"Metropolitan Life Insurance Company V. Mccarson - DOC"
1 REGULAR MEETING 2 OF THE 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 FOR THE 5 CITY OF LAS CRUCES 6 City Council Chambers 7 August 23, 2005 8 6:00 p.m. 9 10 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 11 Bruce Buchman, Chair William Ludtke, Member 12 Nancy Binneweg, Vice-Chair Donald Bustos, Member 13 Elizabeth Camuñez, Secretary 14 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 15 Harry Sanchez, Member 16 Al Perez, Member 17 STAFF PRESENT: 18 Vincent Banegas, Development Services & MPO Administrator 19 Lani McCarson, Planner 20 James White, Planner 21 Harry “Pete” Connelly, Deputy City Attorney 22 Steven Almanza, Assistant City Attorney 23 Brian Harper, Downtown Development Coordinator 24 Pat Hill, Recording Secretary 25 1 1 I. CALL TO ORDER 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I’d like to call to 3 order the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Tuesday, August 23rd, 4 2005. A great turnout tonight. We welcome you. I’d like to make a couple of 5 comments. Your input during the meeting is greatly appreciated and welcome. 6 We have decisions to make this evening. There are, I think, eleven things on the 7 agenda. Just to give you an idea, if we pass everything tonight, there would be 8 1,134 new homes approved in your City. In the last three months, there have 9 been almost 2,000 new homes approved. We get the input from the staff, their 10 ideas. They give us maps and we go out and visit the sites. We have the staff 11 make a presentation, the presenters will make a presentation, and then we’ll 12 open it to audience participation. Some of you may have just come to listen. 13 Some of you have points that you want to speak to, and we welcome your input. 14 Your input might be beneficial to the decision that we make tonight. So yes, by all 15 means, come up. You can sit up in front here. Pull the chairs around. It looks 16 like it’s going to be pretty crowded. The first thing that I’d like to do is read the 17 Conflict of Interest Statement required by the Las Cruces Municipal Code: “At the 18 opening of each meeting the Chairperson shall ask if any member of the 19 Planning and Zoning Commission or any member of the City staff has any known 20 conflict of interest with any item on the agenda”. 21 II. MINUTES 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, the first item on the Agenda tonight is the minutes of 23 the July 26, 2005, meeting. Everybody get a copy? Are there any additions or 24 corrections to those minutes? 25 ELIZABETH CAMUÑEZ: I don’t have any. 2 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. If there are no additions or corrections, I will take a 2 motion to approve. 3 WILLIAM LUDTKE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve the minutes. 4 CAMUÑEZ: I second it. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I’ll call for a voice vote. All in favor say “aye”. 6 COMMISSIONERS: Aye. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Motion is approved unanimously. 8 III. CONSENT AGENDA 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Tonight we’re going to be talking one annexation, four zone 10 changes, two master plans, one initial zoning request, and three preliminary 11 plats. The first items on the agenda are what we call the Consent Agenda. Now, 12 the Consent Agenda allows us to pass items without any discussion. These 13 items have been reviewed by staff. They have had no unfavorable input from the 14 City. Everything on these items meets with the criteria of the Planning and 15 Zoning. We have the five items listed over here. What I will do is, I will read 16 each one. If there is anybody in the audience that wants to hear a particular 17 item, just raise your hand and state your name, because if nobody from the 18 audience or from the Commissioners takes these off the Consent Agenda, they 19 will be approved without any discussion. So the first item on the Consent 20 Agenda is Case PUD-05-03. This is a request for a zone change from M-1 21 (Industrial Light) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Planned Unit 22 Development Concept Plan. This is for 88 acres. It’s a gated, private 23 community. The property is located east of Las Colinas Drive, north of Bataan 24 Memorial West, and generally east of the Las Colinas development. Is there 3 1 anybody in the audience that wishes to hear this case? Please raise your hand. 2 Commissioners? 3 BINNEWEG: I’d like to make a correction. You said it was 88 acres. It’s 88 lots, 4 which is… 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Proposed 88 attached single-family townhomes. 6 BINNEWEG: On 12 acres. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yeah. Thank you. Any Commissioners that want this taken 8 off the Consent Agenda? All right, it stays on the Consent Agenda. Case two is 9 Z2629. This is a request for a zone change from REM (Single-Family Residential 10 Estate Mobile) to R-1a to (Single-Family Medium Density) for approximately 9.21 11 acres. The property is located at Mesa Grande and Genesis Lane. The 12 subdivision contains approximately 70 lots. Anybody in the audience wish this to 13 come off? Would you please state your name, please? 14 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Shirley Daniels. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Shirley Daniels. Thank you. Case Z2629 now becomes 16 New Business number seven. Next, number three is Case Z2631. This is a 17 request for a zone change from REM (Single-Family Residential Estate Mobile) 18 to R-1a (Single-Family Medium Density) for approximately 5.97 acres. It’s 19 located at the northwest corner of Central Avenue and Mesa Drive. It contains 20 approximately 32 lots. Is there anyone that wishes this to come off the Consent 21 Agenda? 22 AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible) 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Say again, please sir? 24 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Grover Pettes. 4 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Grover Pettes. Okay. This will become New Business 2 number eight. Number four on the Consent Agenda is Case S-05-050. This is a 3 request for preliminary plat approval for a subdivision known as Diamond Springs 4 5. This property is located west of the existing section of Sonora Springs 5 Boulevard and east of Roadrunner Parkway. It consists of 135 lots on 6 approximately 41 acres and it’s zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). 7 Anybody wish to have this taken off the Consent Agenda? Yes, ma’am. Your 8 name please? 9 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Tara Booth. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. That’s New Business number nine. And Case 11 number five is S-05-078. This is a request for preliminary plat approval for a 12 subdivision known as White Sage Subdivision, Phase 2. It is north of Northrise 13 Drive and west of proposed Caballo Road. Sixty-six residential parcels on 14 approximately 25 acres, zoned R-1a (Single-Family Medium Density) and RE 15 (Residential Estates). Anybody want this one taken off? Yes, ma’am. Your 16 name please? 17 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Joan Cole. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. This will become New Business number ten. 19 You in the back, it’s going to be a long night, you must come up here and get a 20 seat. Okay, that leaves us only one item on the Consent Agenda and then we 21 have a total of ten items on the New Business Agenda. I will accept a motion to 22 approve the Agenda as amended. 23 LUDTKE: I’ll make the motion, Mr. Chairman, to approve the Agenda as 24 amended. 25 BINNEWEG: Second. 5 1 CAMUÑEZ: Second. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And we’ll have a voice vote. All in favor signify it by saying 3 “aye”. 