was it...in the July meeting, wasn't it? 28 29 Rodriguez: The regular meeting of July 26tH 30 31 Scholz: July 26tH, okay; and now it's before us again. 32 33 1. Case Z2837: Application of Area 51 LLC to rezone a 0.25 ± acre tract (K-1) within 34 the Sonoma Ranch East II Master Plan from R-1b (Single-Family High Density) to 35 C-1C (Commercial Low Intensity-Conditional) to allow for utility-related land uses - 36 antennas, towers, communication structures and other vertical structures and 37 public/private utility installations. The subject property is located south of the 38 future extension of Sedona Hills Parkway and east of Pagosa Hills Avenue; Parcel 39 ID# 02-37615; Proposed Use: Private Communication Structure; Council District 40 6. 41 42 2. Case SUP-11-01: Application of Verticom on behalf of Area 51 LLC for a Special 43 Use Permit (SUP) for the construction of a new private communication structure 44 on property located south of the future extension of Sedona Hills Parkway and 45 east of Pagosa Hills Avenue directly adjacent to the Jornada water tank site; 2 1 Parcel ID# 02-37615; Proposed Use: A 65-foot tall disguised commercial 2 communication structure; Council District 6. 3 4 Scholz: All right, Ms. Rodriguez, you're going to present? 5 6 Rodriguez: Yes, sir. 7 8 Scholz: Go ahead. 9 10 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, is it the Commission's desire for me to do a full presentation 11 or would you like me to pick up regarding the technical analysis? On July 12 26th you heard the full case... 13 14 Scholz: Yes. 15 16 Rodriguez: ...and July 27th staff reviewed the meeting from July 26th. It was 17 determined that the technical analysis from Verizon was indeed lacking 18 from the official record. Verizon has submitted a technical analysis for the 19 Commission's review. A qualified expert was hired by the City of Las 20 Cruces to review the technical analysis and provide a written 21 recommendation pursuant to Section 38-59 of the Zoning Code. In your 22 packet you do have the technical analysis... 23 24 Scholz: Yes. 25 26 Rodriguez: ...you have the proposal by Greg Best Consulting, Inc., who reviewed the 27 technical analysis and then you have two written recommendations. The 28 first written recommendation provided by Mr. Best is in your packet and 29 then the amended written recommendation was also e-mailed to you 30 electronically and a printed version is there for your review as well. 31 32 Scholz: Right. Thank you. Okay. So, yes, start with the technical. I think we've 33 heard the rest. 34 35 Rodriguez: As I stated, pursuant to Section 38-59 of the Zoning Code a technical 36 analysis was submitted by Verticom representing Verizon. They provided 37 the Statement of Justification for the cell location. That Statement of 38 Justification is included in your staff report. As part of that technical 39 analysis they included some graphs and maps for the coverage area. 40 Regarding the details and nature of these graphs and maps I will ask that 41 the Commission please direct any questions to the representatives of 42 Verticom and Verizon, please. 43 During the review of the technical analysis an additional location 44 coverage map was provided to Mr. Best at the request of Mr. Best and this 45 was furnished to the City of Las Cruces. It was the Indoor and Outdoor 46 Coverage Location Map. There is an e-mail regarding the correspondence 3 1 between Verticom and Mr. Best in which City staff was copied, which 2 included this map and I've included it in your staff report. 3 Now I did not put on the screen the actual written recommendation 4 narratives; however, what I did include was a colored copy of the maps. 5 Unfortunately, we could not print colored copies of all of the maps because 6 we've had some technical difficulties with our color printer but they are up 7 here for your review. The first written recommendation included three 8 maps that Mr. Best provided and it was the analysis for the lowest height, 9 mid-point and maximum height and those are the next three slides for your 10 review. If you need to refer to any of these I also ask that you please direct 11 your questions to Verizon and Verticom. 12 Then in your amended written recommendation, of which a printed 13 copy has been placed at your seat, an electronic copy was sent to you. It 14 included two exhibits, Exhibit 1 and 2, and I've included those two maps for 15 your review. Essentially, Mr. Best's written recommendation, as you are 16 aware of in reviewing the analysis provided by him, is that the site, the 17 location on Sedona Hills and Pagosa adjacent to the water tank site, is the 18 best location. 19 Staffs recommendation for the zone change case stands as a 20 recommendation of approval. The technical analysis was a requirement for 21 the Special Use Permit, not the zone change request, and staffs 22 recommendation for approval of the Special Use Permit stands as well. In 23 your options tonight: the zone change always goes as a recommendation 24 to the Las Cruces City Council so you can recommend to approve. This is 25 a zone change from R-1 b to C-1 C with limiting all other commercial uses 26 but allowing the utility-related land uses; which essentially would allow 27 utility-related structures such as public and private utility installations, as 28 well as antenna towers. It does not, by doing conditional zoning, it does 29 not preclude the fact that our Code still mandates that you still are required 30 a Special Use Permit for a cell tower; hence, the reason why you need to 31 make a decision for the Special Use Permit. 32 Typically, a Special Use Permit, the Planning and Zoning 33 Commission has final authority on an SUP. If an SUP is approved or 34 denied by this Body any aggrieved person could appeal that decision to 35 Las Cruces City Council and, of course, Las Cruces City Council's decision 36 can always be appealed to District Court. However, due to the nature of 37 the fact that the zone change case was remanded back to you in July by 38 the Las Cruces City Council, it is apparent that Las Cruces City Council 39 would like to hear the zone change and the Special Use Permit. 40 So the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight can do one of two 41 things: you can make a final recommendation and then that can be 42 appealed to a final approval and that can be appealed to Council; or you 43 can recommend that Las Cruces City Council be the final authority on the 44 SUP. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have regarding land 45 use and code-related requirements for the SUP or the zone change. Any 46 technical questions that you may have regarding the Special Use Permit 1 4 1 ask that you please direct that to Verticom and then the applicant for the 2 zone change request is also here and, I believe, both parties are available 3 to answer any immediate questions. I will stand for questions right now. 4 5 Scholz: All right, are there questions for this person? All right, hearing none may 6 we hear from the applicant, please? 7 8 Cardinal: Hello. Denise Cardinal, Verticom on behalf of Verizon. I just wanted to 9 make mention that there would be space available on the communication 10 tower for public safety communications if that's a need in the future. I don't 11 have anything to add but I will take some questions as to site selection but 12 if you have any questions for technical purposes I'll have to call the Verizon 13 engineer up. 14 15 Scholz: All right, questions for this lady? Yes, Commissioner Crane. 16 17 Crane: One of the concerns of the public seems to be that we'll be putting the thin 18 end of a wedge into the lid of Pandora's Box here if we let Verizon have 19 this 65-foot tower with one rank of antennas on it. It's concealed, perhaps, 20 by the palm fronds. Nothing is to prevent other people using that 21 precedent or putting up other towers there or to prevent Verizon from 22 collocating other providers' antennas on the same tower and building them 23 downwards from the palm area making, therefore, an antenna from or at 24 least one very ugly palm tree. You are in a position to say that Verizon is 25 going to be the only outfit that ever uses this tower and if it puts a tower on 26 that hill and if it is that it's only going to have one rank, one set, one level of 27 antennas that will be obscured all the time? 28 29 Cardinal: I would not be in a position to say that. If someone wanted to use the 30 tower they would have to make an application to Verizon and Verizon 31 would have to make an application to the City, be it for zoning or permitting, 32 so it would come back for co-compliance. So if a condition of approval of 33 the zoning was for staff, then it would be a condition of other users on that 34 tower. 35 36 Crane: So... 37 38 Cardinal: I mean, you can camouflage stuff. 39 40 Crane: Yeah. So say they would like to partner up on your tower and you would 41 come to the City and say, "We now need to put another set lower down of 42 antennas," and we would vote on that? Is that your understanding? 43 44 Cardinal: The question again? 45 5 1 Crane: If somebody comes to you, some other company, and says they would like 2 to collocate their antennas on your tower, I think you said that you would 3 have to ask the City if this may be done. 4 5 Cardinal: Well, it would have to go through your zoning and/or your permitting 6 process to be in compliance with your zoning and permitting as written. So 7 also on the palm tree you can put canisters inside so that future collocators 8 would be inside the tower. Do you see what I'm saying? So they wouldn't 9 necessarily be covered with fronds. Since Verizon's at the top they're going 10 to be covered by the fronds but their canisters can be placed inside so 11 future users might be able to use inside mounts instead of outside mounts. 12 But that would have to be done in the future and whoever wanted to 13 collocate would have to go through the city process. I wouldn't be part of 14 that process. I couldn't answer that question. 15 16 Crane: Thank you. 17 18 Scholz: I have a question then for Ms. Rodriguez with regard to that: would a 19 collocator need another Special Use Permit? 20 21 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, the answer for the Special Use Permit for collocating is "no." 22 The City of Las Cruces Zoning Code encourages collocation. You can 23 collocate on a tower as long as you do not exceed...when you collate you 24 cannot exceed the maximum allowable height of that tower. So if this 25 tower is built to a maximum height collation cannot exceed it. If the existing 26 tower is built, whether it's stuffed, camouflaged, any collocating will have to 27 mirror that exactly. If there are any additional new towers to be placed on 28 this property or in the vicinity they will be required to go through the Special 29 Use Permit process for any new towers. 30 31 Scholz: Okay, thank you. Yes, Commissioner Beard. 32 33 Beard: I would like to review this graph called the "Sector capacitor projection 34 based on the 24-month existing data." I don't totally understand all this. 35 36 Cardinal: Okay, I'm going to ask RF engineer from Verizon to come up and speak to 37 that. 38 39 Alaaldin: Good evening. My name's Hamdi Alaaldin and I'm the RF Engineer for 40 Verizon. 41 42 Beard: Would you go through the graph...or there were two graphs. I don't 43 understand exactly all of that, what it means. Along the base there's nine 44 numbers. Could you refer to those nine numbers what they do represent? 45 46 Scholz: Commissioner Beard, is this the voice capacity for each sector? 6 1 2 Beard: Right. You have it. (inaudible) I saw it in color while ago. 3 4 Shipley: Yeah, it was in color. 5 6 Beard: Ours is in black and white. 7 8 Shipley: That's the reason you can't tell. Right there! 9 10 Beard: Yeah, see the very top one and the second one. 11 12 Alaaldin: The graph represents the traffic of the sectors that point to that area. 13 14 Beard: And where are the sectors located? 15 16 Alaaldin: The sectors are located right around Sonoma Ranch area so there's one... 17 18 Beard: And we don't know where they are, though, in this... 19 20 Alaaldin: Yeah, the map that we provided has all those sites on it. 21 22 Beard: Oh, okay. 23 24 Alaaldin: And this is based on...we take it every day. We take four data-points and 25 we drop the top, we drop the bottom and we average the middle two and 26 every day every month we take four of those, we drop the bottom and we 27 drop the top and we do that for twenty-four months and we draft the data 28 and see how those sectors that provide coverage for folks that live in the 29 area are growing. When that growth hits the limit, which this is the limit, 30 then we know there's no more we can support so we have to come up with 31 a solution and this site is a solution to that. 32 33 Beard: And the blue represents the maximum? 34 35 Alaaldin: The blue...which blue? On the graphs? 36 37 Beard: Yes. 38 39 Alaaldin: The blue is, I believe... 40 41 Beard: No, no, up on the top. (two people talking at the same time — cannot 42 transcribe) We're still on the graph, right? 43 44 Shipley: On the bottom graph. 45 7 1 Alaaldin: On the one where she's pointing at: one is for 2012, one is 2013 and the 2 green is the limit. 3 4 Beard: And the limit is what? 5 6 Alaaldin: The limit is based on what that (inaudible) can handle. 7 8 Beard: Okay. Are these the number of calls? In other words, this is 300 calls? 9 10 Alaaldin: There's two limits that we deal with: one is voice... 11 12 Beard: Right. 13 14 Alaaldin: The voice limit is 60 calls per carrier per sector. Each sector per site can 15 take 60 calls at each right at the same point of time so simultaneously we 16 could take 60 calls at each sector of each site, which we have eight 17 carriers. So the other limits are, and I've got to mention that one as well, is 18 .... 19 20 Scholz: Please stay on the mike, sir. 21 22 Alaaldin: ....data we can only support 31 continuous connections on each sector of 23 each site on each carrier. So when that limitation hits the number 61 voice 24 call they will get the voice mail that says, "The network is busy. Please try 25 your call later." 26 27 Beard: Well, is there a 2011? Is there a... 28 29 Alaaldin: The 2011 is the actual data we have for you. 30 31 Beard: Where is it, though? 32 33 Alaaldin: We did not put the 2011, sorry, because our limits are already up so there's 34 no use for that but we could print it out for you, if you'd like to see the 35 numbers. So these are the limits we have to deal with. We're already past 36 the limits and those are the future: 2012 and 2013. The limits are fixed 37 numbers. We know exactly what they are. 38 39 Beard: Okay, so the limit is what is happening right now in those sectors? 40 41 Alaaldin: Yes. Right. 42 43 Beard: And then the 2012 and 2013 are what you're projecting what it'll be in those 44 sectors... 45 8 1 Alaaldin: If we continue on the same path we are today, on the same path of the 24 2 data points that we collected for each month. 3 4 Beard: And what do you use for that projection, I mean, the growth rate? 5 6 Alaaldin: Right! We use actual data that we collected from each sector of each cell 7 site of each call. We collect all that data every day and crunch those 8 numbers. We add all the promotions and marketing and seasonality 9 dressing `cause each market is different, which is not really a big portion of 10 it, it's a small percentage; so we can get to, let's say in the Las Cruces 11 area, Las Cruces will grow by 7-8% next year and we estimate how much 12 of that 7-8% of people moving that are moving to Las Cruces would buy 13 Verizon phones and we inject that number into it and we add all those 14 numbers together, crunch those numbers and we get a slope one. That 15 slope is what we shall predict. It's a very complicated number crunching. 16 17 Beard: Okay, and the limit, now, the limit is based on what's going on right now... 18 19 Alaaldin: Yes... 20 21 Beard: ...but you're not overloaded, right? 22 23 Alaaldin: Oh, on some of the sites we are. 24 25 Beard: Where do we see that? 26 27 Shipley: Every one of these site is a re-display. 28 29 Alaaldin: Yes, but... 30 31 Crane: We don't see on these graphs... 32 33 Scholz: Gentlemen, would you please identify yourselves before you speak and let 34 Commissioner Beard finish? Thank you. 35 36 Alaaldin: As you can see, some of the limits are different. They are not exactly the 37 same because the limit is dictated based on hardware, RF environment, 38 blocking, the cell coverage area, all that stuff comes up as a limit. The 39 average limit is what I told you about with 60 calls and all that stuff. 40 41 Beard: Yeah. 42 43 Alaaldin: But a lot or sites today in Las Cruces are already hitting the limit... 44 45 Beard: So you actually have dropouts? 46 9 1 Alaaldin: Yes, we have some drops. We have blocked calls, people calling, they're 2 called "blocks." 3 4 Beard: And which sectors are being blocked out? 5 6 Alaaldin: I could tell you the one that's called Downtown Las Cruces, which is on the 7 highway. I can show it to you to on the map. It's already blocking. We 8 have the data from that. 9 10 Beard: Isn't this antenna just good for about two miles? 