Loading...
09-27-2011 City of las Cruces" P E O P L E N E L P I N O P E O P L E PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA The following agenda will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Las Cruces, New Mexico, at a public hearing held on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 beginning at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 700 N. Main Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. The City of Las Cruces does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, color, ancestry, serious medical condition, national origin, age, or disability in the provision of services. The City of Las Cruces will make reasonable accommodation for a qualified individual who wishes to attend this meeting. Please notify the City Community Development Department at least 48 hours before the meeting by calling 528-3043 (voice) or 1-800-659-8331 (TTY) if accommodation is necessary. This document can be made available in alternative formats by calling the same numbers listed above. I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —August 23, 2011 & September 8, 2011 III. POSTPONEMENTS — NONE IV. CONSENT AGENDA Those items on the consent agenda will be voted by one motion with the acceptance of the agenda. Any Planning and Zoning Commissioner, Staff or member of the public may remove an item from the consent agenda for discussion by the commission. 1. Case Z2843: Application of Bob Steven Gilbert to rezone from R-1 a (Single- Family Medium Density) to REM-C (Single-Family Residential Estate Mobile- Conditional) on a 0.98 ± acre lot located on the south side of Santa Cruz Avenue, 235 ± feet west of its intersection with Mesa Drive; a.k.a. 5452 Santa Cruz Avenue; Parcel ID# 02-19206. Proposed Use: A single-family residence with the ability to raise and keep large animals (horses, mules, donkeys, swine, buffalo and beefalo); Council District 5. 2. Case Z2844: Application of Summit Engineering on behalf of 1732, LLC to rezone from R-3/C-2 (Multi-Dwelling Medium Density/Commercial Medium Intensity) to C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) on a 0.464 ± acre lot located on the north side of Madrid Avenue, 245 ± feet west of its intersection with Main Street; a.k.a. 130 Madrid Avenue; Parcel ID# 02-04133. Proposed Use: Unspecified commercial medium intensity use; Council District 1. Page 1 of 2 V. OLD BUSINESS — NONE VI. NEW BUSINESS 1. Case Z2842: Application of Ted G. Scanlon on behalf of Hacienda RV, LLC to rezone from C-3C (Commercial High Intensity-Conditional) to C-3C (Commercial High Intensity-Conditional) to remove two (2) existing conditions placed upon the zoning designation on a 6.04 ± acre lot located on the south side of Stern Drive, 0.35 ± miles east of its intersection with Avenida de Mesilla; Parcel ID# 02-30595. Proposed Use: Limited commercial high intensity uses; Council District 4. VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IX. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS X. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 FOR THE 3 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 4 City Council Chambers 5 September 27, 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 William Stowe, Member 12 Ray Shipley, Member 13 Donald Bustos, Member 14 15 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 16 Shawn Evans, Member 17 18 STAFF PRESENT: 19 David Weir, Director, Community Development 20 Adam Ochoa, Acting Senior Planner 21 Helen Revels, Planner 22 Lorenzo Vigil, Acting Assistant Planner 23 Mark Dubbin, CLC Fire Department 24 Harry "Pete" Connelly, CLC Attorney 25 Rusty Babington, CLC Legal Staff 26 Bonnie Ennis, Recording Secretary 27 28 I. CALL TO ORDER (6:00 pm) 29 30 Scholz: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission 31 meeting for September 27, 2011. My name is Charlie Scholz. I am the 32 Chair of the Commission. Before we begin I want to introduce the 33 other members of the Commission who are here tonight. On my far 34 right is Commissioner Shipley. Commissioner Shipley is the Mayor's 35 appointee. Next to him is Commissioner Crane, who represents District 36 1...I'm sorry, District 4. Next to him is Commissioner Stowe, who 37 represents District 1. Then there is Commissioner Bustos, who 38 represents District 3. Commissioner Beard, who represents District 2; 39 and I represent Council District 6. 40 41 ll. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —August 23, 2011 & September 8, 2011 42 43 Scholz: The first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes and, 44 gentlemen, we are only going to approve the minutes of August 23, 45 2011, our meeting of the month ago because we do not have a copy 46 yet of the September 8th minutes. Any additions or corrections to the 1 1 minutes of August 23rd? Commissioner Crane? 2 3 Crane: I came across three things, Mr. Chairman: page 19, line 36. 4 5 Scholz: Go ahead. 6 7 Crane: We are looking here at regularizing here something which is 8 "consummate" with the Alameda Neighborhood Overlay. I think 9 probably said "consistent." 10 11 Scholz: Well, that makes sense. 12 13 Crane: Secondly, page 45... 14 15 Scholz: Go ahead. 16 17 Crane: ...line 6, going back to the previous line, "I see the flood problems but 1 18 cannot believe Mr. Binns...," I think I said, "would be so foolish;" not 19 "who is." 20 21 Scholz: Right. You weren't accusing him, were you? No. 22 23 Crane: And take out the comma after "Binns." 24 25 Scholz: Okay. 26 27 Crane: And finally, page 50, line 44, minor typo, a "c/" in front of 28 "Commissioners." Take them out. 29 30 Scholz: Ah, yes. Okay. Any other additions or corrections? All right, I'll 31 entertain a motion to approve. 32 33 Stowe: So moved. 34 35 Scholz: Stowe moves and... 36 37 Crane: Second it. 38 39 Scholz: ...and Crane seconds. All those in favor say aye. 40 41 All: Aye. 42 43 Scholz: Those opposed same sign and abstentions. 44 45 Shipley: Abstain. 46 2 1 Scholz: Okay, two abstentions and four of four. All right. 2 3 111. POSTPONEMENTS - NONE 4 5 Scholz: There are no postponements. Is that right, Ms. Rodriguez? 6 7 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. 