4 COMMISSIONERS: (In unison) Aye. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Anybody opposed? The Agenda will stand approved as 6 amended. 7 IV. NEW BUSINESS 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Now, to go back again on the ground rules on the New 9 Business, and we want everybody’s input, as I said. If you have a representative 10 of an area or a group, we’ll allow the representative seven minutes to speak. If 11 you wish to speak on an item, we’ll allow you three to four minutes. One thing 12 we do ask, please, the repetition of ideas or suggestions doesn’t help us any. If 13 you think it shouldn’t be passed because it’s congested, it’s too much, and then 14 the next person says that, and the next person…that’s not going to change our 15 minds. We want new, fresh ideas, so anything you do have please let us know. 16 I’ll limit you to three to four minutes, but please, no repetition. Okay. New 17 Business, the first item is Case S-05-045 and S-04-118 and Z2621. This is a 18 request for an annexation, a master plan, and an initial zoning request of the 19 subdivision that is in Legends West. Now, what we’re going to do is, we will 20 waive the rules and hear all three of these at once, but then we’ll go back and 21 vote on them one at a time. So, on these three cases, is the applicant ready to 22 present the cases, please? Come forward to the microphone. 23 APPLICANT: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Harold Denton with 24 DVI. I’m here representing Blue Horse Development, the developers of this 6 1 property. This project, the annexation, is called Legends West North. It’s 2 actually a portion of the entire Legends West project. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. Denton, a little closer to the microphone. 4 HAROLD DENTON: Okay. I can hear myself fine, but...okay. This is a location 5 drawing. Basically, we’re on Motel Boulevard from this point here. This is Motel 6 Boulevard coming in off of Picacho in this area. This is Tashiro Drive coming in 7 here and this would be Bruins Lane coming in at this point. This portion of the 8 project right in here is Phases I, 2, 3 and 4 and Phase E which is in the City limits 9 at this time and is under construction now. Gives you an idea where we’re at 10 there. This is a master plan showing five different phases, actually six with the 11 little one down here. It shows the existing, just for orientation purposes, the 12 existing high school football field. This is a school park that will be developed in 13 this area. It’s twelve acres with an amphitheatre that will be developed by the 14 developer of Legends West, Blue Horse Development, and then dedicated to the 15 school district. There is also a three acre parcel in this area that’s a park. These 16 parcels are not in the annexation and not a part of this annexation, but I wanted 17 to point out where they were. And then this is the ongoing development in Phase 18 1 and Phase 2 that you see here and this area is currently under construction, 19 the infrastructure, and the utilities. Kind of give you a little idea, we’re talking a 20 total of 148.91 acres, 512 units or lots, let’s say in this case. A gross density of 21 3.44. Estimated traffic and population numbers. Now, I want to go back on this 22 just for a minute because notice that Item A here, 18.41 acres, it’s one lot, it’s 23 multi-family zoning and it generates half of the population number in this. That is 24 this Tract A right here. Tract A, there is currently an offer on this to build a 25 parochial school in this area right here. If that happens, of course, we’ll not have 7 1 the kind of numbers that are shown on here at all. So, a school is proposed to 2 go, actually they’re talking about buying the whole thing and they may develop 3 the whole parcel for a school or they may sell off a portion of it. The area up here 4 would have commercial on the corner and probably a mini warehouse complex in 5 this area up here adjacent to this mobile home park right here. I could go 6 through all the numbers here, but I think you have those in your packets and I 7 think they’re pretty clear and straight forward really. I’m not going to go into the 8 objectives here in detail, but I would like to point out just a couple of things. You 9 know, this is developed with some open space, attractive open space in the 10 middle of it and again, I’m going to back up just a brief minute if I can here. I 11 pointed out the three acre park in this area with restroom facilities and that type 12 of thing. This is a ponding area in here, but the bottom of it will be developed as 13 a practice field and an open field area that will be available for public use, but 14 then we have approximately six acres of open space that runs through the middle 15 of the project right here. They’re currently building a thirty-foot wide bicycle trail 16 system that will run through here and there will be another thirty-foot wide bicycle 17 trail that runs through this whole area and connects clear on over to the school in 18 this area. There are also trails that are proposed, you’ll see in the darker colors 19 here, to go through the bicycle areas and up Motel Boulevard and interconnect 20 all those areas. We are including underground utilities on the entire project. 21 There will be no cell towers and there will be no billboards, just for your 22 information. That’s something the City Council has been requiring. Motel 23 Boulevard, the principal arterial, will be extended full width all the way to Bruins 24 Lane. Access to Roadrunner Lane from Bruins Lane is a gated access. Maybe I 25 need to go back there again because it’s a concern. Bruins Lane will be 8 1 extended through here. At this point, it will be gated. There will be no access 2 through the Roadrunner Lane here, which is a County Lane. Same requirements 3 that were placed on us at this point right down here. This project is providing 4 what I would call affordable housing. It’s not low-rent housing, it’s not subsidized 5 housing. We define that simply as housing that people have the ability to 6 purchase. We have homes that are starting in the very low $100,000 range and 7 going up into the high $100,000 range. It’s a need that exists here and is being 8 satisfied. That’s why you see so many houses going up out there right now. 9 This is the Zoning Map and this shows the R-1a area, which is this entire tract 10 here, consisting of 120.86 acres. This is an R-4, C-3 zone which is 19.34 acres. 11 That’s the area that I was talking about the parochial school, you know, being 12 here and that’s the reason for the C-3 zoning, to allow for that type of use. This 13 is a C-3, M-1 zoning. We need the M-1 for mini warehouses back in this area. In 14 this area we need the C-3 to allow for neighborhood commercial right in this area 15 in here. This is half of the annexation plat which is basically just a definition. 16 Something I skipped is that part of this annexation is the Outfall Channel here 17 that runs on up. That’s City-owned property. We were requested that we include 18 that and it’s included in the numbers that we’re giving it, so we’re annexing the 19 120-foot wide Outfall Channel that the City owns, through that area. The other 20 end of the plat… and it shows again that Outfall Channel to this point up here 21 where we own it. That basically concludes my presentation, but I’m available for 22 any questions. Thank you. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Denton. Staff? 