11 12 Alaaldin: It depends, again, on the RF in line. If you are on the top of a mountain 13 and you can see forever, it'll go forever. If you are in the middle of a city, 14 like in downtown Phoenix, you can't go over a quarter-of-a-mile before it 15 dies because it gets blocked; same thing with downtown EI Paso. It get's 16 blocked because of buildings, trees, if we have high trees it gets blocked. 17 In the winter time and summer time it changes because the trees have 18 leaves, the leaves drop and the RF gets bigger and smaller and when more 19 people go on the site it shrinks. It "breezes," shrinks and gets big and 20 small. 21 22 Beard: Okay. Somehow I was thinking that this was sort of around the two-mile 23 radius area of this antenna. 24 25 Alaaldin: No, it's a lot more complicated. 26 27 Beard: So this antenna could actually go some other places then? 28 29 Alaaldin: Oh, yeah. Let's say if you have a site on "20" and we put a sector up on 30 that highway going up it goes about seventeen miles but there's not a lot of 31 people out there so we're okay with it. When we have a site in downtown 32 by the University it doesn't go much because there are too many people on 33 it. 34 35 Beard: Okay. When I visited this site... 36 37 Alaaldin: Uh-huh. 38 39 Beard: ...there was a location maybe 400-feet to the north and it looked higher 40 than the site that's being proposed. It's all vacant, directly north and I was 41 wondering why you didn't pick that site, which is vacant. 42 43 Alaaldin: Directly north... (to Denise Cardinal) Denise, are you familiar with that 44 location? 45 46 Cardinal: (inaudible) 10 1 2 Schueller: I am Dale Schueller. I am one of the developers of Sonoma Ranch and 1 3 am also a homeowner out there. I can speak to that. The reason that it is 4 the site the developer picked is because it is right in the middle of a 5 planned subdivision that we have been planning on for the last two-and-a- 6 half years, which will be housing. And since I'm here I might as well...I'd 7 like to digress just a little bit and go back in time our (inaudible- moved 8 away from the microphone)... Adolph Zubia was there. He was the Fire 9 Chief...how long has he been gone? (inaudible - moving away from 10 microphone) 11 12 Scholz: Stay on mike, sir, please. 13 14 Schueller: How long has been gone? 15 16 Dubbin: About two years. 17 18 Schueller: Okay, two years. We were in negotiations with the City of Las Cruces and 19 the Fire Department. Robert Garza was involved in it, I'm not sure if you 20 were there, Mr. Dubbin, or not; but we had Mr. Brown and Mr. Zubia were 21 there and we had gone out there and we were talking about sites for public 22 safety buildings and that sort of thing: fire department, police department, 23 that sort of thing. 24 This site was on the map four years ago when we talked to the Fire 25 Department and it was a site that was selected by the Fire Department for 26 the communication tower, the Fire Department and a public safety 27 building...four years ago. Okay. So the City had come to us and we had 28 come to them and we were trying to work out a partnership in which we 29 could get this building done and the tower built out there because they 30 realized that this site at its height and location could cover a very large area 31 on the East Mesa without having another cell tower out there for quite 32 some distance; because it's line of sight, as I understand it's how these 33 towers work. It's not just the two-mile thing. So it's about as far as you can 34 see is about as far as it can go as long as you have the capacity on it to 35 handle the number of calls. So when the Police or the Fire Department 36 uses their cell phones and they are out there and if something were to 37 happen, well, say the other system is jammed up or whatever, then they 38 drop calls, just like I drop calls now from my house which is about a block- 39 and-a-half away from where this is. My son, who lives across the street 40 from where this site will be built, is probably the closest person of anybody 41 in the room living out there, he's the closest one. He loses communication 42 from time to time because the cell tower will drop because you don't have 43 the signal strength that you need in order to maintain communication. 44 Anyway, I answered the original question, which was: the subdivision 45 where we were talking about and whether or not...sir? Okay. 46 11 1 Shipley: The question that was asked is: this is where the cell tower will be located 2 in this area here in the plan for housing, all right? It's already been planned 3 for two-and—a-half years (inaudible— sitting away from the microphone) 4 5 Schueller: We have not dropped the hammer in doing it but we've gotten most of our 6 engineering questions and those kinds of things answered out there. 7 8 Scholz: Okay, thank you very much. That answers your question, I assume, why 9 it's not 400-feet further north. All right, any other technical questions? 10 Yeah, Commissioner Shipley. 11 12 Shipley: I'd like the same gentleman to come back to the mike; not Mr. Schueller but 13 the...you, sir. Okay. I want to kind of go through this because I would like 14 to make sure I understand it. You're saying that in this chart that you gave 15 us, the graph, bar graph... 16 17 Alaaldin: Okay. 18 19 Shipley: The sector capacity is based upon 20,000 calls, for example. That's the 20 number of calls. 21 22 Alaaldin: Right. 23 24 Shipley: And that's over a two-year period. 25 26 Alaaldin: Yes. Twenty-four months. Yes. 27 28 Shipley: All right. And the limit, though, I was having the same problem that he was 29 having understanding the limit. In every one of these sectors of the eight 30 sectors there's only one that the limit is actually above the capacity. 31 32 Alaaldin: Yeah, that one you don't need and answer for that because of the eight 33 sectors. 34 35 Shipley: I understand that. 36 37 Alaaldin: Okay. 38 39 Shipley: Okay. But you're basically projecting where it's going to be in '12 and '13. 40 Okay. 41 42 Alaaldin: One of the reasons that we don't put our current data is that it takes an 43 average of eighteen months to build a site so it's no good for us to put 44 current data on. 45 12 1 Shipley: Okay. And then at the same time, though, you also have the capacity to do 2 the data... 3 4 Alaaldin: Right. 5 6 Shipley: ...at the same site, but it's a lot lower number. Is that because the duration 7 is a shorter duration? 8 9 Alaaldin: Well, the duration is not... we count based on connections. We're actually 10 hurting a lot more on the data side because of the Smartphones these 11 days. Smartphones take a lot more band width than a regular voice call. A 12 regular voice call can take 9.6 kilohertz and they'll be fine but with data we 13 are looking at 3-4 megabytes per second these days and that needs a lot 14 more capacity; and that's part of the reason we're adding a lot more sites, 15 almost doubling sites in major cities: EI Paso, Phoenix, the major cities. 16 Here in Las Cruces we'll probably have to put five-to-ten new sites in 17 the next two years just to deal with the capacity and that's just to provide 18 folks with the coverage they need; because the way we are looking at the 19 Smartphone today, they were just 'As" yesterday, tomorrow every phone is 20 projected to be IP-based. That means your refrigerator, you can dial it from 21 there; your garage door is it closed or open, you can check from your 22 phone. You can watch every birthday party with your grandkids, everything 23 directly from your phone in a couple of years down the road. We are 24 planning all that stuff. All your medical, your credit cards, everything will go 25 on your phone so we have to make all that into effect. 26 27 Shipley: Thank you. 28 29 Scholz: All right. Commissioner Crane. 30 31 Crane: What would these limit bars look like if you got the new tower that you 32 want? 33 34 Alaaldin: We are hoping to take a lot of that away from the other sites around it. We 35 know we could take at least 20-30% on each sector of those...I believe 36 there were nine sectors that come into that area and then if that's not 37 enough then we have to come back to you and ask for another one 38 because there's more folks there to make the calls. 39 40 Crane: Does the limit bar there go up when you get the new tower? 41 42 Alaaldin: Actually, the limits will stay the same but the projections will go down. 43 44 Crane: And they will go down below the limit, you hope. 45 13 1 Alaaldin: Hopefully, yes. We hope to do that. If we get a good design then that's 2 what happens. If we get a bad design the effect is minimal and we have to 3 find another solution and that's why we're really specific on the location to 4 be able to take as much possible as we can on the surrounding sectors. 5 6 Crane: How many cell phone providers are there in this area? 7 8 Alaaldin: I couldn't answer that question but I can find out for you. 9 10 Crane: Would you at least say five? 11 12 Alaaldin: Cell phone providers? I don't know. I know there's AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, 13 T-Mobile, Cricket...who else is out here? (several people speaking in the 14 background) 15 16 Crane: Okay. Well, my question is: are they all having the same problem that 17 you're having as far as you know? 18 19 Alaaldin: We estimate that half of the customers are Verizon customers in this area 20 so the other of the customers, I'm sure they have problems. I've talked to 21 other colleagues from AT&T and they're doing pretty much the same thing 22 that we do. I won't be surprised if they come ask for new towers for their 23 calls. 24 25 Crane: One minor little point: what is an LSC? 26 27 Alaaldin: That is Las Cruces. 28 29 Crane: I see. Okay. Thank you. 30 31 Scholz: All right, any other questions for this gentleman for the technical part? Yes, 32 Commissioner Stowe. 33 34 Stowe: The zoning request allows a tower 65-feet high if it's approved. What 35 would be the problems or opportunities if the tower was limited to, say, 54- 36 feet? 37 38 Alaaldin: Actually, the tower is going to be 65 but we cannot put our antennas 39 higher. We have to put our antennas at 56-feet because of the stealth and 40 the nature of the stealth tower. If we wanted branches to cover the 41 antennas we have to bring it lower so that the branches have enough room 42 to cover them up. So, in a sense, we're really not up. We are really down 43 at the 56 mark. If we were able to do a normal tower we could have used a 44 56-foot and have the tower lower. It would be a little bit less money, in fact, 45 but we wanted to give the folks out there the best site that we have that's 14 1 cosmetically more pleasing than any other site. That's why we selected 2 that even though we are losing height, but it's more cosmetically pleasing. 3 4 Stowe: I understand that, but the impact on the public...the complaints that we're 5 getting about this issue is the visual impact. If you built the tower limited to, 6 let's say, 54 or 55-feet high the array of antennas would be slightly lower 7 than that. 8 9 Alaaldin: They would be 9-feet lower. 10 11 Stowe: 9-feet lower...does the problem then become one of the shadow (inaudible) 12 the transmission? 13 14 Alaaldin: Yes. We plotted the site at 35, 45, 55 and 56 was the highest we could go 15 and we looked at the effect of the coverage and how much capacity it 16 would take for the existing sectors that are coming in and, unfortunately, 17 we couldn't do much. When we presented the data to the independent, he 18 asked for all the questions. We gave him all that stuff. They had to look at 19 all that as well and we couldn't really do it at the lower height. Otherwise, 20 we would have given the fact that 56...normally our tower heights average 21 about 70-feet tall. 22 23 Stowe: The reason that a tower less tall would not work is what again? 24 25 Alaaldin: It's because...let's say you have four, five, six, seven different rows of 26 houses and this tower has to be able to penetrate at the fifth tier, sixth tier 27 or seventh tier and the only way it can do it is from the roof down. A lot of 28 times you have to go to...if you go to the fourth tier that means you have to 29 penetrate through eight walls in order to get to the inside of the folks' home. 30 There is no way that RF can penetrate that many walls to get in; but it's 31 much easier to penetrate from the roof because the roof is typically...what 32 is the roof here... shingle or tile? It is much less material to go through. 33 34 Stowe: Right. I was trying to find a compromise position relative to the height of the 35 tower. It would have less visual impact on the neighborhood. 36 37 Alaaldin: Yes, and we appreciate that and, believe me, we tried at every possible 38 height to do this and we would have done it if it was lower. We would have 39 gone for but it is just not...the limitation from us is technical. We cannot 40 change what any of the existing technical capabilities are. 41 42 Stowe: Thank you. 43 44 Scholz: All right, any other questions for this gentleman? Okay...did you want to 45 finish this presentation? Yes, go ahead. 46 15 1 Cardinal: I just wanted to add that if this went to the approved SUP we could place a 2 condition on it that we build a regular monopole and instead of the stealth, 3 mono-palm, if that would be more pleasing then just paint it a desert color 4 and then it would blend in and then if we could go with the top of it with the 5 antennas then, perhaps the tower height could be a little bit lower if that 6 would please the public. 7 8 Scholz: Okay, thank you, ma'am. Commissioner Stowe...it's Commissioner Crane, 9 sorry. 10 11 Crane: I just recall that I have seen, I think, arrays of antennas mounted on the 12 fringe, the outside, of water tanks. Is there any possibility you could do 13 that? 14 15 Cardinal: The water tower's only 37-foot in height so that was not an option. 16 17 Crane: Okay. 18 19 Scholz: It seems to me, also, if you remember from the analysis and I think this was 20 the...I'm going to say the "hired gun," the person we asked from outside to 21 analyze this. He suggested that the water tower location is not a good idea 22 partly because of movement of the water tower and, secondly, because if 23 the water tower needs to be painted then you have to take the antennas 24 down and so on. 25 26 Crane: Yeah, I really had in mind that he was thinking of a tower on top of the 27 water tank but I see what you mean. 28 29 Scholz: Okay. Any other questions? All right, thank you very much...oh, one 30 more. Commissioner Beard. 31 32 Beard: When you didn't know which fagade that you wanted to put on the tower. 1 33 don't think that would be really up to us. That'd be up to the Sonoma 34 Ranch people. 35 36 Cardinal: Well, I think that the developers would support a regular monopole if it were 37 more pleasing to the community. Am I correct? We could paint it the 38 desert color much like the water tower so it would be hardly noticeable but 39 you would see the antennas. 40 41 (someone in the audience speaking loudly— inaudible) 42 43 Scholz: I'm sure we'll have time for that, sir. Just hang on. Okay? Anything else 44 or other questions this...? 45 16 1 Beard: One follow up for Ms. Cardinal: you're saying then there's a school of 2 thought that a plain, unadorned monopole with antennas visible at the top 3 is, in the eyes of some people, preferable to a disguised one with a, say, a 4 palm tree? 5 6 Cardinal: Some people would prefer that, yes. But the antennas could also be 7 painted that color, too. Not everybody would go with that option; but, yes, 8 some people do prefer that. 9 10 Beard: All right. Thank you. 11 12 Cardinal: Any other questions? 13 14 Scholz: I don't think so, no. Thank you very much. 15 16 (Same person speaking loudly from the audience—inaudible) 17 18 Scholz: Yes, we'll have time for public discussion in just a minute. 19 20 (Same person still speaking loudly from the audience— demanding to ask a question) 21 22 Scholz: Yes, we will have time for public discussion and questions in just a 23 moment. Please. Thank you. Now, I understand there is a presentation 24 from the Homeowner's Association. Is that right? May we see that 25 presentation, please? 26 27 Cobb: I'm Mark Cobb. I'm the president of the most adjacent neighborhood, the 28 Mir/Mar Neighborhood Association and I have to ask why we are here 29 again tonight. (referring to a PowerPoint presentation) In the previous 30 meeting our neighborhood presented characteristics of itself that 31 distinguishes itself from other neighborhoods: the positive characteristics 32 or the community pride that we share in involvement we clean up 33 throughout the neighborhoods and other civic pride activities, in our 34 pristine, unobstructed views of the Organ Mountains and a premiere 35 address to reside in here in our fair city. 36 We also, at that time, illustrated some of the negative characteristics 37 that an affirmative vote would bring, such as possible lower property 38 values, which have been substantiated in several reports. I believe we did 39 give some data on that. And then, of course, the obstruction of view and 40 then the harvesting of an antenna farm, which is one of our prime concerns 41 and we're so glad that you brought that up tonight because our unsightly 42 concern is a farm of antennas there, which would be most likely in most 43 instances when the competitors to Verizon say they are being treated 44 unjustly if they can't put one there. 