8 9 IV. CONSENT AGENDA 10 11 Scholz: Then the next item is our consent agenda. Now for those of you who 12 haven't been here before here's how the consent agenda works: we 13 ask if anyone wishes to speak to any of the cases. If anyone from the 14 Commission, from the staff or from the public wishes to speak to the 15 cases then we will put them as the first item on the new business 16 agenda. 17 18 Those items on the consent agenda will be voted by one motion with the acceptance 19 of the agenda. Any Planning and Zoning Commissioner, Staff or member of the 20 public may remove an item from the consent agenda for discussion by the 21 commission. 22 23 1. Case Z2843: Application of Bob Steven Gilbert to rezone from R-1 a 24 (Single-Family Medium Density) to REM-C (Single-Family Residential 25 Estate Mobile-Conditional) on a 0.98 ± acre lot located on the south side 26 of Santa Cruz Avenue, 235 ± feet west of its intersection with Mesa 27 Drive; a.k.a. 5452 Santa Cruz Avenue; Parcel ID# 02-19206. Proposed 28 Use: A single-family residence with the ability to raise and keep large 29 animals (horses, mules, donkeys, swine, buffalo and beefalo); Council 30 District 5. 31 32 Scholz: So the first case is Z2843. Anyone wishes to speak to that? No? 33 34 2. Case Z2844: Application of Summit Engineering on behalf of 1732, LLC 35 to rezone from R-3/C-2 (Multi-Dwelling Medium Density/Commercial 36 Medium Intensity) to C-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity) on a 0.464 ± 37 acre lot located on the north side of Madrid Avenue, 245 ± feet west of 38 its intersection with Main Street; a.k.a. 130 Madrid Avenue; Parcel ID# 39 02-04133. Proposed Use: Unspecified commercial medium intensity 40 use; Council District 1. 41 42 Scholz: And then case Z2844? I'm sorry, did I miss someone? You wish to 43 speak to Z2843? Okay, fine, I'll put that as number 1 on our new 44 business agenda then. All right, anyone wishes to speak to Z2844? 45 Okay, if not then we'll simply vote on that as our consent agenda item. 46 Yes, Ms. Revels? 3 1 2 Revels: The gentleman that raised his hand is actually the property owner so 3 he doesn't have any comments. 4 5 Scholz: Oh, okay. All right, so we'll leave that on the consent agenda then. 6 So here's how the consent agenda works: we take one vote to 7 approve all of those items; or I should say, both of those items. All 8 right? I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. 9 10 Shipley: Move to approve the consent agenda 11 12 Scholz: Okay, it's been moved. Is there a second? 13 14 Bustos: Second. 15 16 Scholz: (to recording secretary) Did you get that? You didn't get that. Okay, 17 Shipley moved and Bustos seconded. All those in favor say aye. 18 19 All: Aye. 20 21 Scholz: Those opposed same sign. All right, the consent agenda is approved. 22 23 V. OLD BUSINESS - NONE 24 25 Scholz: That brings us to our...there's no old business, I assume. No. 26 27 Rodriguez: No, sir. 28 29 VI. NEW BUSINESS 30 31 32 1. Case Z2842: Application of Ted G. Scanlon on behalf of Hacienda RV, 33 LLC to rezone from C-3C (Commercial High Intensity-Conditional) to C- 34 3C (Commercial High Intensity-Conditional) to remove two (2) existing 35 conditions placed upon the zoning designation on a 6.04 ± acre lot 36 located on the south side of Stern Drive, 0.35 ± miles east of its 37 intersection with Avenida de Mesilla; Parcel ID# 02-30595. Proposed 38 Use: Limited commercial high intensity uses; Council District 4. 39 40 Scholz: Okay, that brings us to our new business which is case Z2843...42, I'm 41 sorry, and Ms. Rodriguez, you are subbing for Mr. Ochoa, 1 42 understand, who is under the weather. 43 44 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. 45 46 Scholz: Very nice of you. 4 1 2 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, presented before you this evening is a 3 request for a zone change from C-3C to C-3C. The applicant is 4 requesting to remove development conditions that were previously 5 established as part of the zoning that took place in 2004, as well as 6 additional development conditions as part of the zone change request. 7 Case specifics: the property in question for the zone change 8 request comprises approximately 6 acres in size and is located on the 9 south side of Stern Drive. Stern Drive is located just west of 1-10 and 10 just north of Boutz Road...it's on the west side of Stern Drive...excuse 11 me, and it's approximately 0.35 miles east of its intersection with 12 Avenida de Mesilla. The property is currently zoned C-3C. The zoning 13 for this property was rezoned in the year 2004. The 6 acres in 14 question are currently undeveloped land.... excuse me, the zoning was 15 established in 2003. 16 Some case history for the zoning for the property: the area is 17 part of the Hacienda de Mesilla Master Plan that was established in 18 1997. In 1997 they established the three-phase development of which 19 two phases would incorporate commercial retail-type land uses and 20 one phase would establish an RV Park. In 1997, as part of that master 21 plan you also had a zone change from A-2 to C-2. A C-2 zoning 22 designation at that time was part of the 1981 Zoning Code where C-2 23 represented your highest and best commercial land uses. But also, in 24 addition, when you had an RV park the Zoning Code at that time also 25 required the need for a Special Use Permit so some of the case history 26 for one of the phases of this master planned area is you had a zone 27 change from A-2 to C-2C with development conditions and you also 28 had a Special Use Permit that also had associated development 29 conditions. 30 Then, in May of 2003, with the adoption of the 2001 Zoning 31 Code, the property owner at that time wanted to bring the property into 32 compliance with the 2001 Zoning Code. So you had a zone change 33 from C-2C to C-3C and during the course of that all of the development 34 conditions that were established in 1997 were carried forward through 35 2003. 36 Present day, the applicant is seeking a zone change to remove 37 some of the development conditions and add development conditions. 