24 JAMES WHITE: Chair Buchman, members of the Commission, James White, 25 City of Las Cruces. This is pertaining to Cases S-04-228, S-05-045, and Z2621, 9 1 Legends West North annexation. It’s a request for annexation plat, master plan, 2 and initial zoning approval for Legends West North subdivision. Submitted by 3 Denton Ventures, Inc. for Blue Horse Development. Property location is east of 4 Roadrunner Lane, will contain the extension of Motel Boulevard north of the 5 Outfall Channel, and will also contain the extension of Bruins Lane, west to 6 Roadrunner Lane. The annexation entails 149 ± acres. The number of lots is 7 520 ±. Current zoning is ER-2 (two acre minimum lot size required, site-built 8 homes permitted) and is currently in the Dona Ana County Extra-Territorial Zone. 9 The initial zoning request, as stipulated earlier by the consultant, you have 10 approximately 120 acres of land in consideration for R-1a zoning, which is this 11 area here. Section 2 here, signified by this area here, you’re looking at the C-3 12 and M-1 overlap. You’re looking at approximately 8.70 acres. And of course, the 13 third area, you’re looking at R-4 and C-3 in overlap as well. You’re looking at 14 approximately 19.34 acres. Subject property is currently outside the City of Las 15 Cruces corporate limits and is comprised of four distinct tracts of land. Here is an 16 aerial view of the property, currently undeveloped in the agricultural state. As 17 stipulated earlier, you do have some general landmarks such as the Las Cruces 18 Athletic Complex here, the football stadium, and you have Motel Boulevard in this 19 area here. Again, to reiterate, you have a copy of the master plan specifying 20 specific types of the land uses. Here is a project tabulation as stipulated earlier. 21 Major Thoroughfare Plan, currently what’s occurring is that Motel Boulevard, the 22 future alignment based upon the MPO Thoroughfare Plan, actually traverses the 23 proposed annexation in this area here. The applicant has provided a plan to do 24 approximately 1,480 linear feet of roadway to do the entire 120-foot cross-section 25 of Motel Boulevard, which can actually be seen better on the master plan. The 10 1 applicant will actually do the full road section up to the actual Las Cruces Public 2 Schools boundary. He’s also liable or required to do full road improvements up 3 to this section here. This property here is owned by another individual, so at this 4 section he won’t be liable to do pro-rata half road improvements up to this section 5 here. In lieu of doing road improvements to connect the Outfall Channel back out 6 to Roadrunner, that was the agreement, to do full improvements to this section in 7 this location here. DRC recommendation is approval with conditions for Cases 8 S-05-045 and S-04-118. The two conditions recommended by DRC are: 1) The 9 developer provides CLC Utilities Department with appropriate documentation 10 stipulating adequate residential fire flow that can be met by Dona Ana Mutual 11 Domestic and 2) The developer provides CLC Utilities with a letter from Dona 12 Ana Mutual assessing if sanitary sewer service by CLC will be temporary or 13 permanent in nature. That will conclude staff presentation. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. White, two quick things before you leave. The 15 conditions, according to the front, the conditions apply to the annexation and then 16 the same conditions apply to the master plan, or do the conditions only apply to 17 the annexation? 18 WHITE: Chair Buchman, the conditions are attached to both the master plan 19 and the annexation plat. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. And would you do me one favor, just a 21 technicality. Go back to the first screen you showed us. I think we have different 22 numbers for the master plan. I have S-04-118 and I think you had a 2 in there. 23 WHITE: It is a typo. It should be 118. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, so just to have it correct. Thank you. All right, at this 25 time, we’re going to open it to the discussion from the public. Remember, three 11 1 to four minutes apiece. Please, no repetition. When you come to the 2 microphone, we record these meetings verbatim, so please state your name and 3 then go into your discussion. Yes, sir, you come up first. Yes, sir. 4 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Roger Patterson. I live on Roadrunner Lane 5 on the west side, approximately… across the road from this development. I’m 6 certainly not against the development, but I am concerned about the extension of 7 Bruins Lane emptying onto Roadrunner Lane. I’m sure all of you Commissioners 8 have been out there, but Roadrunner Lane starts at Picacho and goes about a 9 mile and a quarter north and it hooks up with…becomes Southwind. Anyway, 10 it’s…different times of day it’s very heavily traveled. I’m concerned that right 11 there where they’re going to empty out, where Bruins Lane’s going to extend 12 onto there, I understand it’s gated, but the road is very narrow. You’ve got the 13 Mesilla Ditch, one of the main irrigation canals on the east side of the road. On 14 the west side you have smaller irrigation ditches. The road’s narrow enough now 15 that if somebody has a flat tire, they just block the road until they get it fixed and 16 I’m concerned that traffic coming out onto Roadrunner Lane is going to cause 17 more traffic than we need there and it’s already overburdened and I’d like to 18 consider asking the developer to seek an alternative route for that project. Thank 19 you very much. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Yes, hold on a second. We’ll 21 come back and answer a bunch together. Anybody else, now? Yes, sir, on the 22 corner. 23 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Paul Pompeo, 2100 Roadrunner Lane. I currently own 24 the property, this property right here, and my concern is… I’m going to have go 25 180 degrees from the last person that spoke. The road, this roadway is heavily 12 1 traveled. This intersection down here is a mess. I would encourage this body 2 to…this road, Tashiro Road, that’s going to come and open this up. If you travel 3 this way, there are no east/west roads in any of this area up here and to put 4 these roads in and block them off at Roadrunner to me seems a waste. I would 5 ask the Commission to take into account of opening this road up here at Tashiro, 6 to filter the traffic that’s coming off of Roadrunner, allow it go across to Valley 7 Drive and alleviate some of the traffic congestion down here at Roadrunner Lane 8 at Picacho. Thank you. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Pompeo. Anybody else, now? Yes, sir. 10 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is James Jernigan. I live at 1705 Roadrunner 11 Lane. I understand these access roads are gated, which were previously asked 12 about. I was curious about the bicycle trails. Are they going to be opening onto 13 Roadrunner Lane or onto the ditch bank? They say they’re gated. I’m curious as 14 to just how they are going…what’s going to happen at the interface between the 15 bicycle trails and that as well. And I think the other questions that I had have 16 already been addressed. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. 18 AUDIENCE MEMBER: George Pearson. I have a question about the Motel 19 Boulevard extension and what…if the cross-section has been decided on that 20 and if in-road bicycle facilities will be available for that. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: What…okay, one more time. Motel Boulevard, if the 22 bicycle facility will be available? 23 GEORGE PEARSON: In-road bicycle facilities will be part of the cross-section. 