45 The questions we have tonight is, of course, eliminating conflicts of 46 interest, at first, for anyone who's going to be voting on the matter to make 17 1 sure they don't have more than a modest investment in Verizon or family 2 members working for Verizon or Verticom or any other known incentives for 3 voting one way or the other. 4 The second point I would like to make tonight is that at the 5 conclusion of the prior meeting some inaccurate information was provided 6 by one of the Area 51...1 think it was Mr. Rawson, and that the petition we 7 brought was more of a minority of the residents, which is very erroneous. 8 We represent 91 of 108 occupied residences in our neighborhood and 160 9 signatures from 105 residences total, including the adjacent phase next to 10 us. So our question is: are you prepared to vote against the will of the 11 people? 12 The third point I would like to make is that the Committee recognize 13 that the future antenna farm that will be created by allowing this vote will 14 allow others to follow. This is not a vote on the municipal structure but a 15 small market share sliver, way less than 50%, for a company in a 16 developing industry. This is not a vote for health and safety as emergency 17 calls can always roam. In addition, anyone with a cell phone that has 18 Vonage service or some of the other internet services can use them for a 19 back up for emergency. Myself, I was given a half-price with Vonage for 20 the promise of keeping them for a back up service. As far as I'm 21 concerned, their service is better than of my Bell service I've ever used and 22 it's very economical. So, I think we need to get away from the safety and 23 health issue on this one particular industrial issue, approval issue. 24 Now per a testimony of record our organization has already 25 identified both technical and legal reasons why the proposal should be 26 rejected. They are recorded in record. 27 The City Zoning Code references that approvals should be 28 contingent on analytical evidence that no other site will suffice, 38-59, 1 29 believe, so we're asking: where is that evidence that the other sites have 30 been examined and they won't work. 31 And then at least our final question is: what is the quantitative 32 standard for the number of Code conflicts and variances of established 33 procedures to occur before an objectionable proposal is finally manifested? 34 Directly following my presentation, fellow residents Monte Shriver 35 and Wayne Hancock will detail those instances and provide additional 36 information why the deliberation on this critical issue should end with 37 tonight's considerations. Thank you for your time. 38 39 Scholz: All right, any questions for this gentleman? Yes, Commissioner Beard. 40 41 Beard: The signatures: is this a new signature list or is it the old one? 42 43 Cobb: It must be the old one because we concluded that prior to our last meeting. 44 45 Beard: Okay. And it says that when the people signed this they were signing the 46 rezoning not the tower. 18 1 2 Cobb: It was explained to them that it would be rezoned and if the rezoning were 3 approved that there would be a Special Use Permit to allow the tower. 4 5 Beard: But that's not stated on the signature list. 6 7 Cobb: The person who created it says that it was. 8 9 (someone speaking from the audience — inaudible) 10 11 Beard: No, it just says it's the rezoning request here. 12 13 Scholz: Quiet, please. You'll have a chance to comment later. Thank you. 14 15 Cobb: Well, what I understand is that you cannot approve this without both being 16 approved. 17 18 Beard: Well, I could see if it was for the tower then you'd have to rezone; but if you 19 were going to rezone you don't have to put a tower on it. 20 21 Cobb: Well, it probably depends on what you're rezoning for, I guess. 22 23 Beard: It is, yes, but it didn't state it on there. 24 25 Scholz: Other questions for this gentleman? Commissioner Crane. 26 27 Crane: The tank...I have two points: one, the tank is also ugly but it was probably 28 there some time before the houses were built. Has anybody in your 29 neighborhood association spoken against the water tank and said that they 30 wish it weren't there? 31 32 Cobb: Over a year ago...maybe two years ago...two-and-a-half, I had 33 conversations and e-mails with Mark Johnson with the City explaining our 34 dismay that the tower was not painted and he, at that time, gave us future 35 plans or visions for the painting of the tower and for a park to be right next 36 to the tower. Since that time that has changed. I believe a new location for 37 the park is going to be at the intersection of Pagosa and Sonora Springs 38 and, of course, the economy's changed drastically since I talked to him and 39 everything's kind of on hold. But there were several e-mails and 40 conversations I did have with him regarding that and the neighbors closest 41 to it, including Mr. Schueller's son and myself, we are probably the ones 42 that would be affected the most because we can always see it from our 43 yard and that's probably why, maybe, some of the neighbors like myself 44 that were closest to it might have addressed the issue; out of sight, out of 45 mind, I guess. We're hoping to get that tank painted but I think testimony in 46 the last hearing said that the price had gone up from $25,000 to $100,000 19 1 to do it in this depressed economy. I don't understand why but, you know, 2 perhaps we need to look at someone else doing it for a lesser price, 3 perhaps, or the City needs to. 4 5 Scholz: Okay. Did you have a second question? 6 7 Crane: Yes, sir. We're hearing from the technical people that cell phone service is 8 on the edge of, to use a gross word, collapse at this point and will get 9 worse in the future if this tower isn't built. Do you personally know of any 10 people in your organization that complain about the cell phone service at 11 present or do they find it satisfactory and assume it's going to continue that 12 way if the tower's not built? 13 14 Cobb: Many of the personal friends...I have not used Verizon. I use Sprint. I live 15 as close to the tower as Mr. Schueller's son and in four-and-a-half years, 16 maybe, I've had one dropped call with Sprint; but that's comparing apples 17 to oranges. I would really need to talk, probably with someone with 18 Verizon service to get an appropriate answer to that. But I do think 19 consideration needs to be given to whether that extra bandwidth should be 20 considered a safety issue along with cell basic voice service to the dismay 21 of residents that might be facing an antenna farm; because I'm sure that 22 the data transmission from the Smartphones is in multiples of what is 23 required from just a regular voice service. So I think that's a question that 24 probably needs to examined in the future is: what level of priority that 25 should have over the neighbors' wishes. 26 27 Crane: Thank you. 28 29 Cobb: You're welcome. 30 31 Scholz: Okay. I have a comment and a question: I noticed when I was out there 32 this morning the east side of Pagosa Hills Avenue is higher than the 33 majority of your neighborhood and that's zoned R-1 b, which means a 34 residential. Now, when people build houses there, as I assume they're 35 going to build houses there eventually, won't that block your view of the 36 mountains? 37 38 Cobb: In our neighborhood it's required that the structures are one-story... 39 40 Scholz: Yes. 41 42 Cobb: ...and that will, in most cases, prevent blockage of view; but if you were to 43 look at the current tower, I think the height is 37-feet, I believe 1 44 heard...that's less than a normal residential home would be. 45 46 Scholz: You're talking about the water tank, sir. 20 1 2 Cobb: Uh-huh. 3 4 Scholz: Okay, that's not a tower. That's a tank. 5 6 Cobb: I'm sorry...a tank. 7 8 Scholz: That's all right. Okay. 9 10 Cobb: A tank...and that's a 37-foot, I believe, and so the structures would be not 11 quite as tall as that and I think there's some grading that has to be done on 12 that hill to be able to do any residential construction; which brings up 13 another point. All around where that tank is, is zoned for residential... 14 15 Scholz: Yes, it is. 16 17 Cobb: ...so you're talking about putting an antenna... a potential antenna farm 18 right in the middle of a residential area. 19 20 Scholz: Yeah, I think the developers are aware of that. I think they spoke to that at 21 the last meeting. The other—your point was that...let's see. It's the next to 22 the last bullet. You said, "It should be contingent on analytical evidence 23 that no other site would suffice." Well, we just had testimony to that and, 24 as a matter of fact, I don't know if you have access to the packet, but I can 25 give you the packet of information from the expert, you know, the outsider, 26 the fellow who came from Kansas, I believe, and checked it out and that's 27 what he said. He said, "This is the ideal site." 28 29 Cobb: Well, some of us have a different understanding. Some of us had the 30 understanding that some of the alternative sites were not tested as our site 31 was but I would prefer to have Mr. Wayne Hancock address that next if 32 that's agreeable. 33 34 Scholz: Okay. Sure, go ahead. 35 36 Cobb: Monte Shriver will be up next and then we will follow with Wayne. 37 38 Scholz: Okay. 39 40 Cobb: Are there any other questions, though? 41 42 Scholz: I don't think so, no. 43 44 Cobb: Oh, okay. 45 46 Scholz: Mr. Shriver. 21 1 2 Shriven. My name is Monte Shriver. Prior to making my presentation I do have a 3 request: I have observed or we have observed in hearings before this 4 Commission and for the City Council that staff and applicants get unlimited 5 time to present their case and they can come back numerous times to 6 rebut anything we might say. We request that same privilege. In other 7 words, they will put on their case and (inaudible), and they basically have, 8 and we will put ours on. They undoubtedly will come back to rebut what we 9 say. We believe we should have the opportunity to comment on those 10 items. I think you talk about due process. I believe due process requires 11 us the opportunity to respond. 12 13 Scholz: Okay, this is how I'm going to rule on that, sir: I'm going to suggest that 14 you will have equal time with the City and the presenter and that means 15 you have about ten more minutes. 16 17 Shriver: The presenter and the City didn't stop `til 6:35. 18 19 Scholz: 6:35? 20 21 Shriver: That's thirty-five minutes. 22 23 Scholz: Okay, fine. You'll have until ten-after-seven. 24 25 Shriver: Thank you. I don't hope that takes that time (inaudible). 26 27 Scholz: I hope not either but... 28 29 Shriver: Okay, next item, please. I have reviewed several sections of the P & Z 30 Code and I believe there are conflicts in there stating whether or not this 31 tower could be built here. I looked specifically at Section 38-10, Planning 32 and Zoning Commission. Section 38-10 has two specific sections: G and H 33 to deal with zoning district changes. I found nothing in 38-33.J, 38-53, 38- 34 54 or 38-59 that dealt specifically with zoning changes. They all seem to 35 deal with initial zoning so there must be a reason why you have G, Zoning 36 District Changes without Conditions and Zoning District Changes with 37 Conditions. Quoting Section G as quoted in part as follows: "No condition 38 that restricts the use of a land beyond that otherwise provided by district 39 provisions shall be currently imposed at the approval of a zoning change, 40 except as outlined in Section 38-10-H." In 38-10-H, HA has, "limitation on 41 using conditional zoning, which states, "Any use or structure that requires a 42 Special Use Permit under Section 38-54, Special Use Permits, shall not be 43 permitted by using conditional zoning." 44 Now, the way I read that, my clear reading of it is: you can't put a 45 cell tower there under conditional zoning. I don't know how else you 46 interpret that. I suspect there are people here tonight who will contradict 22 1 that but, nevertheless, that's my clear reading of that and, as I said, 1 2 reviewed all the other sections. They deal with initial zoning. They don't 3 deal with zoning district changes so I believe that's one thing. I have some 4 other points I want to cover about your Code. Could we go to the next one, 5 please? 6 I'd like to keep this map up...and could you point down where the 7 cell tower is, please? Go down to the left right there. I want you to observe 8 it is being placed in the center of residential areas. To the left, I believe, it 9 is zoned R-1 a on both sides to the left. To the right it's zoned R-1 b both 10 sides. Now if you could keep your eye on that while I talk about your Land 11 Development Code Section 38-10-H, Zoning District Changes with 12 Conditions: "Purpose and Intent: A rezoning subject to a condition is to be 13 used only in circumstances where the proposed change of district is 14 appropriate to allow certain uses which are in accordance with the 15 Comprehensive Plan and which are not incompatible with the surrounding 16 neighborhood." 17 The question is: is a cell tower incompatible with the surrounding 18 neighborhood? I believe that Ms. Rodriguez in her presentation before you 19 gentlemen in your last meeting I believe covered that and I tried to get her 20 quote as carefully as I can. I watched the DVD two or three times and I've 21 also taped it to make sure I got the right wording. So I am quoting, "It is 22 important to note for the Special Use Permit that a free-standing, 23 commercial communications structure is not allowed in the R-1b zoning 24 district," and here you have it right in the center of an R-1 b zoning district. 25 So what are they doing here? They are doing indirectly what they can't do 26 directly. They are violating the Code in the sense they're saying, "Well, if 27 we can't have it R-1 b we'll just change it to C-1 C." Well, look at it. You're 28 still surrounded by residential and the intent is you don't want a free- 29 standing, commercial structure allowed in an R-1 b zoning district. "So, 30 fine! All we'll do, we'll just change the zoning. No problem." Well, that's 31 the question: what good is the zoning if you can make those kinds of 32 changes? There's a line from "The Man from La Mancha" where the song 33 goes, "If the rock hits the bottle or the bottle hits the rock the effect on the 34 bottle is the same," and we've got the same thing here. Change it to C-1 C 35 and you still have a communications tower in the center of residential 36 zoning. Now, the developer apparently doesn't care; but we're the 37 residents. We bought there when it was all zoned R-1 b or R-1 a and we 38 thought we knew what to expect. 39 So this reason, I believe it should not be approved; and, again, I do 40 not believe you can use safety as an issue. Number one, Verizon is not 41 the only carrier in the area. When people pick a carrier you have several 42 choices. You can have a land line, which basically guarantees you dial 43 tone anytime. There's several other carriers. I have Sprint also. I have 44 never had a call dropped. The statement was made in the last meeting 45 that if you go downhill to the right from the tower they said, "There's no 46 coverage there." Well, two of us walked it: one with an AT&T phone and 1 23 1 with my Sprint phone. We walked southeast about a quarter-of-a mile 2 where it drops down. We continued to have coverage and then we walked 3 back up the hill to the power line and we never lost coverage. 4 If you want to talk about another site the other water tank is about a 5 mile from this site. Straight east is a hundred-feet higher. If you put a 65- 6 foot tower there that's your equivalent of a 165-foot tower at this site. That 7 site was certainly not evaluated. So I believe they're really violating the 8 intent of the Zoning Code by making a zoning change just so you can do 9 something that would not be allowed otherwise. 10 I'm going to go over two things. Okay, this is the mention: I wanted 11 to do it again. The Ordinance states the proposed zone change will allow 12 for utility-related land uses, such as antennas, towers, communication, etc. 13 That is plural. If this SUP is approved how could P & Z deny approval of 14 other communications towers? All they would have to do is come in with a 15 Special Use Permit, as I understand it, and how could you turn AT&T or 16 Sprint down if you've already approved Verizon for this? 17 On the next page I have a picture...this is on Highway 70. You 18 notice between the two towers, per my measurement, that's why I put 19 approximately, 60-feet apart. I think one of those is a Verizon tower. It 20 could be the one on the left. Now I thought they were supposed to be as 21 far from other structures that if they were to fall they wouldn't hit anything. 