38 They are requesting to remove three conditions of the original twelve 39 and they are as follows: that no structures would exceed 60-feet in 40 height; that emergency exits shall require Fire Department approval, 41 and; the site plan as approved shall be followed. In referencing the 42 site plan as approved shall be followed is what established this 6 acres 43 in question for tonight's zone change was to be part of an RV park, 44 which was developed on adjacent property in this area. The applicant 45 is also requesting to add two new development conditions regarding 46 the improvements to Stern Drive. Stern Drive is identified in the MPO 5 1 Transportation Plan as a Minor Arterial. It's currently undeveloped in 2 this area and the City's Development Codes for property that's being 3 developed does not require road improvements unless you are 4 subdividing a property and, to gain access to the property. Staff is 5 recommending the condition that the property owner provide matching 6 existing conditions on Stern Drive. You are not going to be building it 7 to Minor Arterial status but at least you're getting some pavement on 8 the ground. The applicant has also agreed to modify some of the 9 permitted uses allowed in the C-3 Zoning Code right now to limit some 10 of those allowed commercial uses so it's not the broad range of C-3 11 uses. It's more of a narrow scope but greater than what was current 12 specified as an RV park. 13 You're not having exactly a change in land use, changing 14 conditions, other than the fact that the RV Park was developed on the 15 adjacent property. The remaining 6 acres of that was not developed 16 as an RV park. The applicant is seeking to develop it with the 17 commercial uses that are identified in the C-3 Zoning District, but they 18 would like to keep all of these eleven conditions and I can go ahead 19 and read these into the record: the first one is a 50-foot opaque 20 landscape buffer/screen as defined in the Las Cruces Design 21 Standards for landscaping must be provided along the property lines 22 abutting residential zones. Our current Zoning Code does require 23 buffer against mitigating uses and, in this case, the adjacent properties 24 are zoned Residential and, at the time in 1997 and in 2003, the 50-foot 25 opaque landscape buffer was a requirement to help mitigate the impact 26 between commercial and residential uses. Staff is recommended that 27 this condition stand. In addition, a 25-foot opaque landscape buffer 28 shall be provided against any adjacent agricultural zones. A Licensed 29 professional landscape architect must be used for landscape design. 30 This is consistent with our Codes. In addition to the landscape buffers, 31 15-percent of the property must be landscaped. Again, that's still a 32 current development requirement in today's adopted Development 33 Codes. For any recreational vehicle traffic that's exiting onto Boutz 34 Road, appropriate curb cuts would have to be provided. I believe 35 those are currently in place but staff is just recommended to keep that 36 condition carried forward. All renderings illustrating proposed buildings 37 for Resolution 97-386 must be adhered to. This is if the property wants 38 to continue to be developed as an RV park it would be consistent with 39 those illustrations that were originally established and an RV park is 40 still an allowed use in the C-3 Zoning District. All lighting used within 41 the lot must screened from residential uses. Ponding shall be moved 42 as far away as possible from all residential uses. Covenant Land Use 43 and Settlement Agreement dated November 21, 1997 shall be 44 followed. The remaining unimproved section of Stern Drive shall be 45 built out to match the existing conditions of the improved section of 46 Stern Drive whenever development is proposed on that 6-acre 6 1 property. The permitted uses for the subject property shall be limited 2 to those found in Attachment #3 of your packet. So what the applicant 3 did is he went through the allowed land uses in the C-3 and then 4 narrowed that focus a bit more and some of the more intense 5 commercial uses, they removed those. 6 The history of some of these conditions is that there was 7 considerable public opposition to the Special Use Permit in the zoning 8 in 1997 and 2003. If the property is intended to be developed in an RV 9 park, which it's permitted to do, it will still have to follow those original 10 conditions that were established in 1997 and 2003. 11 Here's an aerial map of the subject property. You'll see here at 12 the top of the screen where the cursor is, you do have 1-10. You do 13 have Stern Drive coming through here, which acts as a frontage road. 14 The subject property, the 6-acre site, you'll see where the pavement 15 ends for Stern Drive so if this property is to be developed the existing 16 improvements that are here on Stern Drive would have to be matched 17 in this area here pursuant to one of the recommended conditions. The 18 RV Park was developed pursuant to the master plan and the zoning in 19 1997 and 2003 located in this general area; and then just to the 20 southwest of the property located in this area you do have residential 21 development and then some agricultural lands. So you do have the 22 buffering requirements that would stay intact to help mitigate those 23 uses for the agricultural property and the residential property, 24 depending on whatever commercial use is proposed for the 6-acre site. 25 These are all the findings that are identified as justification for 26 the zone change request. They are a part of your staff report, talking 27 about the location of the property, the current zoning designation, the 28 property's undeveloped, it's part of the master plan, some of the case 29 history and Ordinances that are established for the subject property, 30 what the applicant's proposing to do and that the zone change request 31 is consistent with the Land Use Element Goal 1, Policy 1.5.3(b) of the 32 1999 Comprehensive Plan which encourages high-intensity land uses 33 adjacent to Minor Arterial roadways. 34 Staff recommendation of this case is approval with the eleven 35 conditions. I've already read these eleven conditions into the record. 