13 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Anybody else? Okay, we’ll turn it back to Mr. 2 Denton. We have questions about the roads, the bike trails. Would you care to 3 respond to those please, sir? 4 HAROLD DENTON: Yes, I would, Chairman, Commissioners. When we said 5 gated, we mean closed or maybe I should say barriered – that’s better. It’s not a 6 gate to allow anything through there because that’s what we were requested to 7 do. I would have to say I agree with Mr. Pompeo because I drive this road, 8 Tashiro Drive, every morning, night, and a few other times and this is a very 9 dangerous intersection down here. I personally think the solution is, we already 10 have an extension or will very soon, an extension of Tashiro Drive down to here. 11 I would think that this road needs to be improved. It’s a County road, but it needs 12 to be improved and a cul-de-sac down here somewhere and the traffic should go 13 over to Motel and down. That’s just my opinion, but we are gating that so traffic 14 will not go out to Roadrunner. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Where were you gating it? 16 DENTON: We are gating the extension of Roadrunner at this point. We are 17 barriering it so it cannot be, you cannot go through there. We also have a barrier 18 going in at the end of Tashiro. We are not putting traffic onto Roadrunner. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 20 DENTON: As I said, I agree with Mr. Pompeo that something needs to be done 21 there because it’s a very dangerous situation. The question was asked about the 22 bicycle trails. They will be going to the hitch back, not out to the roadway. The 23 City, you know, has an agreement with the irrigation, with Elephant Butte, to 24 eventually turn those into trail systems. They’re used that way now, so that’s 25 where they end at this point. We do have, let’s call it a multi-use trail along 14 1 Roadrunner. Yes, we are proposing that. Not a four-foot sidewalk right along an 2 arterial, which is really unusable, but a removed bicycle…I don’t say 3 bicycle…removed multi-use trail. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Will you show us where that will go, please? 5 DENTON: Well, I’d have to go back to my drawing and I don’t know how to get 6 out of this. Do I…how to I get out of here? 7 LUDTKE: Mr. White? 8 DENTON: Well, I can show you. I can just point it out on here. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Just point on there. It’s okay. 10 DENTON: Basically, we have a 30-foot wide trail that runs along Tashiro, a 35- 11 foot trail that runs along Bruins, another trail that runs through the middle of this 12 project, and they all will be connected with the trail system that goes up through 13 here along… 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, thank you. One more question, how about the 15 narrowness of Bruins Road? It’s a single-lane road now? 16 DENTON: It a two-lane road. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: It’s a two-lane road. 18 DENTON: That’s one lane each way and it’s the narrow road. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And you will have nothing to do with improving that? 20 DENTON: It’s in the County. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: It’s in the…it’s in the County. 22 BINNEWEG: Will it be annexed? Oh, oh, roads don’t get annexed. 23 DENTON: No. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, well, I looked…Bruins Road is in the City part right 25 there now, to the east… 15 1 DENTON: Oh, Bruins? 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Bruins. 3 DENTON: Oh, I’m sorry. I’m sorry. No. Bruins is…we have an 80-foot right of 4 way because of the 30-foot trail system that goes through there and we have a 5 full City street section through it. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, then the development that goes east over to Valley, 7 that’s what I’m talking about. 8 DENTON: Okay. That’s a real good question because, yes, Bruins Lane from 9 there on out to Valley. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, we got the wrong one. 11 DENTON: It’s down here. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Down lower. 13 DENTON: This is Tashiro…there we go. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: There we go. 15 BUSTOS: There it is. 16 DENTON: Well, this isn’t really correct because it connects up right now and 17 comes through here. This is an old drawing. The City has funding allocated. 18 We’ve had meetings with Robert Garza. The City has funding and Mr. Cupit has 19 committed to working with him at the City and to extend that all the way through 20 at the time that we improve our road system up there. So that is in the works. It 21 will go through to Valley. It will be improved to Valley, yes. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. All right. Thank you. At this time, we’ll close it to the 23 public. Everybody’s had a chance to comment on it. 24 GEORGE PEARSON: He didn’t answer my question on Motel Boulevard. 16 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: About Motel Boulevard…the bike? Okay. Thank you, I’m 2 sorry. One more time, then. 3 DENTON: I’m told I said something else, but no, Motel is this piece along here 4 and we are talking about running a multi-use trail along that, yes. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: It will be a trail along that? 6 DENTON: Yes. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. All right. Okay, at this time, it’s closed to the 8 audience participation. The Board now will have questions for the staff and for 9 the developer. Commissioners, who wishes to go first? Commissioner 10 Binneweg? 11 BINNEWEG: It’s been awhile since I’ve been to an MPO meeting, but I was 12 wondering when they’re ever going to have something designated east and west. 13 Is it because…I guess it’s probably a question of staff. I don’t see very many 14 roads that go east to west without jogging. Mr. White? 15 WHITE: Chair Buchman, Commissioner Binneweg, this is an MPO Thoroughfare 16 map. You’re looking about east to west connections that the Outfall Channel, 17 which is owned by the City, which is directly north of the property, as a potential 18 connection route back out to Roadrunner Lane or also known as Southwind. 19 This is another potential east/west connection route as it follows the Outfall 20 Channel. 21 BINNEWEG: They’re going to pave it and have cars driving on it? 22 WHITE: Chair Buchman, Commissioner Binneweg, currently there was a 23 negotiation by City staff that they did not want to see improvements currently to 24 this collector status thoroughfare which is directly adjacent here. They were 25 looking at this would be done in the near distant future or down the road, but they 17 1 conceded a plan for the developer to do the entire cross section for 1,480 feet of 2 Motel Boulevard up to the actual northern terminus of the Las Cruces Public 3 Schools’ property boundary in lieu of improvements for this section back out to 4 Roadrunner Lane. 5 BINNEWEG: So the answer is, there’s no east/west connections yet. 6 WHITE: Currently, that is correct. 7 BINNEWEG: All right. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other Commissioners? I have one question of Mr. 9 White. It kind of concerns me, because it’s the two conditions that you have put 10 on this. Item number three under the findings: “The City of Las Cruces Utility 11 Department will not support the proposed annexation request until Dona Ana 12 Mutual Domestic Water Association relinquishes their intention to provide utilities 13 to Legends West North.” Is this something that you foresee being done in the 14 near future? Is it going to be years? Our Utility Department will not support it. 15 WHITE: Chair Buchman, I’m going to go ahead and defer that to our Legal 16 Counsel. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. Connelly. 18 HARRY CONNELLY: Hi there, it’s me again. At the present time, the Dona Ana 19 Mutual and the City have arrived at a global settlement. It’s in the process of 20 being verbalized, and so the City would say by the time that this comes up for 21 final approval, there will in fact be some body that will provide waste water and 22 water to the Legends West Subdivision, so that whether it would be the City or 23 Dona Ana, it will be taken care of. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Connelly. 25 CONNELLY: Yes, sir. 18 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Other questions from the Commissioners? 2 CAMUÑEZ: I have a question. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camuñez? 4 CAMUÑEZ: Will Motel Boulevard or Tashiro Road be the main arterial to this 5 subdivision? 6 WHITE: Chair Buchman, Commissioner Camuñez, the answer to that is yes. 7 Motel Boulevard is a principal arterial with a cross-section of 120 feet. 8 CAMUÑEZ: Thank you. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other Commissioners? Commissioner Ludtke, you’re 10 thinking deeply… 11 LUDTKE: I’m trying to figure out here, this condition number two… 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Right. 13 LUDTKE: That you addressed a moment ago. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. 15 LUDTKE: So what actually does that…”assessing will sanitary sewer service by 16 the City of…” Would you read that so it makes sense to me? 17 BINNEWEG: Well, it’s like assessing whether the sanitary service will be by the 18 City, temporary, or permanent in nature. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And as Mr. Connelly mentioned, they’ll have something 20 worked out for both of them, probably by the time it goes to City Council. Right? 21 CONNELLY: Yes, sir. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 23 LUDTKE: And if it isn’t there’s no annexation consideration? 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That’s basically what it says. If they don’t work this out… 25 we’ll read these conditions in it… if they don’t work it out, the annexation… 19 1 CAMUÑEZ: Will not happen. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Will not happen and I’m sure it’s going to be held up by City 3 Council. They won’t present this to City Council until these two items are worked 4 out. 5 CAMUÑEZ: M-hm. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: So this could be three months, six months…Mr. Denton, go 7 ahead. We’re talking about you; you have a right to talk, too. 8 DENTON: I’ll try to help clarify some things. This has been the big hang-up for 9 this annexation, the water and sewer and Dona Ana. These conditions were 10 conditions, if I’m correct, that were DRC conditions that were placed on DRC 11 approval about a month and a half ago, which pre-dated the City’s and Dona 12 Ana’s hearings before, you know, in court. And I really question whether either 13 one are needed now, but we feel confident that the answers exist, so put them on 14 there, it’s okay, we’ll get rid of them by the time we get to the City Council. We 15 will have water and sewer service. 16 LUDTKE: These conditions are not on here until we put these conditions on. 17 DENTON: That’s correct. 18 LUDTKE: That’s right. Not the DRC. 19 DENTON: I don’t really think they’re needed, but… 20 LUDTKE: Yeah. 21 DENTON: Put them on if you want to. 22 BINNEWEG: Ready to move? 23 LUDTKE: So we’ll have to do each one separate? 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Have to do each one separate. 25 BINNEWEG: Yeah. 20 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, we’re ready to vote. At this time, I will accept a 2 motion, and we’re voting on these independently now. On the annexation, S-05- 3 045, do I have a motion? 4 LUDTKE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to accept the annexation plat S-05- 5 045, with approval with the two conditions stipulated by the DRC. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Would you please read those conditions so they will be in 7 the minutes? 8 LUDTKE: Okay, condition one will be “the developer/agent provides City Utilities 9 Department with appropriate documentation stipulating that adequate residential 10 fire flow can be met by Dona Ana Mutual Water Association”, and the second 11 condition is “the developer/agent provides the City Utilities Department a letter 12 from Dona Ana Mutual Water Association assessing will sanitary sewer service 13 by the City of Las Cruces be temporary or permanent in nature.” 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Do I hear a second? 15 BUSTOS AND CAMUÑEZ: I second it. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, I will call the roll. Commissioner Binneweg. 17 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on site visit, findings, and discussion. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Bustos. 19 BUSTOS: Aye, based on findings, and discussion. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke. 21 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camuñez. 23 CAMUÑEZ: Aye, findings, site visit, and discussion. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair also votes “aye,” based on findings, site visit, 25 and discussion. This passes 5 to 0. Thank you very much. 21 1 LUDTKE: Now the second… 2 BINNEWEG: Mr. Chair, I move we…we’re going onto another one. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Oh, all right. 4 BINNEWEG: I move that we approve the master plan S-04-118. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 6 CAMUÑEZ: I second it. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, I’ll call the roll again. Commissioner Binneweg. 8 BINNEWEG: With the two conditions also attached to it. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, would you please read those conditions so they are in 10 the minutes? 11 BINNEWEG: Can’t I just say Mr. Ludtke already read them in there in the 12 minutes? 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No. Nice try. 14 LUDTKE: Want me to read them for you? 15 BINNEWEG: Man, you’re too slow. I’ll read them myself. “The developer/agent 16 provides City Utilities Department with appropriate documentation stipulating that 17 adequate residential fire flow can be met by Dona Ana Mutual Water 18 Association.” That’s the first one. The second one, “The developer/agent 19 provides the City Utilities Department a letter from Dona Ana Mutual Water 20 Association assessing will sanitary sewer service by the City of Las Cruces be 21 temporary or permanent in nature.” 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Is there a second? 23 BUSTOS: I second it. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I’ll call the roll. Commissioner Binneweg. 25 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on site visit, findings, discussion. 22 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Bustos. 2 BUSTOS: Aye, findings, and discussion. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke. 4 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camuñez. 6 CAMUÑEZ: Aye, findings, site visit, and discussion. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes “aye”, based on site visit, findings, and 8 discussion. This passes 5 to 0. And the last item is the initial zoning request, 9 Z2621. There are no conditions on this. Do we have a motion? 10 BINNEWEG: Mr. Chair, I move that we approve Case Z2621. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a… 12 LUDTKE: Mr. Chairman, a question? 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Go ahead. 14 LUDTKE: This parcel here, R-4, C-3… 15 BINNEWEG: Where the school might go? 16 LUDTKE: Who knows? Is there a list of what can be built on there? I’m not sure 17 what’s going to be built on there from what I heard. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Well, they have the options, anything that falls within the 19 zoning of… 20 LUDTKE: I don’t see a list here of possible… 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, they don’t have to have a list. They just go to the…our 22 manual…that says anything that falls within the C-3 or M-1 can be built on that, 23 so… 24 BINNEWEG: Oh, no, are you talking Phase A, or Phase B, Mr. Ludtke? 