22 I'm not sure that quite fits but that's really not my point. The point I want to 23 make is: this piece of property is, I think, 240-feet wide on one end, up and 24 down, and about 60-some-feet wide on the south end. So I think there 25 would be adequate area there to put in another cell phone tower if 26 someone approved and I don't know how you could deny it since you've 27 already approved land. 28 This one I would like to talk about is: when does "minimum" not 29 mean "minimum?" So I thought I would put in the definition of "minimum" 30 from Webster's Dictionary: "the smallest quantity, number or degree 31 possible or permissible." I'm not talking about setbacks now: I'm talking 32 about the standards for C-1 C, Commercial Zoning. I called the staff and 33 made sure I understood what the requirements are for C-1 C zoning and 34 you have the Development Standards for Proposed Zoning of C-1 C, 35 Commercial, Low-Intensity, Conditional. The measurements: minimum 36 size, 5,000 square feet. I estimate this proposed tract of land is around 37 11,000 square feet so it meets that with no problem. Minimum lot depth 38 and width: well, one side it is 200-and-some-feet, up and down; and this 39 says the minimum width is 60-feet. So I said to the staff person, "You 40 mean that's a...you can't have anything smaller than that?" "Oh, no. The 41 way we interpret it you can have it smaller than 60-feet as long as 42 somewhere you've got a 60-foot width." That turns the definition of 43 "minimum" on its head. I can't believe you can make that interpretation. 44 The reason I bring that up is that the north end of this portion of lot is only 45 16.3-feet wide. Now, how that meets minimum definition of 60-feet 46 escapes my logic...and for a definition, out of 38-20: "a lot can be a lot, a 24 1 tract or a parcel of land." So I think this could be considered a lot, a tract or 2 a parcel of land. So I don't believe, unless the staff has a brand new 3 definition of "minimum," and if you don't mean 60-feet, for goodness sakes, 4 change the regulations. Say there's no minimum size width required. 5 What we're trying to do is read the rules and try and understand 6 them. And I do want to mention one thing about the rules. I think we all 7 understand now that Misters Schueller, Rawson and Steinborn own all of 8 this property. There's no doubt about that; in fact, in the presentation 9 before the City Council I said that was a distinction without a difference. 10 But we've pointed out in the hearing several contradictions that no 11 one caught or cared about. We've pointed out that the wrong name was on 12 the application: it was not Area 51, LLC. But they showed Sonoma Ranch 13 Development. No owner signed it; yet Mr. Rawson did, on the day of your 14 hearing, sign an affidavit saying that he was the applicant but there no 15 owners' signatures on the request for the rezoning. On the request for the 16 Special Use Permit there no signatures. We brought that up. The only 17 signature was Mr. Zaldo and I noted this before you gentlemen before and 1 18 believe Ms. Rodriguez said, "Well, he's authorized to sign." Well, per your 19 own Code you have to have a power-of-attorney recorded at the County 20 Clerk's Office to sign for someone. As of the last hearing Mr. Zaldo did not 21 have this power-of-attorney. Yet you folks accepted it so our question is: 22 do you have special rules for big developers? For small developers do 23 people not have to follow that rules? Well, what are the rules? I think we 24 really need to know that. We're trying to follow them. I would like to 25 comment that Mr. Hancock will follow me. 26 1 suspect that the other folks will want to rebut what we're doing. We 27 request, in the terms of continuity, that we then be allowed to have any 28 response to their comments that we want to make and then open it up for 29 the public. So I thank you for your attention and I'm open for questions. 30 31 Scholz: All right, any questions for this gentleman? Okay, hearing none...who was 32 the other speaker, sir? 33 34 Shriver: Mr. Hancock. 35 36 Scholz: Okay. Okay, Mr. Hancock, you'll have six minutes. 37 38 Hancock: Six minutes. 39 40 Scholz: Yup. 41 42 Hancock: First of all, I'm a little nervous so please bear with me. It's been a long time 43 since I've done public speaking. My name is Wayne Hancock. I serve on 44 the Parks and Recreation Board in District 6 so I can appreciate what you 45 guys are going through. It's not an easy job and there's certainly no thanks 46 for what you do, but I recognize what you're doing. 25 1 I'm a retired telecommunications engineer. I was a CEO of several 2 telecommunications companies. I've built long-distance telephone 3 companies in Florida and in Mexico. I've built thirteen telecommunications 4 sites in Mexico in thirteen different cities. I've worked with...I've hired and 5 fired a lot of RF engineers and a lot of different kinds of engineers. It's not 6 an easy task building a telecommunications company. So I've got some 7 familiarity with what's been going on. I've had a long conversation with the 8 consultant, Mr. Best. I had a lot of trepidation at the beginning thinking that 9 he was a "shoo-in" by Verizon but, fortunately, I learned that he's done a lot 10 of work for public TV here in Las Cruces for the University and done work 11 for the radio. He's a respected engineer and after my conversation with 12 him I recognize him as a very good engineer and he knows his business. 13 There were some issues, though, in our discussion that we both 14 agreed on. First thing I need to do is on the slide I want to cover the Code. 15 This is the Code that we're dealing with about the antennas and there's 16 some really important points here because they weren't done well enough 17 for the engineer to give you the kind of information that you need. He gave 18 you a report and he gave you a recommendation but it was based upon a 19 biased question. When you ask an engineer a question; he's going to 20 answer based upon the question. You ask him a different question; you'll 21 get a different answer. So the Code calls for, in F-6-a, it calls for: "a 22 complete description of the commercial communications service to be 23 provided or received and the proposed service area for commercial 24 purposes." 25 The Statement of Justification page provided by Verizon does not 26 describe the communication services to be provided. You've heard a lot of 27 testimony here about voice and data and Smartphones and a lot of 28 different things but it was never stated in the document. That astounded 29 me. It appears, based on the document, that they are going to cover all of 30 Las Cruces. You just heard testimony that, yes, all of Las Cruces is 31 affected but then it changed to only Sonoma. So we don't know because it 32 wasn't in the Statement of Justification. F-5b: "a technical analysis 33 prepared by a professional engineer for the proposed site." This one was a 34 little surprising to me. The Verizon engineer, Mr. Hamdi Alaaldin, I believe 35 you heard from him; I believe he wrote the Statement because he quoted it 36 fairly accurately. You'd have to ask him if he really wrote it. It says that he 37 was supposed to write it. I couldn't find him listed in the state professional 38 licensing for engineers in New Mexico and I believe the Code requires that 39 the professional engineer, and I'm sure that that means a professional 40 engineer from New Mexico or authorized to work in New Mexico, like Mr. 41 Best, he is authorized. But I couldn't find anything for Mr. Hamdi. So 1 42 don't know: you'll need to ask that question. 43 It also provides, in 6-3b: "analytical evidence demonstrating that no 44 other location or height exists whereby the commercial communication 45 service, including sale or similar communication services." I can tell 46 already that there's confusion on the Board about what was presented. 26 1 There was analytical evidence presented but only for the one, single site. 2 The engineer, Mr. Best, took it upon himself to analyze, by the proper 3 spectrometer, the Dona Ana Community College site. It wasn't on the list 4 and it wasn't in the Statement of Justification; but he did it on his own. So in 5 his document there were ... Mr. Best's document, there were references to 6 other information that was received but that information is not in the 7 Statement of Justification. It's not in the public record anywhere. 8 Based upon everything that I've just said we come back to the issue: 9 how many violations of the Code does it take before it becomes worthless? 10 If the Code isn't good for what's in the Code then we don't need a Code. 11 Clearly, we've seen the public staff is not the keeper of the Code. It is up 12 to the P & Z Board and/or the City Council to uphold the 2001 Zoning Code 13 as it is on the books. Our economic and social structure depends upon 14 compliance with our laws. We need that. 15 If any one of the items is a failing you need to deny this request, 16 both of them. Number one: not all owners signed the applications. That is 17 required in the Code. They didn't. The applicant name was not the owner. 18 One of the owners signed an affidavit purporting to be the sole owner, or so 19 it seemed, and later testified that there were two other owners. The lot size 20 of the property, as we've mentioned does not meet the minimum size. The 21 Statement of Justification document submitted by Verizon does not provide 22 complete description of the commercial communications service to be 23 provided nor does it describe the proposed service area. We've heard 24 Verizon testify that Sonoma Ranch somehow is a service area but it's 25 gonna affect all of Las Cruces. It's supposed to state exactly what it is. 26 You can't analyze something if you don't know what it is. So it was never 27 really analyzed. The analysis did not include analytical evidence 28 demonstrating that no other location or height exists to provide commercial 29 communications service that was not described. It wasn't described in the 30 document, in the Statement of Justification and it was not described 31 anywhere else. The engineer, Mr. Best, did a fine job but he didn't have all 32 of the other information and it was because Verizon never supplied the 33 search rings for all of the possibilities. All they did was provided to him 34 three-tenths of a mile from the point that they're requesting. That's it. No 35 more. 36 37 Scholz: Sir. Your time is up. 38 39 Hancock: Could I have somebody else come up and yield some time to me? 40 41 Scholz: Well, I think we can read the rest, you know, `cause that's what you've 42 been doing to us even with the PowerPoint. 43 44 Hancock: Any questions? 45 46 Scholz: Yeah, that's what I want to hold it for. 27 1 2 Hancock: Okay. 3 4 Scholz: Yes. Commissioner Shipley. 5 6 Shipley: You skipped number two: all owners were not present at all meetings. 7 8 Hancock: Yes, I... 9 10 Shipley: How was that... 11 12 Hancock: There was some debate about that...so I pulled it out of my notes. I read it 13 to be: "all owners should be present" but it also states that their 14 representative is present so I took it out myself. Excuse that. 15 16 Shipley: It would have really been nice to have stated that. 17 18 Scholz: Okay. Other questions for this gentleman? Okay, I want to hear from 19 Legal on this. Mr. Connelly? 20 21 Man in audience: Shall I stand aside or raise my hand or something? 22 23 Scholz: We're going to open it for public discussion in just a moment, sir. 24 25 Connelly: My name is Pete Connelly. I'm the City Attorney and I'm speaking on the 26 matter of the various Zoning Ordinances that are basically cited and what 27 I've got to say is: I'll try to be very brief. That's odd for a lawyer but I will 28 try. 29 You cannot read these Ordinances literally without reading all of 30 them together. So when you talk about 38-10 saying, "You shall not do 31 that;" then you have to wander up to Section 38-54-b, and Section 38-54-b 32 enumerates the special uses that are permitted; and then when you go to 33 the Planning and Zoning area it says, "...when deemed necessary in these 34 various zones you can impose conditions as you deem necessary." If you 35 read 38-10-4 there would be no need for 38-54 because 38-54, in essence, 36 read together says, "You may add special conditions." So there is no 37 problem there. Then you go up to 38-59 and you read in 38-59, if you roll 38 the graph (in the PowerPoint): it shows you that you may have the tower in 39 C-1, C-2, C-3 area a total of 65-feet. So there's no problem there. Then 40 when you read what is to be submitted: for an example, every possible, 41 conceivable thing. It sort of reminds me of, "I guarantee you the view 42 forever but my problem is I don't own the land that you're looking over to 43 see." So in this case, how can you possibly go on property you don't own, 44 say that you can get on it and it's a site when the owner says, "Stay off." 45 So I think when you have to look at it, it's this site that's presented, not 28 1 every conceivable site that someone says, "Oh, that's a higher space. You 2 can get it." 3 The other portion of the matters as to the zoning and so forth: the 4 staff is, when somebody walks in and says, "I own the property," the staff 5 takes it as meaning they own the property. If somebody says, "I own the 6 property," we don't believe that it's our duty to go out and basically say the 7 person is telling us an untruth. If there is evidence on the record or 8 somebody could obtain it and staff would see it we would take it into 9 consideration. But when an owner says, "I'm the owner," or a member of a 10 company, for an example, you don't have to have every stockholder. You 11 have the partner or the president or whoever signs it and that's the entity. 12 So I don't see why all this is so technical because, again, the purpose of 13 the zoning is to provide for land use. We have an owner who has applied, 14 staff has looked into it and staff has basically said that it complies with the 15 various matters. 16 Again, in summary, to read everything by itself would not be proper. 17 You have to read it altogether to make it work and this is pretty clear to me 18 that it works on the basis of reading 38-54 refers you to 33-J. 33-J on 19 antennas says, "...go look at 38-59," which is the permitted use. 38-59 20 says, "You can do it. You can have this antenna." Then when you go back 21 to 38-54, 38-54 says, "You can add special conditions or conditions as you 22 deem necessary." So, if there's anything more than you need in that 23 please let me know and I'll try to explain it to answer any questions. 24 25 Scholz: Okay. Questions for this gentleman? I did want to mention that, of course, 26 the staff has always told us that we can act to approve, act to amend, act to 27 add special conditions as a P & Z Body. Yes, right. Yeah. We've always 28 had that. 29 30 Connelly: There's just one other thing that I wanted to mention: everybody's 31 concerned about lots. When you look at 38-59 it talks in terms of the 32 primary buildable area. It talks in terms of the structure site. It does not 33 use the word "subdivided lot" or does it use "lots," and so, again, taking all 34 this into consideration this is not a subdivided area. This is a master 35 planned area where you do not have lots. You have a zoning parcel and 36 what staff has shown is this structure will be within a primary building area, 37 which is within the zoning plot, not a subdivided lot; because there are no 38 lots. So you've also got to look at that and the terms have to be read in 39 context of what you're being asked to do and apply it to what they've 40 applied for. 41 42 Scholz: Okay. Any other questions, comments? 43 44 Hancock: May I? I'd also like to ask some questions. 45 46 Scholz: Certainly. 29 1 2 Hancock: You hear me address the issues about analytical evidence. Do you agree 3 that that analytical evidence needs to be presented that no other site is 4 possible? 5 6 Connelly: I think I did. 7 8 Hancock: Okay. I appreciate that. Okay. That's good. 9 10 Scholz: Okay, what I'd like to do is...yes, go ahead, Mr. Connelly. 11 12 Connelly: I addressed the issue of the Ordinance has to mean the site which you can 13 obtain, not every possible site that you cannot obtain. If Verizon has come 14 to this particular place and has acquired this particular piece of land, 15 Verizon can't go on somebody else's land and say, "This is a better site," 16 even though it may be. So it would have to be read in context of where it is 17 in relation to what they want. 18 19 Scholz: Okay, thank you. No, I don't think, Mr. Hancock, I don't believe he spoke to 20 the technical qualifications of the report. No. What he was speaking to 21 was the fact that... 22 23 Hancock: (inaudible- away from microphone) 24 25 Scholz: Yeah. Exactly! Who owns what and further, I think his intention was to 26 show that, in fact, this has been done legally. 27 28 Hancock: Well, I hear that and I can understand what he's saying. I was left with the 29 impression when I asked the question about analytical evidence for the 30 placement of the tower that he led me to believe that because they own the 31 property they have the right to do that. They don't own the property. 32 They're leasing the property. So the point of that is that the Special Use 33 Permit is for, and it specifically states, that no other sites are useable. 34 There's no analytical evidence to that effect. 35 36 Scholz: I don't believe Mr. Connelly was speaking to that, sir. 37 38 Hancock: Okay. Thank you, though. 39 40 Scholz: All right, I'm going to open this to the public but because of...thank you 41 very much, sir. (speaking to someone to the side of the area) Please do. 42 Yes. Okay, how many would like to speak to this that have new 43 information, information that we haven't heard before? Can I see hands? 