36 One of the things that is important to note is that this property, as 1 37 stated earlier, it's part of the Hacienda de Mesilla Master Plan. Prior to 38 this meeting it was determined that there might be a master plan 39 amendment warranted for this. What staff is prepared to do is: if P & 40 Z makes a recommendation on this case, this would be forwarded to 41 the City Council in November. A master plan amendment, if it's 42 warranted for a major amendment, staff can bring that to you at your 43 October Planning and Zoning regular meeting. 44 Your options for tonight are: to approve the zone change 45 request as recommended by staff; approve it with additional conditions 46 determined appropriate by you; deny the case, or; table and postpone. 7 1 If you have any questions pertaining to the zone change request 2 in context to the City's Development Codes I'll be more than happy to 3 answer your questions. If you have any questions about the intent as 4 to how this property will be developed the applicant is here and I'd ask 5 that he provide a presentation to you. 6 7 Scholz: Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez. Are there questions? Yes, Commissioner 8 Shipley. 9 10 Shipley: Ms. Rodriguez, thank you for your briefings. They're very good. One 11 of the things that I got really confused on was that in the staff report it 12 talks about the applicant is requesting a change two conditions: 13 number 2 and number 8; and you said conditions 1, 7 and 8. Matter of 14 fact, 1, 7 and 8 were changed in the 2003 meetings. 15 16 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Shipley, thank you for pointing that out. 17 The staff report says that, yes, it's 2: actually that is a typo in the staff 18 report when preparing this presentation. It should be 3 and I've read 19 them into the record. So the intent is that all the conditions that were 20 originally established should be carried forward with the exception of 21 those two. 22 23 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Crane. 24 25 Crane: I have three questions. There's a letter from a Mr. Tolliver, who is 26 apparently a land owner adjacent to this property. It is not clear to me 27 which is his property. Are you able to say? 28 29 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, if you could have the applicant 30 answer that question. 31 32 Crane: Okay. Secondly, on that aerial could you just explain where the 25- 33 foot and where the 50-foot boundaries will be required, the vacant 34 zones? 35 36 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, the residential uses and 37 agricultural uses are located in this general area so this property is 38 intended to be developed. The buffer requirements will be located in 39 this bottom portion of the subject property. Do you see the cursor? 40 41 Crane: That would be the 50-foot or the 25? 42 43 Rodriguez: Both. 44 45 Crane: I don't understand "both." Is that 75-feet? 46 8 1 Scholz: Commissioner Crane, it would be 50-foot for residential and 25 for 2 agricultural, if I understand it. Is that correct? 3 4 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, if you'll just give me a moment to 5 review the staff report. 6 7 Scholz: Certainly. 8 9 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, this subject area right here is 10 zoned Equestrian Estates but it's currently developed as Agricultural 11 use. So, if the property remains as Agricultural use, then it's my 12 understanding that the 25-foot opaque buffer would be required. If this 13 property was developed as Residential then you would have a 50-foot 14 buffer, is my understanding. 15 16 Crane: And how about on the other two sides of this kind of "triangle?" Any 17 buffer required there? 18 19 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, in this general area, because you 20 have an RV park established here that's considered a Commercial use 21 and because of the buffer requirements as outlined in our Zoning Code 22 in today's Standards, regular setbacks would apply. No additional 23 buffering would be required. 24 25 Crane: And along Stern Drive? 26 27 Rodriguez: Along Stern Drive there would be no buffering; just your general 28 landscaping. 29 30 Crane: And finally: you require that curb cuts be such as to prevent RVs from 31 getting onto Boutz and I don't see how anything can get onto Boutz 32 from this property. But, in any event, what kind of curb cut would stop 33 an RV but permit some other kind of vehicle? 34 35 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Crane, it's my understanding that the 36 intent for those curb cuts was that if Stern Drive was to be built out 37 you'd see access in this general area. But Stern Drive, if it was 38 extended and dedicated as a public right-of-way, which it would be, it 39 would be your typical traffic. You and I would drive on it and an RV 40 could come... 41 42 Crane: So what's the purpose of this condition about curb cuts? 43 44 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Crane, that was a condition that was 45 established in 1997. Because of the history of the project staff thought 46 it prudent to just keep carrying that forward. 9 1 2 Crane: Thank you. 3 4 Scholz: All right, thank you, Ms. Rodriguez. I had that same question and I 5 was puzzled by that. You gave us three conditions that were deleted. 6 1 have two of them down: the one about building height, one about the 7 fire exits being approved. What was the third one? Oh, I'm sorry, I 8 don't have it on my screen... 9 10 Shipley: Number 8 is... 11 12 Rodriguez: The site plan where we are regarding the RV Park. 13 14 Scholz: Thank you. Okay, any other questions for Ms. Rodriguez? All right, 15 may we hear from the applicant, please? 16 17 Scanlon: Thank you, Chairman Scholz and Members of the Commission. My 18 name is Ted Scanlon and I represent the applicant. (aside to Ms. 19 Rodriguez) Can I get this PowerPoint back up? A couple of things I 20 just wanted to touch on real quick and this is...in the case specifics 21 they pointed out three conditions to the existing twelve conditions that 22 would be eliminated, I guess; and one of them was that emergency 23 exits shall require Fire Department approval and I don't remember that 24 ever coming up and I don't know why I would ever request we would 25 eliminate a condition such as that because the Fire Department has to 26 approve everything that we do anyway. So we can't go around telling 27 the Fire Department what they can and can't approve so I wouldn't 28 necessarily agree with that condition that Fire Department approval. 29 That must have been something that had to do with the fact that we 30 had private accesses within the RV Park and, as private access areas 31 and so forth inside the RV Park, the Fire Department may not have, at 32 that time, been purview to a review on those. But we certainly, 33 nowadays, of course, the Fire Department gets to review everything so 34 1 wouldn't hasten to remove that as a condition of the approval of the 35 development. 36 Let me explain a couple more things. Let me move forward... 37 one of the questions that was asked was the Tolliver property. Tolliver 38 owns this EE property in here. It borders between this residential area 39 and our property. The conditions that were placed back in when the 40 original master plan was approved and so forth required 50-foot 41 buffering along residential and 25-foot along agricultural. At that time 42 the Tolliver property was zoned A-2. It's been in agricultural use 43 forever and so there was a 25-foot requirement along here and it was a 44 50-foot requirement along this existing residential and even extending 45 some distance past the residential area is the way it was defined. 10 1 Now, a lot of those conditions that were on this were the result 2 of a settlement of a lawsuit. We were sued by some of the owners 3 within the existing subdivision, the Valle Hermosa, along Valle 4 Hermosa Street, to try to stop the development and we came to a 5 development agreement whereby we were required to do certain 6 things and they were required to let us do certain things and so forth as 7 part of that agreement. That was arbitrated and it was endorsed by 8 District Court and filed a record and so a lot of those conditions that 9 were placed upon the original approval of the site plan and the zoning 10 were the result of that document and they were couched, so to speak, 11 to mirror the settlement agreement. That's why, I believe, it is 12 appropriate for a lot of those to be carried forward because I don't think 13 we can override the decision of the District Court in applying those as 14 conditions to the zoning as they were resulted from that original 15 settlement. 16 The reason that we're here, you can see...this is Hacienda RV 17 Park. We don't have very many customers very often. We have rallies 18 from time to time that will fill up the Park but in this economy people 19 are not buying RVs. They're not traveling not much in them with diesel 20 at $4.00-plus a gallon. There's just not much traffic in there and it 21 hasn't developed and built up into the business that we had hoped it 22 would. 23 We had reserved this area for the second phase, almost the 24 same number of spaces as the original phase, but it has become 25 apparent to us that we're never going to build out. So we need to 26 figure out a way to put this property to a better use and that's why we 27 came back with this request so that we could start marketing the 28 property for very low-intensity commercial, C-3-type uses. If you look 29 through the list we eliminated almost everything that could be 30 bothersome to anybody. We have an opportunity right now to develop 31 the property or a bulk of the property if we are successful in our 32 proposal as a federal government office building and that is what it 33 would end up being of we are successful in securing that contract. So 34 that's the reason. 35 A question came up about Stern Drive and, as Cheryl pointed 36 out, this is the end of the existing pavement here. If anything is to be 37 built on here and developed in any way we will have to build Stern 38 Drive matching the current cross-section all the way out to Boutz Road. 39 The utilities are already there. When we built the RV Park we built the 40 water, sewer and gas lines in that street all the way to here. It's a 41 dedicated street but we were not required to build all of it at that time 42 because we weren't developing adjacent to it and it was felt that it 43 wasn't really needed from a traffic standpoint because of the low 44 volume of traffic that would be generated by only the RV Park in this 45 area. 11 1 If you look at this exit right here you'll see that there's a concrete 2 median out in the street. What that is designed to do is to keep those 3 big RVs from being able to turn right onto Boutz. They can easily turn 4 left and cut right there and come back down this way but that's a 5 standing median out there and when we build this, if we have an exit at 6 this location, we'll build the same type of median arrangement there so 7 that those big vehicles can't negotiate that turn. It's too tight for them. 8 So they can only turn left out of there and that's what was meant by 9 having the driveways that prohibited the RVs from having access over 10 to Boutz Road. This way they have to go back down to Avenida de 11 Mesilla and the 1-10 interchange area. 12 1 think that was pretty much the questions that were asked. I'll 13 be here if any additional questions have been brought up in your minds 14 due to my presentation. I'd be happy to answer those if I can. 15 16 Scholz: Okay, thank you, Mr. Scanlon. Any questions for this gentleman? 17 Commissioner Beard. 18 19 Beard: I'm still not clear: is this going to be developed—the road on over to 20 Boutz? 21 22 Scanlon: At such time as a development takes place on this property here we 23 are required to build Stern Drive over to Boutz. 24 25 Scholz: Okay. Someone else? I see a serious look...no? Commissioner 26 Crane, did you have a question? All right. Thank you very much, Mr. 27 Scanlon. Okay, folks, I want to open this to public discussion. How 28 many people wish to speak to this issue? Okay, just one. Well, 29 ma'am...there are two. Okay. You have the floor. I'd like you to come 30 up and give us your name and then tell us what your concern is. 31 32 Hine: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Beverly Hine. I live on 33 Valle Hermosa and I have lived there since 1988 so I was, indeed, part 34 of this process in '97. 