1 44 see one, two. Okay, good. Why don't you come up in order then...the 45 stand-up person first. 46 30 1 Soleman: Good evening. My name is Brian Soleman with Sonoma Ranch. I am an 2 engineer. 3 4 Scholz: Would you give your last name again, please? 5 6 Soleman: Soleman. 7 8 Scholz: Thank you. 9 10 (unknown): Spell it, please. 11 12 Soleman: Pardon? 13 14 (Unknown): Spell it, please. 15 16 Soleman: S-o-I-e-m-a-n. I'm going to give you a brief presentation which you have 17 seen in the last meeting when we were here before you; just to give you a 18 visual, again, of what we're looking at and kind of take a look at some of 19 the points that were brought up by the residents and, hopefully, we can 20 make some clarification. 21 The date on here is the original date when we were before you with 22 this presentation. Again, this is the zoning plat that was submitted. This is 23 an aerial of the location. This is East 2, Phase 1 where, I believe, most of 24 the majority of the residents are here tonight, but... 25 We went out again and we took a photograph in this direction to 26 kind of get a representation of what was presented before us. This was 27 presented by the residents and this was an actual simulation that we put in 28 place to show a more real visualization. In reference to... there was some 29 talk about housing that will be in the future constructed along the tank; the 30 tank is approximately 34-to-36-feet. As we go along you can see that if you 31 project it along down the roadway we're going to have some obstructions of 32 the views anyway. We went and took another picture on the other side of 33 the street and this is what was presented: a little deceiving, things are a 34 little larger, you've got a light pole that's in place and this is the location that 35 was presented as the area that's most affected by the tower...very little 36 obstruction. There's more obstruction from the street light than there is in 37 the tower...and then we took another picture down the corner of Sedona 38 Hills Parkway and Pagosa, looking in the direction and based on the angles 39 and the elevations, most likely very hard to see the top of the structure. 40 We did take one more picture that we saw at this location and no 41 obstructions and the majority of...as we continue to develop in this area the 42 tower will be invisible. 43 1 did go through and look at the FCC site and approximately 70% of 44 the 911 calls are placed by cell phones and I've heard tonight that safety is 45 an issue. Safety is an issue and as we place this and work with Verizon 46 safety is always an issue and I've heard tonight you're prepared to vote 31 1 against the will of the people. I would say are you prepared to vote against 2 the person who's out there trying to make a 911 call and it's dropped 3 because we don't have capacity? As the advancements in communication 4 and cell towers continue, my understanding (inaudible — moving away from 5 the microphone), with the RF engineer from Verizon can speak on his 6 behalf but location is becoming more apparent: longitude and latitude 7 based on these calls from these bouncing towers. So I believe safety is an 8 important issue out there and you need to take that into consideration. At 9 this time I'll stand for any questions. 10 11 Scholz: Okay. Any questions for this gentleman? All right, thank you, Mr. 12 Soleman. Okay, I saw another member of the public who had raised his or 13 her hand. There we go. 14 15 (Mr. Hancock speaking from the audience saying he had taken the sign-in sheet by 16 accident and would bring it back to the podium) 17 18 Martino: Good evening, gentlemen. I'm Fred Martino, live in the community and do 19 have a few things to go over; but before I do I have a question, which 1 20 wasn't permitted to ask earlier. Verticom mentioned, you know, 21 presentation to neighbors and also tonight about the ability to place 22 transmitting inside of a pole. 23 24 Scholz: Um-hmm. 25 26 Martino: About a few blocks from this site there is a flagpole transmitter, which most 27 people would not recognize as a cell phone tower. This was mentioned to 28 us and I would ask in the analysis you mentioned that that type of a pole 29 wouldn't be able to be used. When you did the analysis what would be the 30 reduction in service by using that type of device? 10%? 20, 30...1 mean, 31 how much less coverage do you get from using a truly stealth tower when 32 you did your analysis, because we were told that, you know, it was 33 analyzed and that was unable to be used? 34 35 Alaaldin: Because you are going to have put your antennas so much lower so you 36 can get a stealth tower you are going from 65-top to 56... 37 38 Martino: (inaudible) 39 40 Alaaldin: I know. So if you take the stealth out, depending on what size of antennas 41 you are using... 42 43 Martino: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about what's inside the pole. 44 45 Scholz: Sir, you're going to have to share the microphone here. Otherwise, we're 46 not going to be able to record you. 32 1 2 Martino: I'm talking about when you have a tower where the transmitters are inside 3 the pole. We were told by the Verticom representative at a neighborhood 4 meeting that that type of a tower, which is a few blocks from this site, was 5 analyzed and it was not able to be used; but we were never told why. In 6 other words, is it a 10% reduction in coverage with that, a 20? And when 7 you did your analysis and decided a flagpole tower can't be used how 8 much less service does that provide? 9 10 Alaaldin: We could go down to 56...since we are going to be a 56-plus three feet so 11 we can go to 60-feet. The height of the tower would decrease to 60-feet 12 and you can do it without a stealth tower...with changing the way we 13 presented today. I mean, we don't have denigrate any coverage. It'll be 14 the same. 15 16 Martino: Just so I understand...the actual information is that if you used a flagpole- 17 style tower where the transmitters are inside the pole you can still get the 18 coverage as long as it's the proper height. 19 20 Alaaldin: Yes, you'll get...but you'll need two flagpoles to do what this site will do. 21 22 Martino: Okay. 23 24 Alaaldin: We could do 60-feet. 25 26 Scholz: Yes, Commissioner Shipley: a question for the engineer...for both of you. 27 28 Shipley: Okay. First of all, you're misleading. The transmitters are not in the pole. 29 The antennas are in the pole. Transmitters are in the little square box on 30 the ground and then you send the electronic signal up to the antenna and 31 the antenna disperses the signal. Okay? That's number one. So you're 32 not talking about the same thing. So what he's telling you is that you're 33 going to have to put antennas on the outside of that pole just like you see 34 around here. Is that correct? 35 36 Alaaldin: There's three possibilities: one is what we presented; two is do a flagpole; 37 three is a regular pole. On a regular pole we will need one pole at 60-feet 38 tall. On a flagpole... 39 40 Shipley: I'm not talking height. What do you need for antennas? What am I going 41 to look at? 42 43 Alaaldin: You are looking at nine antennas. 44 45 Shipley: All right, and what are you going to look at on a flagpole? They're all... 46 33 1 Alaaldin: On a flagpole, you got the two "flagpoles" all inside. You won't see any 2 antennas. 3 4 Shipley: Okay. 5 6 Alaaldin: Because you cannot fit nine antennas into one flagpole. 7 8 Shipley: Okay. But height is not... 9 10 Martino: I just want to make it clear I only asked that question because it wasn't 11 answered when we were told... 12 13 Scholz: Yes, yes. That's fine. 14 15 Martino: Just to make that clear. 16 17 Scholz: This is the time... 18 19 Martino: So it is usable. It just requires, apparently, two flagpoles as opposed to 20 having a pole that has antennas on it. You know, obviously, the other 21 neighbors have already talked about why this doesn't meet the Code and, 22 you know, I'm not going to get into that. That was already covered, 23 although I will draw your attention, if you are curious about what the staff 24 says about this to the staff report page 9 of 10 under Summary and 25 Conclusions. That basically talks about what the neighbors talked about 26 but it's the staff saying it, explaining that this doesn't meet the Code. 27 That's, you know, fact number one. 28 Fact number two is that the city plans for this area require 29 underground utilities within the neighborhood. To allow above ground 30 utilities for one provider would be, really, contrary to the most basic public 31 policy. There was good reason for requiring underground utilities in the 32 development. I know some of you have visited the development and you 33 know that we are surrounded on all sides by high power lines so we 34 already have on the outskirts of the development a lot of towers. The idea 35 of placing one in the center of the development, which would be involving 36 changing Code to people who have made an investment in a home, a 37 higher investment than they would have in other areas, would be, again, 38 contrary to public policy. 39 We would never have purchased in this community without these 40 requirements. It was mentioned already but I want to make this clear what 41 this is about: that one-story homes are only allowed in Sonoma Ranch 42 East. It's not an opinion or a request. It's a covenant you sign at 43 settlement. So we were assured when we bought our home that part of 44 preserving the home value and our community would be having a view, 45 because we purchased at a higher price our homes with the idea that it's a 46 one-story community. This, on its own should, before you tonight make 34 1 you understand that it's no fault of yours or the City's. This should have 2 never even been brought before you. The developers, who require one- 3 story homes and many other requirements for visual attractiveness are 4 asking to put a 65-foot tower and there was a plan for a palm tree, as if that 5 would change it, without any question to the community: would that please 6 you? I mean, just not acceptable. 7 Finally, and this is also incredibly important from a public policy 8 standpoint: many of you visited the area and you may have noticed that 9 there are many homes that are being built right now or have been built in 10 the last year or two...not only custom homes. There are spec homes being 11 built directly adjacent to this area. This speaks to the need for in Las 12 Cruces the ability to have affordable communities where there isn't 13 adjacent commercial or multi-family zoning. People purchased in particular 14 and paid a higher price for their homes for this very reason and they're still 15 building homes in the midst of the worst recession since the Great 16 Depression. They're still building in this area, which is unique not only for 17 our area, but unique for the country. If you go a few blocks to the south 18 there's another new development where high power lines are directly 19 adjacent to the lots. In the last few years not one home has been built in 20 those lots that are within a few blocks of those high power lines. 21 That is another fact that speaks very clearly to what we're talking 22 about tonight and that is a public policy issue to provide housing that is 23 attractive and that people will purchase. It also reduces the tax base to 24 have empty lots and it creates a dust problem, which I know the City 25 Council is working on a Dust Ordinance to deal with it. It creates a huge 26 dust problem to have all those empty lots. 27 Basically, in summary...I mean, those points and the points about 28 the zoning get to the very heart of this: that these are all facts that we're 29 dealing with. No one denies the opinions, the opinion that folks want to 30 make money on their land. No one denies the other opinion that the idea 31 that you may want to provide cell service to one company; but that doesn't 32 negate or stand above all of these other facts. Also, I want to make very 33 clear on this public safety issue: we're talking about Verizon here coming 34 before you along with Sonoma Ranch. There are many other cell providers 35 and if someone is a Verizon provider they can roam, as was mentioned in 36 the earlier presentation so they can still make a call using the roaming in 37 addition to other technologies. Any questions? 38 39 Scholz: Yes, Commissioner Beard. 40 41 Beard: Assuming that there isn't another site in your judgment would it degrade 42 your area by not having good cell service versus having a 65-foot palm 43 tree? Which do you consider being the worst of the two evils? 44 45 Martino: Well, first, again, this is about Verizon service. It's not about cell phone 46 service: it's about Verizon service. So there's many different providers. In 35 1 fact, the question was raised earlier about how many providers in Las 2 Cruces. There actually are many more than the ones listed. There're the 3 pre-paid providers that use other networks: Verizon, Sprint, etc. and so, in 4 terms of this issue there are many different cell phone providers. 5 Also, in addition to cell phones, there are land lines and what is 6 called Voice Over Internet Protocol, VOIP. One of the other neighbors, 7 believe, mentioned that. I just recently switched to VOIP and I know you 8 may be concerned about affordability, you know, some folks might not have 9 the ability to pay a cell phone bill and another bill to have a back up. In 10 fact, I just switched to a service called UMA and UMA all you pay is the 911 11 fee and a universal fee, in this area it's $3.42 a month. You purchase the 12 UMA hardware, which is $200. After you buy that the monthly fee is $3.42 13 so you have an affordable back up to your cell phone... 14 15 Beard: Okay, I'm not saying that there isn't another back up. Let's say that we 16 don't provide any new cell service anywhere in the city where there are 17 residences. 18 19 Martino: I think that would be a poor decision. If you are talking about changing 20 zoning that's another matter, I mean, there are many areas surrounding our 21 community where there's already commercial zoning where cell phone 22 towers could be placed. There are also areas where cell phone towers 23 already exist. Now, it may not provide the exact coverage of this site; but, 24 you know, the zoning decisions aren't made on saving money for a multi- 25 billion dollar company. Zoning decisions are made on, of course, a variety 26 of things and, most importantly, facts before opinions. I respect the fact 27 that there are opinions about those two issues: making money and 28 providing cell service for one company. I respect that. Those are opinions 29 and those are valid. But there are many facts as well and the facts haven't 30 been met. 31 32 Scholz: Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else from the public with new 33 information about this? Yes, sir, you have new information? Yes, I'm 34 pointing at you. Um-hmm. Please bring it to the microphone. 35 36 Andrews: Yeah, my name is Gary Andrews and I live out here in Sonoma Ranch, a 37 couple blocks there off of Sedona Hills and all I want to say is: I built my 38 house last year. I haven't even been there a year. If I knew they was 39 going to put up a tower I wouldn't have built there. I don't want a bunch of 40 towers up around my property but if any of you guys can look me in the eye 41 and say you wouldn't mind a tower out in your back yard; well, let them put 42 it up in your back yard, you know. But they never told me anything about it 43 when I spent a qua rter-of-a-million-dollars putting up a house. 1 don't know 44 about you but it took me a long time to make that and I'm still working on it. 45 That's all I wanted to say but most of the people I've talked to...in fact, all 36 1 the people I've talked to in my neighborhood there's nobody for this tower, 2 you know, what's the deal? 3 4 Scholz: Okay. Questions for this gentleman? Okay, I'm going to close it to public 5 discussion. We're going to take a 10-minute break and then we'll be back 6 at five minutes to eight. 7 8 TEN MINUTE BREAK 9 10 Scholz: All right, we're going to come back to order. All right, gentlemen, if you can 11 hold it down, please. Thank you. So, gentlemen, what is your pleasure? 12 One of you said we have to discuss this. Yes, absolutely! Let's discuss it. 13 14 Crane: Also, have the rules been suspended so we can discuss these two matters 15 simultaneously? 16 17 Scholz: No, we haven't suspended the rules. We should probably do that, though, 18 shouldn't we? I'll entertain a motion to entertain to suspend the rules. 19 20 Crane: So moved. 21 22 Scholz: Is there a second? 23 24 Shipley: Second. 25 26 Scholz: Okay. Crane moved. Shipley seconded to suspend the rules. All those in 27 favor say aye. 28 29 All: Aye. 30 31 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. All right, the rules are suspended. We can 32 discuss both of these at the same time. What is your pleasure, gentlemen? 