1 have some concerns because the attachment 35 that talks about the uses, I think it was Attachment B, referenced in 36 your packet was not available to us prior to this so we don't really 37 know, as residents, what those conditions may or may not be. So that 38 kind of limits what we are able to speak to at this point. We'd like an 39 opportunity to be able to review that. 40 41 Scholz: Okay, do you have a copy now? 42 43 Hine: I do not. 44 45 Scholz: (to Ms. Rodriguez) Oh. Can this lady be provided with a copy? It's 46 Attachment 3 in our package. 12 1 2 Hine: In addition to that, jus as an FYI, Boutz Road in this area is 25-mile-per 3 —hour and in the interim since the 1997 and again 2004 Resolutions 4 were made we've had to include speed bumps because... 5 6 Scholz: I know. I drive it. 7 8 Hine: Yeah. Sometimes people pay attention and sometimes they don't but 9 generally it only takes one time to convince them that 25-miles-an-hour 10 is something that we're looking for. I also have a concern about the 11 height of the building that's proposed and what impact that would have; 12 and also, just to let you know that the agricultural buffer where the 13 cypress trees that were requested in '97, most of them have died, as a 14 lot of our trees have since last winter. So we'd like to make sure that 15 that landscaping gets replaced at the RV Park and that any additional 16 landscaping follows through with the request. 17 18 Scholz: All right. I think Ms. Revels went out to make a copy of that 19 attachment. Yes, sir. Yes, yes. Come on down. 20 21 Womack: James Womack. I live on Valle Hermosa also. 22 23 Scholz: Excuse me, sir. How do you spell you last name? 24 25 Womack: W-o-m-a-c-k. 26 27 Scholz: Thank you very much. 28 29 Womack: My wife and I were parties to the discussions that took place in '97. 30 There were a lot of promises made... Well, let me preface this by 31 saying we've talked a lot tonight or we've heard a lot tonight about the 32 RV Park but if the words we hear are true this probably will never turn 33 into an RV park in this triangle that is outlined in blue. What we're 34 seeing is that there's going to be some sort of commercial 35 development. There was no discussion and I would ask the question: 36 what types of businesses would we expect to see in that area. Now 37 they may be outlined in that addendum that we did not get. 38 39 Scholz: They are, as a matter of fact, and you'll get a copy of them in a 40 moment, sir. 41 42 Womack: Okay. So that will be helpful. We also talked about the 50-foot zone 43 and the 25-foot zone of opaque plantings or whatever. I don't 44 recall...well, there was a lot of discussion in '97 about the landscaping 45 that would go in there: the trees that would go in and so on and so 46 forth. I went out in my back yard last night and I looked and I could 13 1 see a number of trailers and the trees are...I didn't take a tape 2 measure out and measure them but they're between 30 and 40-feet 3 separation between each tree. The trees are not big. Several of them, 4 as Beverly Hine's mentioned, have died. They've been dead for longer 5 than just in this most recent winter. But they certainly don't provide 6 any kind of an opaque barrier between the residential property and the 7 commercial property. So, I would, again, ask the question that 8 probably can't be answered at this moment but: what kind of 9 assurance do we have that there really is going to be some sort of an 10 opaque barrier? Now there is a rockwall but it certainly does not hide 11 any of the RV Park and it's opaque. You can't see through it. 12 Oh, there was an addition made to the RV Park. It's the white 13 building on the southwest side there. It is a combination cement and 14 fabric building and shortly after they opened the RV Park that became 15 a concert hall. Being fabric it certainly doesn't contain a lot of the 16 sound and I know there had been a number of complaints from people. 17 Now, in the last two years, frankly, I haven't heard a peep from 18 anybody so maybe the City shut them down. But we would like to 19 know what kind of resolution would we have that would prevent the 20 businesses from doing something similar and setting up a stage and 21 using it in performances. That's all I have. 22 23 Scholz: All right. Any questions for this gentleman? No? Okay...and two 24 more people would like to speak now. Okay, the gentleman next to Mr. 25 Scanlon. You'll have to be on mike, sir. 26 27 Tolliver: Good evening. My name is Martin Tolliver and I own the Tolliver 28 property and I just wanted to say that I'm in favor of the zone change. 29 That's really all I have to say. 30 31 Scholz: All right. Thank you. I think we saw a memo or a letter from you to 32 that regard. Thank you, Mr. Tolliver. All right...and this gentleman in 33 the light blue shirt. 34 35 Bulsterbaum: Good evening, Commissioners, Chairman. My name's Kary 36 Bulsterbaum. I'm a commercial real estate broker in town and I also... 37 38 Scholz: Give me your name again, sir. 39 40 Bulsterbaum: Kary Bulsterbaum. Like you said, the last name but it's B as in "boy," 41 u-1-s-t-e-r-b-a-u-m. 42 43 Scholz: Thank you. 44 45 Bulsterbaum: Mr. Scanlon commented on one thing. I'd just like to elaborate on it 46 and hopefully put some fears to rest. I can tell you that approximately 14 1 2.35 acres of that property has been...and all it's been has been 2 tabbed as a possible...key phrase on the "possible" for a site for a 3 USDA field office, a government field office. The USDA has been 4 looking at...they're spread out all over town. They've been looking at 5 doing some consolidations and bringing all that under one roof. I can 6 assure you for what...and there's several folks bidding on that in town. 7 There's no guarantee that that site would be tabbed for that. All I can 8 tell you is it should just be your typical office environment. Whenever 9 you are dealing with the government you can bet that they look at all 10 sorts of developments, surrounding standards and uses and zonings. 