33 34 Crane: Well... 35 36 Scholz: Well, jump right in. 37 38 Crane: I'm probably not the only one of the Commissioners that's frustrated by this 39 issue. On one hand we have technical evidence which I find reasonable 40 satisfactory that good cell phone service in the near future for this area, 41 Sonoma Ranch, depends on the positioning of the tower in the place where 42 they've asked for it. I wish we knew whether Verizon had looked at that 43 other site a mile to the east where there's another tank that's at a higher 44 altitude; but let's assume that they did look at that and found out that the 45 land owner wouldn't permit them to put a tower there. On one hand good 37 1 service requires expansion. I'm quite convinced of that and if the technical 2 people, like Verizon, think that a tower should go there I accept it. 3 On the other hand we have vociferous neighborhood opposition to it 4 and I've some sympathy, substantial sympathy, for that because I think that 5 regardless of whether a single tower disguised as a palm tree goes in now 6 or next year, it's going to be followed by others because I don't know how 7 the city can stop other people, other vendors, from putting their towers up 8 on the same plot or co-locating on the original tower and spoiling the look 9 of it. My present feeling is: I will vote against both of these matters of 10 putting the matter, as far I am concerned, into the laps of the local 11 residents and hoping it works out for them. But I am reluctant to approve 12 this if the people in the locality who would benefit from it are not in favor it. 13 14 Scholz: All right. Someone else. Commissioner Beard. 15 16 Beard: Well, Commissioner Shipley was talking about why we couldn't put it, 17 maybe, somewhere else and I would like you to address that particular 18 point. 19 20 Shipley: The point is, I guess, is that in the cellular business and I'm not an expert. 21 did this for some years in California, in Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, 22 Washington and in San Francisco. I was the real estate person who 23 managed all the sites and you go to downtown Los Angeles and you put a 24 cell tower every three or four blocks because you've got high buildings and 25 you've got steel and concrete and you don't get reception. If you've got a 26 satellite then you have a thing but the cost of a satellite phone is 27 astronomical and nobody can afford those right now. 28 But the point is this: we're looking...as a Planning Commission 29 we're not looking at this one site. We are looking, trying to say, "We need 30 coverage for the citizens of this community all around," and that's on the 31 West Mesa, that's on the East Mesa, etc. We don't get a plan that comes 32 in and says, "You're going to have 54 cell sites in here to support 100,000 33 people." You know and I know...I live in Sonoma Ranch and I know that 34 they are going to double the size of this community by what's proposed to 35 be built out there. There's going to be another 100,000 homes that are 36 going to be built on the East Mesa. So your homes are just the beginning, 37 you know, where you live now; and as you go farther out there's going to 38 be new homes added year after year after year and we're not talking about 39 in the next six months. We are not talking about in the next two years. 40 We're talking about the next fifty years and it's going to take, you know, 41 ten, twenty, thirty years depending, obviously, the economy, how people 42 are doing, jobs, the things that we are trying to create. (someone speaking 43 from the audience) Exactly, water is a good point as well. 44 But the point I am trying to make is this: we are talking about a 45 single cell site right now and we're trying to do what is best for the 46 community not just right now but also in two or three years from now and if 38 1 there are 500 homes built east of you and there's no coverage then we 2 have not done the service that we are supposed to do. So it's out job to 3 kind of fiddle with all this emotion and fiddle with the facts and I like this 4 young man saying, you know, "Facts over emotion," because you're not 5 always given facts. You don't always have the authority to go to 6 somebody's property and say, "I want to put a site here." You know, I'm not 7 going to rent that to you or I'm not going to sell that to you. You have the 8 right to do with what you do on your home. You built your $250,000 home 9 but that's yours. Nobody can take that away from you unless you don't pay 10 your taxes or you commit a crime or you do something else. 11 The point is: the people that own the site right now, if they want to 12 change the use of that, they have the right to do that and you voted on 13 giving them that right; and so, if they come to us and they say, "This is what 14 we want to do with our land. We want to change the zoning and there is 15 means to do that," then we have the right to support that. So that's 16 basically what we're sitting up here as a panel of citizens, volunteers, to 17 listen to facts but also to try to say, "Here's how the plan's supposed to 18 work and here's where we're going to go," and, you know, we're not always 19 going to make the best decision. Sometimes we make decisions that we 20 don't like but we're doing them for the right reason. We're not doing them 21 to give one company something over another company. That's not why 22 we're here. It's not about companies: it's about what is best for a 23 community and a community as a whole and that doesn't represent five 24 people. That means 90,000 or 92,000 that we have now. 25 So we heard today about "linear" and it's important that you 26 understand that. Line-of-sight is communications. Why do you think that 27 when you drive around all around this area every place on the mountains 28 you see, if it's owned by the government, you see antennas up there? It's 29 because they can get a long line-of-sight. Now, if I'm looking at you, sir, 30 and this gentleman comes in between and I can't see you, I can't talk to 31 you because it's a direct line-of-sight and that's what they talked about 32 99shadowing is that if something gets in between there it will penetrate 33 some things. It will penetrate walls. It will penetrate roofs but it will only 34 penetrate so many and then it starts to fall off so that's the reason you have 35 to have the height is to get the angle down. You can't go low to the ground 36 and make any headway. So that's what we're dealing with. 37 The other thing that's important to realize here is that we're all 38 saying, "Yes. You can get emergency services from some other network," 39 but it's not about networks. It's about the fact that you've still got have 40 antennas for all those networks and, yes, they tend to collocate together 41 because it's easier to do that. 42 Secondly, it's generally when somebody picks a site they pick the 43 best site. They pick the best site because it gives them, you know, it does 44 what they say they are going to do. If they tell you they're not going to drop 45 calls they're not going to put their antenna down in some hollow where they 46 do drop calls. That would be a poor business decision and you wouldn't 39 1 want them to do that. You wouldn't want them to be your phone company 2 if they were doing those kinds of things. 3 So, the point of what we're talking about here today is that we've got 4 something before us to decide. We've said to the citizens, "We want input." 5 We always want your input but we also want you to be open-minded 6 enough to realize that one palm tree or one two-poles or something, if that 7 will make you happier, we'll try to work with you to do that; but what are we 8 trying to do? We are trying to provide a service to this community and that 9 sometimes doesn't please everybody. Nobody wants to have a fire station 10 next door where every day they go out and start the sirens and you have to 11 listen to that and we're getting ready to move the police station, the State 12 Troopers, down from the University up into the middle of Sonoma Ranch 13 and every day before those guys go on shift what do you think they do? 14 They go out and turn on all their emergency lights and on all their sirens 15 and that's the price of living close to a police station. 16 So there are pluses and minuses in what we do and where we live 17 and we sometimes have wonderful things happen to us and sometimes not 18 so wonderful. A little visual sight and a little pole and you might look at it 19 once or twice a month, 'cause most people pull out of their garage are so 20 busy driving they're not sitting there looking at a pole or a light pole. If they 21 function, they're working, they're okay. If they don't function then you're 22 upset. 23 So, I'm not taking this lightly. It's a very important decision we're 24 about to make and we're happy to be making this decision and going 25 forward and you all have the right, if you don't agree with our decision, to 26 take it to the next level. That's why we do it this way. 27 28 Scholz: Thank you, Commissioner Shipley. Someone else? Commissioner Beard. 29 30 Beard: Thank you. You said a lot of what I think. A lot of things that are presented 31 to this Board are about the views of the mountains. Somebody buys 32 property and then they find out that a fire station or church, which the 33 property's already been purchased, they're actually going to construct 34 something and it's going to take a little bit of the view away from the 35 residential area. We see this all the time and it's a hard decision as to, like 36 you say, Commissioner Shipley, to weigh the pros and cons of that view 37 versus the need for that item that's being requested. Then in our society 38 where we're always advancing you've got to believe that technology and 39 safety are going to be inconvenient in some ways to a certain amount of 40 the residents of this community. My personal opinion of a 65-foot palm tree 41 behind a tower is not...to me, it doesn't seem to be that bad of an issue, to 42 tell you the truth. I don't think it takes away too much of a view, especially 43 when the houses and other things are going to be erected further to the 44 east there, is probably going to take away more from the view than this 45 tower would. I think the benefit of a tower outweighs the sight of a tower. 46 40 1 Scholz: All right. Thank you, Commissioner Beard. Someone else. Commissioner 2 Stowe? 3 4 Stowe: It's...the issues have to balance: safety versus the visual impact of a pole 5 as you look at the mountains. I tend to go along with what's been said 6 here. I'm persuaded by the technical aspects of it; that this is the best site 7 available, not the best site possible, but the best site available. 8 9 Scholz: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Three comments: one is, we're not 10 talking about coverage, we're talking about capacity and I think the 11 engineer made this clear in both of his presentations, the one in July and 12 the one we just heard. The concern that Verizon has run into is that they're 13 going to be out of capacity because the cell phones, the Smartphones, 14 particularly, take much more bandwidth and that's a problem. In terms of 15 growth, the projections I've seen just recently suggest that we will grow as 16 much in the next ten years as we've grown in the last ten years, which 17 means another 25,000 - 30,000 people here. That's sizable and I suspect 18 a lot of them will be building or buying on the East Mesa. 19 1 have a cell tower two blocks from my house. It's disguised as a 20 pine tree and it's on the edge of a park and back of a fire station off of 21 Missouri. I didn't know it was there until someone pointed it out to me. 1 22 get good coverage, of course, but I don't know who owns the cell tower, 23 what company it is, but it's virtually invisible and, in fact, with the trees that 24 have grown up around it, it's been there, I guess, 5-6 years, I think it's 25 almost unnoticeable. All right, any other comments, questions, or 26 concerns? 27 Okay. I'm going to close this then, gentlemen, and we're going to 28 rise from our suspension of the rules. I'll entertain a motion to un-suspend 29 the rules. 30 31 Stowe: So moved. 32 33 Scholz: Is there a second? 34 35 Shipley: I'll second it. 36 37 Scholz: Okay. So Stowe moved and Shipley seconded to un-suspend the rules. 38 All those in favor say aye. 39 40 All: Aye. 41 42 Scholz: Okay. Those opposed same sign. Now we can vote and, Ms. Rodriguez, 43 you have some instructions for us? 44 45 Rodriguez: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. 46 41 1 Scholz: Thank you. 2 3 Rodriguez: For case Z2837 recommendations are: to approve the zone change 4 request as recommended by staff with the condition being that the land use 5 is limited to utility-related land uses for antennas, towers, communication 6 structures and other vertical structures and public/private utility 7 installations. The Commission may choose to approve the zone change 8 request with additional conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission; 9 recommend to deny the zone change request, or, again; table or postpone 10 the zone change request. 11 12 Scholz: Okay. I'll entertain a motion to approve the zone change request with 13 conditions as they were read. Is there a motion to do this? 14 15 Beard: So moved. 16 17 Scholz: So moved. Is there a second? 18 19 Shipley: Second. 20 21 Scholz: All right, I'll call the role. I'm sorry, Beard moved, Shipley seconded. 22 Commissioner Shipley. 23 24 Shipley: Aye findings, discussion and site visit. 25 26 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 27 28 Crane: My fellow Commissioners have persuaded me that on balance that it's 29 irresponsible for me to oppose this and because it does impinge on the 30 quality of life for people who are going to be buying houses, building 31 houses, in that neighborhood. So, with some reluctance, I am going to 32 vote aye based on findings, discussion and site visit. 33 34 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 35 36 Stowe: Aye based on findings, discussions and site visits. 37 38 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 39 40 Beard: Aye findings, discussions and site visit. 41 42 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye findings, discussions and site visits. Now for SUP- 43 11-01 and, Ms. Rodriguez... 44 45 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, your options this evening is to approve the Special Use 46 Permit as recommended by staff and in the staff report for the SUP there 42 1 are nine recommended conditions. Would you like me to read those nine 2 into the record? 3 4 Scholz: Please. 5 6 Rodriguez: Condition number one: the Special Use Permit be considered by the City 7 Council for final approval pending the final decision of the zone change 8 request for the subject property of case Z2837 by the City Council. 9 Number two: the communication structure shall be measured from the 10 lowest adjacent ground level vertically to the highest point of all structures, 11 whether attached to the ground, a building or a structure. Number three: 12 the structure shall be constructed and installed to manufacturer's 13 specifications and constructed to withstand a minimum 75-mile-an-hour 14 wind or the minimum wind speed as required by the City's Building Code. 15 Number four: the structure shall be permitted and constructed to meet 16 current adopted City of Las Cruces Building Code Requirements. Number 17 five: the structure shall conform to Federal Communication Commission 18 and/or Federal Aviation Administration regulations, if applicable. Number 19 six: a business registration is required for the free-standing commercial 20 communication structure. Number seven: no chain link fencing around the 21 communication structure is allowed along Sedona Hills Parkway. Number 22 eight: the equipment building associated with the communication structure 23 shall follow an architectural style, construction materials and colors similar 24 to existing buildings within the neighborhood, that is building facades for 25 tower accessory buildings and the first 20-feet of the tower shall be painted 26 earth tone or similar colors to existing structures within the neighborhood 27 and constructed of similar materials. Number nine: improvements to the 28 access must not cover water valves or vaults. If the grade is raised, the 29 developer must raise the valves and/or vaults as well. 30 31 Scholz: Thank you. I'll entertain a motion to accept SUP-11-01. 32 33 Crane: So moved. 34 35 Scholz: That was Crane moved... 36 37 Beard: Second. 38 39 Scholz: ...and Beard seconded. All right, I'll call the role. Commissioner Shipley. 40 41 Shipley: Aye findings, discussion and site visit. 42 43 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 44 45 Crane: Aye findings, discussion and site visit. 46 43 1 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe> 2 3 Stowe: Aye discussions, findings and site visits. 4 5 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 6 7 Beard: Aye findings, discussions and site visit. 8 9 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussions and site visits. So that 10 passes. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you, folks. 11 12 3. Case S-11-006: Application of Borderland Engineers and Surveyors, LLC on 13 behalf of Troy & Cecilia Pitcher, property owners, to approve a final plat for 5.203 14 ± acres known as the Mesa Grande Addition Subdivision, Plat No.1, Replat No.1. 