11 You're talking landscaping that will have to be adhered to, to the "T." 12 You're talking secured parking that would have to be adhered to, to the 13 "T." If you've ever seen any sort of a federal facility...I mean, there's a 14 lot of high-level related standards that have to apply to those buildings. 15 The only thing I would know from an intensity standpoint is they do 16 inspections of various agricultural-related trailers that would be 17 inspected there on-site. Once again, it would have to comply to 18 whatever standards that everybody would have to agree to; but I just 19 wanted to, in terms of letting people's minds wander...I mean, there's 20 no telling what would happen to the adjacent area. I'm just telling you 21 it's been tabbed with no guarantee that that would be a selected site. 22 It's just one that has caught the interest of the federal government 23 pending the outcome of the forthcoming bid... unless anybody has any 24 questions for me about that. 25 26 Scholz: Okay. A question from Commissioner Crane. 27 28 Crane: You mentioned inspections of trailers. Are these trailers containing 29 produce and animals? 30 31 Bulsterbaum: I believe so. I'd have to clarify that but... 32 33 Crane: So, would they be constrained to come down Stern Drive from Avenida 34 de Mesilla and not up from Boutz? 35 36 Bulsterbaum: I would think that would be the case...and I don't know and I would 37 have to get clarification that they're actually bringing...I just don't see 38 inspection trailers, not necessarily animals and livestock. I've heard no 39 talk of livestock, actually, being inside those trailers_ It's just that the 40 standards that for which they carried on, is what my understanding is; 41 but I need to clarify that. 42 43 Crane: Thank you. 44 45 Scholz: Other questions? All right. Thank you very much, sir. 46 15 1 Bulsterbaum: Thank you. 2 3 Scholz: And one more person has decided to speak. All right. 4 5 Montez: Hello. My name is Jaime Montez. I also live on Valle Hermosa there. 6 I'm one of the property owners down here. My main concern is the 7 traffic opening Stern Drive all the way to Boutz. I don't see any traffic 8 survey, seen any of the impact of the traffic on Boutz. Frankly, I don't 9 want that road opened all the way to Boutz. Is there any engineering 10 survey right now? 11 12 Scholz: I don't know and the staff is looking through the documents right now. 13 1 would say, sir, since that's a dedicated right-of-way that's one of 14 those inevitabilities, you know. That's my best guess. Ms. Rodriguez. 15 16 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, what I'll read into the record is what the City's Traffic 17 Engineer provided as a response to this development application and 18 it'll be on page 5 of your packet on the staff report. The City's Traffic 19 Engineer recommended approval and did not have any concerns for 20 traffic on Stern Drive, because it is a Minor Arterial, and the City's 21 Traffic Engineer did not require a Traffic Impact Analysis for this 22 development proposal. 23 24 Scholz: Okay. That answers half of your question. 25 26 Montez: I guess that answers all my questions. Thank you. 27 28 Scholz: Okay. Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am. You'd like a second bite of 29 the apple. 30 31 Hine: Thank you. Beverly Hine, again. After having looked at the allowed 32 uses of conditions I noticed that flea market is still along the allowed 33 use and I think that would be a huge problem for us, as well as large 34 equipment repair and service both vehicular and non-vehicular. I think, 35 again, that's moving away from the intended use of the property. We 36 had talked about it in '97 about doing apartments and low-density kinds 37 of stuff and that seems to be continuing. Storage of recreational 38 vehicles, again, that doesn't seem to be too far off the mark, in my 39 view; but I would have serious concerns about the other type of use 40 down under Retail Land Uses. I think that flea markets are not 41 appropriate. 42 43 Scholz: All right. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this from the 44 public? I'm going to close this to public input and, gentlemen, what is 45 your pleasure? Commissioner Shipley. 46 16 1 Shipley: Would the applicant be willing to address the last request regarding 2 flea market and the other items? 3 4 Scholz: If he chooses, yes. Mr. Scanlon. 5 6 Scanlon: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't think we'd have a 7 particular problem in eliminating the use of a flea market as one of the 8 allowable uses. 9 10 Scholz: All right...and that was under T," wasn't it, for fleas? 11 12 Crane: Mr. Chairman? 13 14 Scholz: I don't see it here. What category was it under? 15 16 Shipley: Under Retail Land Uses at the bottom of the page. Yes, it's under 17 Land Uses Allowed with Conditions. 18 19 Scholz: I'm still missing it here. 20 21 Shipley: It's on the left-hand side at the bottom of the page. It's about the sixth 22 from the bottom under Retail Land Uses. See Section 38-33(g)? 23 24 Scholz: I'm in the right place. 25 26 Shipley: It's on Land Uses Allowed with Conditions. 27 28 Crane: Mr. Chairman, on the third page. 29 30 Scholz: All right, I'll take your word for it... Oh, there we go. I got it. We're 31 scratching flea markets, which I think is appropriate. Oh, gosh, what's 32 your pleasure? 33 34 Crane: Mr. Chairman? 35 36 Scholz: Yes. Since their sign's boarded up what does Mr. Scanlon think of 37 also eliminating the heavy equipment repair? I assume that the local 38 people are concerned about traffic more than anything. 39 40 Scanlon: I think the heavy equipment repair business wouldn't be particularly 41 incompatible with many of the other land uses within the area on both 42 sides of the freeway in that area but we, in this day and age, have to 43 follow very, very strict guidelines for the storage of vehicles outdoors 44 and screening those things and so forth and making certain that all of 45 the current, modern code requirements are adhered to; and I know that 46 we discussed with the property owners more than once whether or not 17 1 we would want to eliminate that and I think they think that could be a 2 viable use that wouldn't necessarily have a negative impact on the 3 neighborhood since that exact use exists right across the highway. 4 5 Scholz: Thank you. And I would assume that use actually exists in the RV 6 section as well. They do repairs there, don't they? 7 8 Scanlon: They do repairs on further down Stern Drive on either...there are two 9 RV places...I can't remember the names... 10 11 Scholz: Oh, one's a rental and one's a sales, I think. 12 13 Scanlon: They're both sales and service. 14 15 Scholz: Oh, okay. Both do sales. 16 17 Scanlon: They both do sales and service and a little closer to Avenida de 18 Mesilla. Ours is just a Park. 19 20 Scholz: Right. Okay. All right, what is your pleasure, gentlemen? Thank you, 21 Mr. Scanlon. I'll entertain a motion to approve. Commissioner Crane. 22 23 Crane: I will move to approve with the additional stipulation that flea market 24 not be permitted on that property. 25 26 Scholz: All right. 27 28 Shipley: There was an additional condition that was to be removed that was not 29 to be removed, which was the Fire Department site...I think it was 30 number 7. 31 32 Scholz: Right. 33 34 Shipley: Number 7; it was supposed to be left in. It was, "Emergency exits shall 35 require Fire Department approval." Yes, but in the briefing it was to 36 strike that. 37 38 Scholz: Okay, can you go back one screen, please? 39 40 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Shipley, the condition that was 41 omitted in your packet was the condition requiring the 50-foot opaque 42 landscape buffer. The emergency exits for Fire is what Mr. Scanlon 43 was referring to. Any development on this property is going to be 44 subject to review by the Las Cruces Fire Department and will be 45 subject to the International Fire Code provisions and will have to meet 46 all Fire Emergency Management Access requirements. 18 1 2 Scholz: So you're suggesting we don't have to make a change there or add an 3 additional condition? 4 5 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, it would be my professional recommendation that we 6 don't need to because it's consistent with what the Fire Department 7 has to do with the International Fire Code. 8 9 Scholz: Okay. Commissioner Beard, you have a comment on the tip of your 10 tongue. 11 12 Beard: Well, I thought it was already approved, to tell the truth. When you 13 look under Findings it says, 'Emergency exists shall require Fire 14 Department approval." 15 16 Scholz: But as I recall from the previous screen that was one of the three 17 things that was to be eliminated. 18 19 Crane: That was what was in from way back but the staff recommendation 20 does not include that on page 10. The conditions, Ms. Rodriguez, are 21 these on page 10, right? 22 23 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Beard and Crane, the finding that you're 24 referring to is the finding of fact that established the conditions from 25 2003, which staff is recommending today, is that that condition does 26 not have to be part of today's zone change request. Mr. Scanlon has 27 stated that he is okay with leaving it in there but staff, professionally 28 speaking, you've got stricter standards under today's International Fire 29 Code than just a general statement as written in 2003. 30 31 Scholz: Thank you. 32 33 Crane: So what you are recommending currently is... 34 35 Rodriguez: Commissioner Crane, we are recommending that you don't need to put 36 it in there; but if you'd like to put it in there you can but you don't need 37 to. 38 39 Crane: Right. So what you are recommending is on page 7. 40 41 Rodriguez: Yes, sir. 42 43 Crane: Okay. Thank you. 44 45 Scholz: And we have a fireman to our rescue here... 46 19 1 Rodriguez: With the other requirement located here on page 10 of your staff report 2 are ten conditions. What staff is recommending is eleven conditions 3 with that first one, that 50-foot opaque landscape requirement. It was 4 omitted from your staff recommendation section on page 10. So, we're 5 recommending the additional eleven plus the additional condition to 6 remove flea markets as an allowed use. So now you have twelve 7 conditions. 8 9 Crane: All right. Thank you. Yes. Mr. Chairman, point of order. Do we have 10 a second yet? 11 12 Scholz: No, actually we haven't had a motion yet. 13 14 Crane: I thought I'd moved. 15 16 Scholz: I'm sorry. Yes, Secretary, did we get a motion? 17 18 Crane: I moved for approval with an additional condition. 19 20 Scholz: Thank you, Commissioner Crane. All right, is there a second to the 21 motion? 22 23 Shipley: Second it. 24 25 Scholz: All right, it's been moved and seconded. Yes, Commissioner Beard, 26 you have another question or comment? 27 28 Beard: (inaudible) 29 30 Scholz: Yes, ma'am. We've closed this to public discussion, ma'am. All right. 31 32 (woman speaking from the audience— inaudible) 33 34 Scholz: I'm going to call the roll. Commissioner Shipley. 35 36 Shipley: Aye findings, discussion and site visit. 37 38 Scholz: Commissioner Crane. 39 40 Crane: Aye findings, discussion and site visit. 41 42 Scholz: Commissioner Stowe. 43 44 Stowe: Aye findings, discussion and site visit. 45 46 Scholz: Commissioner Bustos. 20 1 2 Bustos: Aye findings and discussion. 3 4 Scholz: Commissioner Beard. 5 6 Beard: Aye findings, discussion and site visit. 7 8 Scholz: And the Chair votes aye for findings, discussion and site visit. Thank 9 you, gentlemen. Thank you, folks. 10 11 VII. OTHER BUSINESS 12 13 Scholz: Okay, is there other business before this evening? 14 15 Rodriguez: No, sir. 16 17 VIII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 18 19 Scholz: Any other public participation? 20 21 IX. -STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS 22 23 Scholz: Hearing none, any staff announcements? 24 25 Rodriguez: No, sir. 26 27 Scholz: Well, I have one question: when will we get the minutes for the Special 28 Meeting of September 8tn? 29 30 Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, we will have to put that on your agenda for the October 31 regular P & Z meeting and I apologize for them being omitted tonight. 32 33 X. ADJOURNMENT (6:53 pm) 34 35 Scholz: Okay. All right, then we are adjourned at...let's see I have six minutes 36 to seven. Thank you very much, folks. 37 38 39 40 Chairman Date 21