15 The final plat proposes to replat one (1) existing tract of land into two (2) new 16 parcels. The subject property is located on the north side of Bataan Memorial 17 West, 0.165 ± miles east of its intersection with Mesa Grande Avenue; a.k.a. 5195 18 Bataan Memorial West; Parcel ID# 02-19666; Proposed Use: Existing single- 19 family residence and undetermined commercial high intensity uses; Council 20 District 5. 21 22 Scholz: All right, our next case is S-11-006. Is that right? 23 24 Ochoa: Yes, sir. 25 26 Scholz: Okay. 27 28 Ochoa: For the record, Adam Ochoa, Development Services. I'd like to ask the 29 Commission whether you'd like a full presentation or would you just like to 30 ask questions of me or of the applicant for this particular case. 31 32 Scholz: Commissioners, what's your pleasure on this? They're still reading very 33 hastily here. 34 35 Shipley: I think it needs to be covered. 36 37 Scholz: Yes, go ahead and give us the complete case. 38 39 Ochoa: Okay. The next case for tonight is S-11-006. It is a request for approval of 40 a final plat known as Mesa Grande Subdivision, Plat number one, Replat 41 number 1. As you can see on the vicinity map it is located with frontage 42 along Bataan Memorial West and Cortez Drive; Cortez Drive being 43 designated as a Local road and Bataan Memorial West as a Minor Arterial 44 roadway. 45 It is located on the north side of Bataan Memorial West 46 approximately 1.65 miles east of the intersection of Mesa Grande Avenue. 44 1 The actual address at the location is 5195 Bataan Memorial West. The 2 subject property currently encompasses approximately 5.203 acres and is 3 zoned R-1aC/C-3C, which is Single-Family Medium Density-Conditional/ 4 Commercial High Intensity-Conditional. If you go back to the vicinity map 5 the portions of that subject property that are zoned, as I said, R-1 aC and C- 6 3C are shown there, with the upper left-hand corner of the subject property, 7 being R-1 aC and the majority of the property being zoned C-3C. Presently, 8 the subject property is being used as a single-family home in that R-1 a 9 zoned area, a pizzeria and two vacant commercial buildings. This final plat 10 will replat the one existing tract into two new lots. Lot A-1 will encompass 11 approximately 8.46 acres and Lot A-2 will encompass the remainder of 12 4.206 +/- acres. The A-1 lot, smaller lot, be zoned R-1 aC and the larger 13 lot, Lot A-2 will be zoned with a C-3C zoning designation. 14 With this the final plat will require road dedication and road 15 improvements for a segment of Cortez Drive that is adjacent to the subject 16 property to the north. The applicant, instead of actually building out the 17 right-of-way, will be making a payment-in-lieu of road improvements for the 18 required segment of Cortez Drive. Any new commercial high intensity use 19 developed on Lot A-2 will require an access permit from the NMDOT or the 20 New Mexico Department of Transportation for access to and from Bataan 21 Memorial. That same lot, the commercial Lot A-2, will actually not be 22 permitted any access off of Cortez Drive, the Local road to the north. No 23 additional right-of-way is warranted along Bataan Memorial West per 24 NMDOT comments. 25 Here's an aerial map of the subject property: again, the northwest 26 corner of the property with the single-family home and the remainder, 27 larger bulk of the property, being the commercial zoned area. 28 Here is the final plat depicting the new lot line separating the smaller 29 residential lot to the north and the larger commercial to the remainder of 30 the property. 31 On August 3rd, 2011 the Development Review Committee, or DRC, 32 reviewed the proposed final plat. At the meeting the DRC did recommend 33 approval of the final plat with one condition: that condition being that the 34 final plat will not be allowed to be filed until cost breakdown for the road 35 improvements is approved and payment for the required road 36 improvements to Cortez Drive is received by the Community Development 37 Department. 38 With that being said, gentlemen, your options tonight are: one, to 39 vote "yes" and approve the final plat request as recommended by staff for 40 case S-11-006; two, to vote "yes" to approve the final plat request with 41 additional conditions as seen fit by the P & Z; three, to vote "no" to deny the 42 final plat request, or; four, to table/postpone and direct staff accordingly. 43 With that, that is the end of my presentation. I stand for questions. The 44 applicant is here and the representative of the applicant is here to answer 45 any additional questions. 46 45 1 Scholz: Okay. Questions, gentlemen? Commissioner Shipley. 2 3 Shipley: Thank you very much, Adam. That was a very good presentation. There's 4 one thing I'd like to clarify before I ask my questions. (Speaking aside to 5 the recording secretary to confirm he is being heard.) Adam, one thing I'd 6 like to request that we do is that if there's previous action taken on this, like 7 we did a zone change on this property: on your cover sheet let's show what 8 previous actions have been taken and when they were taken and the 9 reason I ask that is because I called you to ask you a question today, and 10 because I remembered when we had the zone change, there was a 11 condition in that that said that the commercial property couldn't use Cortez 12 as an access point...and so I didn't see that in here and, therefore, I was 13 confused...and you clarified it for me and I appreciate that. Had I had that 14 previous action I'd have gone back and checked it. Okay? Then I would 15 have known where to look. 16 17 Ochoa: Sure. We'll make a note of that, sir, and just to let you know as well, there 18 is a section in staff report that gives past history of the subject property and 19 there it actually depicts the Ordinance number and the actual zone change 20 that was done, although there is not a lot of detail on there like the 21 conditions that you were stating, sir. We'll try to do a little better the next 22 time for that one. 23 24 Shipley: Thank you. The second thing is the right-of-way payment: is that 25 made...as I thought about this, if the person that owns the property now 26 lives in the single-family residence and he sells the other parcel to 27 someone else to build another business or whatever the case might be, 28 and I was thinking in particular, I think, when we saw this they were talking 29 about putting in a propane storage company was going to go in there and 30 they were going to sell that property to them. So who pays for the right-of- 31 way? Does the current resident or current owner pay for that, all of that 32 right-of-way or does he just pay for the portion which is the single-family 33 residence? 34 35 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, Code states that it is the 36 responsibility of the subdivider to pay for any road improvement 37 requirements so it is the current property owner of the 5-acre property to 38 pay for that. 39 40 Shipley: For it all. 41 42 Ochoa: Yes, sir. 43 44 Shipley: Okay. That was all I had. 45 46 1 Scholz: Okay. Anyone else? I just had one thing: there's a new pizzeria there, 2 isn't there? 3 4 Ochoa: I believe so. Yes, sir. 5 6 Scholz: Yeah. Right. I saw their ad. I'm wondering: is that a high-intensity 7 commercial? It says, "Any new commercial high-intensity use developed 8 on Lot A-2 will require an access permit from NMDOT." Does this pizzeria 9 require a...or is that a high-intensity activity? 10 11 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, the pizzeria actually has been existing on the property with 12 the previous zoning designation that it had as well. It's not a brand new 13 one but it's been existing there, sir. It's just basically when any other new 14 commercial high-intensity uses come in is when they will be required to 15 receive access permission from NMDOT. 16 17 Scholz: Okay. All right, can we hear from the applicant, please? 18 19 Scanlon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Ted 20 Scanlon. I represent the applicant. I don't really have anything to add of 21 substance to Adam's presentation. I think he did a good job. I just want to 22 reiterate that the action here is just kind of cleaning up the whole thing and 23 making sure that the property lines coincide with the zoning lines and so 24 forth and to allow the resident to keep his property and sell off the 25 commercial land for another use. It's his subdivision and the creation of 26 this subdivision was actually a condition of the zone change so I don't know 27 if we're really required to do this as part of the zone change. So anyway, 28 it's just making things the way they need to be. 29 30 Scholz: All right. Questions for this gentleman? Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. 31 Scanlon, for your patience. All right, I'll entertain a motion to approve S-11- 32 006. I'm sorry, we left out something. Is there anyone from the public that 33 wishes to speak to this? I guess not. Okay. So it's closed for public 34 discussion. Gentlemen, I'll entertain a motion to accept S-11-006. 35 36 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, if I may interject, please. Could we actually have the 37 condition read or would you like me to read that condition? 38 39 Scholz: Would you do that, please? 40 41 Ochoa: Yes, sir. The condition recommended by staff if voting "yes" is basically: 42 the final plat will not be allowed to be filed until the cost breakdown for the 43 road improvements is approved and payment for the required road 44 improvements to Cortez Drive is received by the Community Development 45 Department. 46 47 1 Scholz: All right. Now I will entertain a motion? 2 3 Shipley: So moved. 4 5 Scholz: Shipley moves. Is there a second? 6 7 Stowe and Beard: Second. 8 9 Scholz: So it's a tie between Stowe and Beard. All right, I'll call the role. 10 Commissioner Shipley. 11 12 Shipley: Aye findings, discussion and site visit. 13 14 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 15 16 Crane: Aye findings and discussion. 17 18 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 19 20 Stowe: Aye findings and discussion. 21 22 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 23 24 Beard: Aye findings and discussions. 25 26 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion and site visit. All right, 27 we've approved that. 28 29 4. Case S-11-017: Application of Prestige Development Group Inc. on behalf of 30 ALPS LLC, property owner, to approve a master plan for 5.351 ± acres known as 31 the Valley Vista Plaza Master Plan. The master plan will allow for the phasing 32 and alternate summary for the commercial development. The subject properties 33 are located on the southeast corner of Valley Drive and Avenida de Mesilla; a.k.a. 34 1305 S. Valley Drive and 1450 S. Valley Drive; Parcel IDs 02-07035 and 16810; 35 Proposed Use: Shopping/business center; Council District 4. 36 37 Scholz: Okay. Our next case is S-11-0117, the Valley Vista Plaza Master Plan 38 and, Adam, you're up again. Are you still up to this? 39 40 Ochoa: Yes, sir. 41 42 Scholz: Okay. Your medication kicked in, did it? 43 44 Ochoa: A little bit. (laughing) 45 46 Scholz: All right. 48 1 2 Ochoa: I ask the same question for this one, sir. Would you like a full presentation 3 or would you just like to ask more questions? 4 5 Scholz: I'd like a presentation. 6 7 Ochoa: Sure. The final case we'll be hearing tonight is case S-11-017. It's a 8 request for approval of a master plan known as Valley Vista Plaza Master 9 Plan. As you can see on the vicinity map it is located on the southeast 10 corner of Avenida de Mesilla and Valley Drive; both roads being classified 11 as Principal Arterial roadways by the Metropolitan Planning Organization 12 or MPO. 13 The two subject properties where the master plan will be located 14 are located on the southeast corner of Valley Drive and Avenida de 15 Mesilla; better known with the addresses of 1305 South Valley Drive and 16 1450 South Valley Drive. Currently both. properties combined 17 encompasses 5.351 acres, which is going to be the size for the entire 18 master plan, and they are presently zoned C-3, which is Commercial High 19 Intensity. Currently 1305 South Valley Drive is undeveloped and is the 20 property located more north, closer to the intersection of Avenida de 21 Mesilla and Valley Drive; and 1450 South Valley, which is the most 22 southern property, currently consists of a used auto dealership. The 23 applicant is proposing to master plan the two properties into a 24 shopping/business center that will be subdivided at a later time utilizing 25 the City's alternate summary process. Any lot created during that process 26 will be require to follow all development standards of the C-3, Commercial 27 High Intensity, development standards for that zoning district. 28 The proposed master plan is supposed to be developed in two 29 phases with seven different planning parcels; and just for clarification, 30 those seven planning parcels, essentially the applicant's showing how he 31 would eventually make those planning parcels into actual lots when he 32 does the alternate summary process with the City. The master plan will 33 allow for shared parking through the development and shared access 34 throughout for all seven, eventually seven lots, in the shopping center and 35 then will allow all of them to have access to Valley Drive. All development 36 that happens on the property will have to follow all requirements of the 37 2001 Zoning Code, as amended, and all other City regulations. 38 This is an example of the master plan showing the right-hand side 39 being Phase 1 and left-hand side being Phase 2 with the seven different 40 planning parcels as depicted by the applicant. 41 Here is an aerial map of the subject property. As you can see there 42 is still a pad for a store. There was an existing building on the more 43 northern property that is no longer there and the existing used car 44 dealership located on the southern property. 45 With that, on August 3rd, again, DRC reviewed the proposed master 46 plan and at that meeting the DRC recommended approval for the 49 1 1 proposed master plan with no conditions. 2 With that being said, your options tonight, gentlemen, are: one, vote 3 "yes" and approve the master plan as recommended by staff for case S- 4 11-017; two, to vote "yes" and approve the master plan with additional 5 conditions deemed appropriate by the P & Z for the proposed case; three, 6 to vote "no" and deny the master plan, or; four, table or postpone the 7 proposal and direct staff accordingly. That is the conclusion of my 8 presentation. I stand for questions and the applicant is here, as well, if 9 you have any questions for him. 10 11 Scholz: All right. Questions for this gentleman? Commissioner Shipley. 12 13 Shipley: Mr. Ochoa, I want to say first of all this is a good presentation. Secondly, 14 thank you for the full-sized plans. It was very helpful to be able to sit down 15 and to read them and understand them. 16 17 Ochoa: Yes, sir. 18 19 Shipley: Question number one and maybe it's a question for the applicant but: 20 what kind of businesses are going to go in there? It obviously looks like 21 it's going to be, from the description, there'll be some things that are going 22 to have possibly drive-up aisles and that so I'll save that question for him. 23 The question I called you about earlier today was about the flood 24 plain and it stated in the pamphlet that they're going to do an adjustment 25 of 1.2 feet to make that up so it's not in the flood plain on the southern 26 end. My concern was that if they do raise the level by grading and just do 27 that will it affect the properties around him and I looked at those properties 28 on the residential on the east side could be affected. I don't think that 29 would be the case; but it is just one of the things I wanted to be aware of. 30 Then the other concern was the traffic island, that left turn that was 31 discussed in there by the DRC and they talked about the fact that when 32 they'd come out there's one place they can cut all the way across, go 33 across two lanes of traffic to an island and then...the way it looked to me 34 when I looked at it today is that if you tried to go out that where that is 35 located into that island you're going to be almost perpendicular to that flow 36 of traffic. You can't get across and make a right turn and then make a u- 37 turn is the way it goes. So it might be a right-out only from that point might 38 be a thing that we ought to look at from a conditional standpoint. 39 Number four was there was chain link fencing all around the parcel, 40 all along the back, and I know our current regulations require that that 41 cannot be. It has to be some other form of buffer, especially between the 42 residential area along the back. There's supposed to be a buffer, an 43 opaque buffer area, etc. and that'll be complied with, I'm sure. So the key 44 question was: you will require them to remove the chain link fencing? 45 46 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, it is not a requirement for them to 50 1 remove the chain link fence; but it is a requirement that they provide the 2 adequate amount of bufferyard for a C-3 zoned property adjacent to a 3 residentially zoned property, which would be either a 10-foot...I don't know 4 if you remember from previous like discussions at this meetings...either a 5 10-foot opaque bufferyard, which is basically a solid fence they cannot see 6 through up to 6-feet and intermediate visual openings up to 20-feet and, of 7 course, with 10-feet distance between either a building or a parking area 8 at where the bufferyard begins; of a 15-foot semi-opaque bufferyard, 9 which is basically a 4-foot wall instead of a 6-foot tall wall. So it would be 10 up to the applicant what he would like to do with that fence. It's not a 11 requirement for him to remove it but he would have to provide something 12 that's opaque that you couldn't see through, sir. 13 14 Shipley: Right. In the plans it didn't show anything along that. That's the reason I 15 asked the question. 16 17 Ochoa: And, as I said and in the presentation as well, he would be required to 18 follow all development standards for the C-3 so that would be something 19 he'd have to follow, sir. 20 21 Shipley: I'll hold the question about the businesses until the applicant comes up. 22 23 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Crane. 24 25 Crane: The smallest of small points, Mr. Ochoa, but I noticed that the two 26 properties are on the same side of Valley Drive. One has an odd number 27 address and the other has an even number. It's unusual. I just wondered 28 if there's an error there...1505 and 1450. 29 30 Ochoa: Hmmm. I didn't see that. That was probably an error on that, sir, but the 31 parcel ID numbers are on the staff report, as well, locating the two 32 properties, as well as the kind of description of where it will be located 33 along Valley Drive, sir. 34 35 Crane: Thank you. 36 37 Scholz: Okay. Was that it, Commissioner Crane? 38 39 Crane: Yes, thank you. 40 41 Scholz: Okay. I just had one question: I noticed when I was on the property today 42 that I know there's a car dealer on the south end of the property and you 43 have that in your map, that area blanked off. Oh, here it is on the 44 proposed master plan and so the existing car dealer is down here but I 45 also noticed cars parked and actually a lot extending into this area. So, 46 are there two car dealers there? 51 1 2 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, I believe what's existing there is a car dealership/auto body 3 shop, that southern adjacent property, and there's one on the subject 4 property, as well. I believe the applicant will probably be able to clear that 5 up for you, as well, sir. 6 7 Scholz: Okay. Good. That was my only question. All right, any other questions 8 for this gentleman? May we hear from the applicant, please? 9 10 Dixon: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Michael 11 Dixon with Prestige Development Group. I am the applicant that's 12 involved with this master plan submittal that you guys are looking at 13 tonight. Mr. Ochoa did a fantastic job presenting this to you guys and I will 14 go ahead and open it up for some questions if there are any. 15 16 Scholz: All right, Commissioner Shipley, you had a question for him. 17 18 Shipley: Just the kinds of businesses that are going in there...you've done some 19 leasing already, I understood. 20 21 Dixon: Yes, sir. We have a mixed-retail use for the subject property between 22 regular high-end retailers to direct to restaurant proposed uses; although 23 we don't have anything finalized until we get through with this meeting 24 tonight and I can see if we have our approvals. Once we have that, we do 25 have three leases that will be signed and executed within the next few 26 weeks which would lead to start to development before the end of the 27 year. So at this time I am unable to say what the uses are until we have 28 approval. 29 30 Shipley: Okay. 31 32 Scholz: Okay. My question was about the existing auto dealer that's there. I 33 assume that he's going to be gone. 34 35 Dixon: Yes, sir. He's currently leasing that property from...he's currently leasing 36 that property. Once we have our approvals and get everything done we 37 have a 30-day notice to them that they have to vacate the premises. It's 38 actually two pieces, I believe you're asking, on the very corner of Rigsby 39 and Valley there is a separate parcel that's owned by a different owner. 40 41 Scholz: Right. I assumed that. 42 43 Dixon: And just north of them is the Credit Cars, the car dealer. Their office is on 44 the most southerly end of that parcel but they do have lease rights to that 45 entire parcel so they do have cars that are parked a little farther north than 46 where their office is located. So it is just one car dealer that's there. 52 1 2 Scholz: Okay. Any other questions for this gentleman? Okay. Thank you. Is 3 there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this? Okay, would 4 you come up to the microphone, sir and state your name? 5 6 Garcia: My name's Jerry Garcia and I'm one of the homeowners right behind that 7 existing proposal now and my only concern is that, sir, well, I've got a 8 family. I've got grandkids now. On the parking on that: how is that gonna 9 be established there? How is that going to be facing? 10 11 Dixon: West...(inaudible —moved away from microphone) 12 13 Scholz: Please stay on mike, sir. Yeah. 14 15 Dixon: The on-site parking will basically be contained within the site. It'll be 16 facing...we have no parking between Valley and any business as the DRC 17 Committee recommended we didn't have that as part of...as one of our 18 things as part of going through this so we do have all of our parking, 19 which will be on-site. 20 21 Garcia: Okay. Now that easement, the easement where the chain link fence is... 22 23 Dixon: Yes. 24 25 Garcia: Now whose is that? Now that property... 26 27 Dixon: Which easement are you talking about? The buffer? 28 29 Garcia: Yeah, between the brick wall, the block wall and the fence. 30 31 Dixon: That's ours: the easement that exists, the existing utility easements that 32 are there for the car lot. The utilities are there and on the other side the 33 easement will be where we incorporate our landscaping buffer and our 34 semi-opaque buffer, as well, and then begins ours per the Code. 35 36 Garcia: And utilities? How about the overhead lines? 37 38 Dixon: They'll stay there. 39 40 Garcia: They will stay there. 41 42 Dixon: Yes, they will. 43 44 Garcia: Yeah. Okay. 45 46 Dixon: We can't relocate those lines through EI Paso Electric. We've talked with 53 1 them about doing some other things. 2 3 Garcia: Underground...nothing? 4 5 Dixon: To do that we'd have to completely tear the whole plant down and rebuild 6 it and EI Paso Electric won't let us (inaudible - too much background 7 noise) 8 9 Garcia: As far a buffer, like you said, on a fence, you know, now...would that be 10 where the chain link fence is or is it possible per the homeowners? 11 12 Dixon: Our buffer stops, basically...we're using part of the easement, that existing 13 utility easement, is in part of our landscaping buffer. Now, we have a 15- 14 foot landscaping buffer which starts from your rear property line, goes 15- 15 feet; then we have our semi-opaque fence, which will be a 4-foot tall 16 fence; then we have a 10-foot set back from that to the back of our 17 building. So we'll basically be from your back property line in our first 18 building, 25-feet, which encompasses and opaque buffer wall and the 19 landscaping, which will be part of our development. 20 21 Garcia: 4-feet? 22 23 Dixon: 4-feet. 24 25 Garcia: (inaudible — away from the microphone) `cause my fence, if I'm not 26 mistaken...it's a, what is it? 5-feet? (inaudible — stepped away from the 27 microphone) Because my fence, I think, is about 5-feet and my ground 28 drops so that's another thing...on the flooding...was, you know, brought 29 up on that, you know, and it's going to tear down something down there 30 with that. 31 32 Dixon: No, that's incorrect. Actually, what we're going to do on that is instead of 33 re-draining the whole site, we're required for FEMA certification and for all 34 the standards that they put out for flood insurance and everything else that 35 our building is outside the flood parcel area. So instead of going and filling 36 the whole site with two or three feet of dirt, the plan is to go and raise our 37 pads out of flood plain, recertify our pads without changing the entire 38 structure or the development and everything else around us. 39 40 Garcia: Okay. That's it. 41 42 Scholz: Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else? 43 44 Shipley: Clarify that again: you're going to build your pads up...I think it's 1.2-feet. 45 Is that correct? 46 54 1 Dixon: Yes. It depends...each pad is a little bit different but our largest pad is 2 right at 1.2-feet. Instead of raising the entire site we will build the pads up 3 and we will slope everything accordingly. So instead of filling the entire 4 site, which would change the flow of the entire site and everything around 5 us, we'll just target what's on our site and we'll also create on-site ponding 6 on each parcel to hold a sufficient amount of runoff so that we don't 7 encumber the other properties around us. 8 9 Shipley: Okay. The problem that we've had in the past, though, is that someone 10 changes, you know, the way the water flows. In other words, you build a 11 kind of a dam; well, that...where the water flowed before it wasn't a 12 problem to the neighbors behind you? But if you block that off and then 13 the water rises up into their yards, that's what we're really thinking about 14 or at least what I'm thinking about is that when you build something you've 15 got to look at what's going to happen to the adjacent property owners. So 16 that's why I said if you raise it up so you're out of the flood plain, that's 17 okay. But it's not just the fact that you're taking care of the water that 18 you're generating on your property, you've altered the natural flow and, 19 therefore, you've basically built a dam, which causes the people behind 20 you to have a problem. So it's very important that you look at that from 21 the standpoint of you don't create a problem for the people behind you. 22 23 Dixon: I understand that and we had a discussion with Engineering in going into 24 this process of our submittal and that was an issue that they brought up: 25 that we notated that it was within a 100-year flood and that we had notated 26 also that it wouldn't affect...as part of our approval it wouldn't affect 27 surrounding properties and each property would have sufficient ponding to 28 take all the runoff that we would create or any potential runoff or discharge 29 we would create off of these parcels. Once again, Engineering has made 30 that a recommendation and a part of going through our processing. We 31 definitely need to keep an eye on it. 32 33 Shipley: Have you held any neighborhood meetings with the residents behind you? 34 35 Dixon: No, sir. I have not. 36 37 Shipley: It might be a really good idea before you start building and doing 38 something to go to them and ask to meet, because when I looked at the 39 property today and walked that property a lot of their walls are really 40 deteriorating and if you were to put up a 6-foot wall a little closer it would 41 do two things: number one, it would help detract the noise if you have 42 traffic moving through there at night and some of those businesses look 43 like they're going to be 24/7 operations or late night operations, food, in 44 general, and delivery trucks and those kinds of things. So if you were to 45 build a taller wall that would, obviously, preclude people from using that as 46 an entry point over the wall. 55 1 Secondly, it would also help reduce the noise that might 2 affect...and the light pollution and those kind of things. In my opinion, it 3 would be a really good idea to talk to the neighbors and see how they feel 4 about it because you can make some very good points by including them 5 in this process. 6 7 Dixon: Okay. 8 9 Scholz: All right. Any other questions or comments? Commissioner Beard. 10 11 Beard: For Mr. Ochoa... Adam, is there any provision that any lighting that is 12 generated in his new property be...not go into the neighbors' backyards? 13 14 Ochoa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard, there is Night Sky Ordinance that 15 essentially requires the shielding of lighting. That's a building requirement 16 that would be taken care of during the building permit where an electrical 17 inspector will take a look at that and make sure that he followed full cut-off 18 requirements and so forth. 19 20 Beard: Okay. Commissioner Shipley, Valley is, when it rains hard, it floods. 1 21 mean, this is not a good area for rain. Water will be everywhere. It is not 22 a good drainage anywhere in that particular area. 23 24 Scholz: All right. Anything else? Okay. I'm going to close this to public 25 discussion. Gentlemen, what's your pleasure? I'll entertain a motion to 26 approve. 27 28 Crane: So moved. 29 30 Scholz: All right. Is there a second? 31 32 Stowe: Second. 33 34 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Commissioner Shipley, did you 35 have a point? 36 37 Shipley: I would like to add a condition to this. I mean, I'm for approving this 38 master plan. I think it's a very good idea. I think it fits the thing; but I want 39 another condition that before...we'll give a temporary approval for now 40 and, upon completion of this condition, then he's done that. But I think he 41 needs to go to the neighborhood and he needs to talk to them and get 42 their input. You know, we're changing what's there now and what they've 43 been living with for the past fifteen or twenty years and it's, you know, we 44 don't do things around here without getting input. We have one neighbor 45 here tonight and I looked at the houses and there are considerable people 46 that are going to be affected by this. So it would be, in my opinion, my 56 1 humble opinion, that it would be a good idea to make sure that the people 2 have a chance to have their input and I think it would just show that we're 3 really trying to do the right thing here. I think it's a good use and I think 4 they'll be all for it; but I think it needs to be as part of this thing. 5 6 Scholz: All right, so you want to amend the motion then? 7 8 Shipley: Cheryl's going to jump out of her chair and straighten me out here. (all 9 laughing) 10 11 Scholz: Ms. Rodriguez. 12 13 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, if it is the Commission's desire to 14 add the condition for the neighborhood meeting staff would recommend 15 that that neighborhood meeting be facilitated between the developer and 16 the neighborhood prior to the first building permit to be issued and that 17 with the first building permit submittal they'll have to turn in the sign-in 18 sheet acknowledging that they had the neighborhood meeting. 19 20 Shipley: Could we also get some kind of status update that comes back to us when 21 they have that meeting so it could just be read as old business so that we 22 get an idea if there were any issues? 23 24 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, we can do that at a meeting or when I hear about it in the 25 office I can facilitate an e-mail to you, to the Commission in its entirety. 26 27 Shipley: I'm comfortable with that. 28 29 Scholz: All right. So how should the condition read then? 30 31 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that the condition read that: a 32 neighborhood meeting be facilitated between the developer and the 33 adjacent residential neighborhood prior to a new building permit being 34 requested for development on the property and that, with a submittal 35 requirement for the building permit would be the neighborhood sign-in 36 sheet acknowledging that there was a neighborhood meeting. 37 38 Scholz: Okay. 39 40 Shipley: Does that include Community Development as well? 41 42 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, when they have the neighborhood meeting if he lets us 43 know then staff will try to make the attendance, but this should be a 44 meeting completely facilitated between the developer and the 45 neighborhood. 46 57 1 Shipley: But you might be able to offer some... 2 3 Scholz: Commissioner Shipley, do we need to put additional conditions on this? 4 5 Shipley: No. 6 7 Scholz: Thank you. 8 9 Shipley: I'm just trying to make sure we do the right thing. 10 11 Scholz: 1 am sure we will do the right thing. 12 13 Crane: I'll accept that condition as part of my motion. 14 15 Scholz: Yes, that condition is part of the motion. Did I have a second? I forgot. 16 17 Stowe: Second. 18 19 Scholz: It was seconded by Commissioner Stowe. Okay. I'll call the role. 20 Commissioner Shipley. 21 22 Shipley: Aye findings, discussion and site visit. 23 24 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 25 26 Crane: Aye findings and discussion. 27 28 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 29 30 Stowe: Aye findings and discussion. 31 32 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 33 34 Beard: Aye findings, discussions and site visit. 35 36 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion and site visit. 37 38 IV. OTHER BUSINESS 39 40 Scholz: Is there any other business before us? 41 42 V. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS - NONE 43 44 VI. ADJOURNMENT (8:45 pm) 45 46 Scholz: What time is it, Commissioner Beard? 58 1 2 Beard: It is eight minutes `til. 3 4 Scholz: Eight minutes to nine. We are adjourned. Thank you. 5 6 7 8 Chairperson 59