25 LUDTKE: “A”. 23 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: “A,” where the school… 2 BINNEWEG: Yeah, it’s R-4 or C-3. 3 LUDTKE: I don’t know that there’s a school going…is there some contract or 4 something in place that says that a school’s going in there? 5 BINNEWEG: Well, I think it’s… 6 LUDTKE: I didn’t understand…you said that a possibility of some kind of a… 7 (inaudible) or something. 8 DENTON: Chairman, Commissioners, yes, there is a contract but it pends 9 approvals and everything, you know. It’s pending all these approvals and 10 everything that would…before it could happen because it’s not a separate piece 11 of property yet. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, so if that isn’t approved, then he can put anything in 13 the C-3 or the R-4 configuration or even come back to us and ask for something 14 else, but right now we’re giving him the right to approve anything within those two 15 zoning codes. 16 DENTON: M-hm. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: It doesn’t have to be a school. 18 DENTON: But I’d request that you look at what this is adjacent to, an 19 amphitheatre and soccer fields… 20 LUDTKE: And a high school. 21 DENTON: This is appropriate use. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: So we have a motion on the floor. Did I hear a second? 23 CAMUÑEZ: I second it. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, I’ll call the roll. Commissioner Binneweg. 25 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on site visit, findings, and discussion. 24 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Bustos. 2 BUSTOS: Aye, findings, and discussion. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke. 4 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camuñez. 6 CAMUÑEZ: Aye, findings, discussion, and site visit. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes “aye”, based on site visit, findings, and 8 discussion. So all three of these pass 5 to 0. Thank you very much. Case 9 Z2608, a request for a zone change from R-2 (Multi-Dwelling Low Density) to 10 CBD (Central Business District) for 266 West Court. Submitted by Glenn Carr, 11 property owner. Is the applicant or representative ready, please? 12 APPLICANT: My name is David Stowe. I’m one of the principal owners in the 13 property. Commissioner Buchman and fellow Commissioners, I’d like to just read 14 a brief statement to the Commission here. I am representing Glenn Carr and 15 David Stowe, as we are joint partners in the property at 266 West Court Avenue. 16 We today request approval for a zoning change from residential Central Business 17 District for the purpose of operating a contemporary American-style restaurant at 18 that location. Our main goal is to restore and maintain the integrity of this 19 property which was built in 1870 and is part of the historical state and national 20 record and utilize the main house as the restaurant while maintaining the private, 21 residential units that are located in the rear, or the back of the property. We have 22 met extensively with Brian Harper, City of Las Cruces Planning, as well as 23 members of the Las Cruces Downtown Revitalization, the Fire Department, and 24 others and it’s to my knowledge we have full support from everybody that we’ve 25 talked to so far. It is my understanding that we’re currently, I believe the main 25 1 thing under the zoning change today is parking, and as far as my knowledge is 2 concerned after talking with everyone, is that we have ample parking currently for 3 the Central Business District, but I wanted to relay this, that we have also signed, 4 and I have in hand today, an agreement with the Bank of the Rio Grande, which 5 is our neighbor just to the east of us, for joint use of parking of their facility next 6 door. And I’ll be pleased to take any questions at this time. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. We’ll come back to you, sir. Is that all? Okay, 8 staff? 9 LANI MCCARSON: Chairman, Commissioners, as you stated this is Case 10 Z2608. It’s a zone change request from R-2 (Multi-Family Low Density) to CBD 11 (Central Business District). As the applicant stated, their goal is to redevelop the 12 property into commercial use, specifically for a restaurant. As you can see on 13 the vicinity map located here, the property is located at 266 West Court. This is 14 on the north side of Court Avenue between Alameda located here and Water 15 Street and then Downtown Mall located further to the east. You’ve got the Bank 16 of the Rio Grande on this corner here and the Las Cruces Sun-News is to the 17 south of this property. As the applicant stated, it’s currently a multi-family 18 property. There is a duplex, or a two-unit apartment in the rear of the property, 19 and the main residence in the middle of the property. This main residence is 20 what they will be converting or proposing to convert into the restaurant. As part 21 of the zone change request, the applicants did request two variances. Where 22 this gold star is, corresponds back to the site plan here. This is the existing drive 23 entrance into what will be the parking area to the rear of the property as well as 24 the accessible entrance. The Code does require this driveway width to be a 25 minimum of 24 feet and at its widest, which will involve removing some existing 26 1 landscaping, the driveway width will be 17 foot 7 inches. The second variance 2 that the applicant requested was to the surfacing requirements for all driving 3 areas and parking lots. The Code does require that these areas be paved with a 4 permanent surface such as asphalt, concrete, or brick pavers, or some other 5 comparable surface and the applicants did request that those areas remain 6 gravel at this time. This is the aerial photo, it’s a little bit off (inaudible), I’m sorry 7 about that, but this the Bank of the Rio Grande to the east of the specific property 8 and this is the Sun-News to the south. You can see more of the main residence 9 of the property and the apartments to the rear. Here are a couple of site photos 10 of the property. This is sitting on Court Avenue and this is the front of the 11 property. This is the existing driveway on the east side of the property. This is 12 the rear of the property. These are the two apartment units that are proposed to 13 remain as apartment units. This would be the proposed parking area for the 14 restaurant. And this, further down on the right-hand corner, will be the parking 15 area for the apartments. And one more site photo of the existing driveway. This 16 is where some of the landscaping down here in this lower left-hand corner will be 17 removed to widen this driveway out to the 17 foot 7 inches at its widest. This is 18 the entrance on the driveway from Court Avenue. The staff is recommending 19 approval of the zone change to CBD or Central Business District with several 20 conditions. Number one, that permanent surfacing be provided in all driving 21 areas and parking areas. Staff feels that this is necessary due to the Dust 22 Control Ordinance the City has as well as the commercial nature and the traffic 23 that you’re going to see involved with this property as well as safety concerns for 24 pedestrian and bicyclists along Court Avenue. The second condition is that the 25 mature trees along the driving entrance be trimmed to make the 13 foot 6 inch 27 1 clearance required for emergency vehicles. And I would like to point out in your 2 packet, I think that was listed at 13 feet and it does actually need to be 13 feet 6 3 inches according to our Fire people. The third condition is that the driveway 4 entrance be widened to 17 foot 7 inches at its widest. Staff did receive one letter 5 of support from a neighboring property. And just to point out that you are a 6 recommending body on this case to the City Council. If you have any questions, 7 I can answer them; otherwise I’ll go back to some of the other slides. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, I had a quick question. Our recommendations are not 9 final; they’re going to the City Council? Is that what you said? 10 MCCARSON: Right. You’re a recommending body to the City Council on zone 11 change requests. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. At this time, we will open it to comments from the 13 public please. We’ll come back to you. Anybody from the public…yes, please 14 come forward and state your name. 15 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name’s Alison Tinsley. I’m a Board member for Las 16 Cruces Downtown and I’d like to read a letter from Las Cruces Downtown 17 Organization: “The Board of Directors of Las Cruces Downtown urge the 18 members of the Planning and Zoning Commission to vote favorably for the zone 19 change requested to enable the opening of a new restaurant to be located on 20 Court Street. Las Cruces Downtown is very excited at the possibilities of a fine 21 dining establishment in the heart of Las Cruces. Our organization has long 22 advocated for more eating venues downtown because this will clearly help the 23 revitalization process. The proposed home is a wonderful example of Victorian 24 architecture and is on the National Register for Historic Preservation. This 25 adaptive reuse will allow Las Crucens and visitors to our area a perfect dining 28 1 experience as well as a walk back in the history of our community. We are 2 delighted that Glenn Carr and his partners have chosen downtown Las Cruces 3 for this new and much needed business. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Ms. Tinsley. Anybody else that wishes to make 5 a comment? Yes, sir, please come forward and state your name. 6 AUDIENCE MEMBER: George Pearson. I live in the Alameda Depot Historic 7 District in the old Branigan House, and I’m really excited that this is going to 8 happen and it’s going to preserve the house, so I hope that you approve this. I’m 9 looking forward to having a new eating facility within walking distance from my 10 house. There really isn’t anything, especially for night time dining. Preserving 11 the house is very important. There was a property adjacent to it that is now 12 gone, an old brick house that was built in a comparable time, and we lost that 13 one. Let’s keep this one. I’m not sure what the zoning, the variance requests 14 are. I guess I would propose, I would be supportive of leaving the gravel 15 driveway there, retaining the historic nature of the property or keeping it as close 16 as it can be kept right now. Thank you. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Pearson. Anyone else wish to comment on 18 this? Please come forward, sir. State your name. 19 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Chris Fields. I represent as a primary and 20 Manager of Brazito, LLC. We own several properties in the Alameda Historic 21 District and in particular, we own the property immediately adjacent to this 22 property on the west side, i.e. between this property and Alameda. Our property 23 expands approximately two thirds to three quarters of the western boundary. We 24 strongly support this zoning change. I have submitted a letter to staff in support 25 of the zoning change which you have. I would just like to emphasize what we 29 1 say in the fourth paragraph of that letter and that is that the Central Business 2 District zoning is an excellent tool that you as the Planning and Zoning 3 Commission and the City Council can employ to encourage entrepreneurs to 4 align themselves with the City’s objectives for Downtown Revitalization. It allows 5 them the flexibility they need to do exactly the sort of thing being proposed here, 6 so please support this zoning change. Thank you. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Fields. Is there anybody else that wishes to 8 comment on this case? Okay, at this time we’ll close it to the public. 9 Commissioners, comments or questions? Commissioner Binneweg. 10 BINNEWEG: I’m not a…I’ve had a long, ongoing argument with the City about 11 paving everything that doesn’t move. It creates such huge runoff problems and I 12 don’t see where it does any bit of good. I personally have two and half acres of 13 dirt, I mean gravel and rocks. I’ve got a lot of tenants. They love the rocks. 14 They hate walking around on concrete or asphalt, and so I’m not a huge fan of 15 paving and the City’s requirement here and their rationale is that if you leave the 16 gravel there that it will come out onto the City sidewalk and then bicyclists and 17 people will slip and slide on it. I propose that rather than subject a new, fledgling 18 restaurant to probably $20,000 of paving that we ask that they pave an apron 19 back about ten feet. That would assure that the cars have kicked all the rocks off 20 their tires before they get up to the City sidewalk and that would allow the 21 property not to be…everything completely paved. I guess they have to have a 22 paved area where they have handicap parking, so they pave that and pave it, 23 you know, pave the wheelchair access to the restaurant, but not pave every 24 square foot because it just gets…I mean, you can’t even see it from the street, so 25 it’s not a matter of aesthetics, it’s a matter of…and I don’t think, honestly, I don’t 30 1 think there’s that much dust generated by people turning around and driving 2 down a driveway. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Just a comment from my point of view. I kind of agree, 4 disagree with you, for one big reason and that’s the safety aspect. I think that the 5 paving makes it much safer for the people going in and out in wet weather with 6 wind blowing the sand onto the handicapped spots…again, I don’t think we 7 should pave paradise, no, but I think in certain situations like this where you have 8 as much access by the public, I think there should be the safety precautions. 9 BINNEWEG: But there’s almost, if you’ve been there there’s nowhere that wind 10 could be blowing, I mean, there’s no…there’s trees and bushes all around it. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Well, true, I understand. All I’m saying is I understand what 12 you’re saying. I disagree. Okay, Commissioner Ludtke. 13 LUDTKE: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 15 LUDTKE: And I’d like to ask…when I was over there this afternoon, it’s a…that 16 drive…there are humongous trees on the west side of the driveway and there’s 17 shrubbery and fence on the east side of the drive and if the people are going to 18 access from the parking lot of Rio Grande, we’re going to tear that fence down 19 and bridge in there, or what’s the plan there? And if you don’t have pavement 20 and the ambulance people have to come in and there’s an emergency back there 21 and like in any business the liability shoots way up, so that’s one of the reasons 22 I’m in favor of business having pavement, because you deal not with the little 23 mom and daddy, you deal with the public. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. 31 1 LUDTKE: So, liability-wise, it’s cute, it’s neat, but in this day and age with all the 2 pavers that are out there, you know, your bricks, your cobblestones, anything 3 else, it will just be more attractive and safe. What’s going to happen to those 4 large trees? Are they coming out or staying, or what? 5 MCCARSON: Chair Buchman, Commissioner Ludtke, the trees will stay. They 6 do need to be trimmed back to the minimum 13 foot 6 inch clearance. So will the 7 shrubbery along the east side of the property. Maybe the applicant will elaborate 8 on exactly which trees will need to be removed to widen this driveway out to the 9 distance that was agreed upon by staff and the Fire Department. The 15 foot 6 10 inches and then the 17 foot 7 inches. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 12 CAMUÑEZ: Ms. McCarson, I’ve been out there, too. Even if you do all this that 13 you’re saying you’re going to probably do, I still think there’s not going to be 14 enough parking to accommodate a restaurant because your tenants in the back, 15 what are they going to do for their parking? 16 MCCARSON: Chairman Buchman, Commissioner Camuñez, according to the 17 Code requirements, they do meet the minimum Code requirements and I think 18 that’s why they went a little bit further and got the parking agreement with the 19 Bank of the Rio Grande. 20 CAMUÑEZ: What happens during the day? Let’s say at noon time the bank is 21 full, the restaurant is full? 22 MCCARSON: Right, but we do allow parking on one side of Court Street and I 23 personally just believe that the restaurant will be self-limiting. If you go there to 24 park and there’s nowhere to park then you probably won’t eat there. If they meet 25 the normal Code requirements, then we can’t impose further parking 32 1 requirements on them. I think the idea with it being in the Central Business 2 District is that you would park in one of those lots and walk over to the restaurant. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: May I ask a question? What is the minimum parking 4 requirement for this size restaurant? 5 MCCARSON: Chairman Buchman, the Code requirements for any business in 6 the Central Business District is one space per 1,000 square feet. The main 7 residence is about 2,700, a little over 2,700 square feet; they’re required 3 8 parking stalls in addition to 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit. So that’s 3 9 residential units and the 3 so it’s 6 total. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I have a couple of questions of Mr. Stowe, please. I am 11 very concerned about a lot of things in this also. A couple of questions I have, 12 2,775 square feet, is that what the residence is now? 13 DAVID STOWE: I believe that’s the current residence size right now, but when 14 you take out… 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: My question would be are you going to convert the full 16 2,700 square feet to restaurant or are you going to go in and convert part of it? 17 STOWE: Commissioner Buchman, we…the thing is, we’re going to take out 18 approximately 1,500 square feet of that for kitchen, bathroom facilities and things 19 like that, so when you’re talking about general seating area you’re bringing that 20 down to roughly 1,200-1,300-1,400 square feet depending on how large the 21 commercial bathrooms we put in and the kitchen and dry goods areas and places 22 like that. I wanted to let you know on our proposal on the back part of this, and 23 what we have discussed, we have gotten a preliminary approval on the rear of 24 the parking, was that the rear parking area of this building mainly be used for 25 handicap and residential use with of course a few spaces for employee parking. 33 1 That’s why we went ahead and made the agreement with, and signed off on, by 2 the Bank of the Rio Grande, and that additional space is to allow us to have 3 additional parking for the restaurant. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: My original question then, I think you answered it; you’re 5 going to convert the whole residence into a restaurant? 6 STOWE: Yes, sir. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And what would the approximate seating of the restaurant 8 be? 9 STOWE: About 60 people. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Sixty people. And the parking in back will be primarily used 11 for the employees? 12 STOWE: Well, it will be primarily used for the existing residential units in the 13 back. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the employees. 15 STOWE: Some employees and of course, the handicapped. There are 5 16 spaces, 2 spaces for handicap and 3 additional spaces in the back. With the 17 parking on the street and then the Bank of the Rio Grande parking additional to 18 that it allows us approximately about an extra 25 spaces for parking. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: On the street? 20 STOWE: On the street and at the Bank combined. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, but when we approve…well, never mind. Okay, 22 thank you, sir. Commissioners, any other questions? Yes. 23 BINNEWEG: I just have a comment. This proposal flies in the face of what we 24 generally see as restaurants being constructed in Las Cruces where they again, 25 you know, put down their little 2, 4, 6,000 square foot building and then pave and 34 1 pave and pave and that’s what we’re used to…visually, that’s what we’re used to 2 seeing. So you can drive up and, you know, there’s about six racks of handicap 3 parking and then there’s a whole bunch…and then we require, you know, a 4 measly little tree here and there that may or may not grow, and so when you get 5 into a case like this where something is already existing, it has existing 6 landscaping, then it’s like, oh my God, there’s not enough parking, we’ve got to 7 bulldoze all that stuff down and pave it all because it doesn’t look the way we’re 8 used to it looking. But if you go to any town that has turn-of-the-century homes 9 they’ve made into restaurants and the people who frequent those places, if they 10 really want to go, they’ll park where they can. They’ll find a parking place. 11 They’re not insisting that there are aisles and aisles of parking that they’d be able 12 to just drive their car right up into the restaurant. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, any other Commissioners? Mr. Ludtke? 14 LUDTKE: I think there could be a condition here that that letter of intent from the 15 Rio Grande stays in place for the extent of this restaurant to guarantee that 16 parking. I mean…no? 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I personally have a problem with any letter of intent from 18 any other business to allow parking. I think that it has to stand on the merits of 19 itself. I don’t think we…you can try to get that added but I don’t, I personally think 20 that we have before us a zoning request for .611 acres of property whether they 21 have a ball field next door or what, we’re looking at this particular property, 22 changing it from residential to Central Business District. I think that the first thing 23 I can tell we’re going to disagree on are the conditions. Okay, staff, go ahead. 24 BRIAN HARPER: Mr. Buchman, long time no see. 35 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. Would you please identify yourself? We forgot who 2 you were. 3 HARPER: My name is Brian Harper. I’m the Downtown Development 4 Coordinator for the City. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Brian. 6 HARPER: I just wanted to add a few things real quickly. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Certainly. 8 HARPER: The view about the shared the parking, and it was my idea for the 9 applicant, specifically because I knew there would be some concerns about 10 parking for this use. Mrs. McCarson stated it correctly. The additional parking is 11 not required by the Code, they do meet the minimum requirements for the 12 parking, but I felt this additional parking would help allay some of those concerns 13 about that issue. There are parking lots in the Downtown that are specifically 14 meant for public parking and there are many examples I can cite for you where 15 this is Downtown and you do not have parking spaces in front and people find 16 other parking locations to go to and then walk to those businesses. That is a 17 common occurrence Downtown, so I just wanted to make it clear. It was staff’s 18 suggestion to do the shared parking agreement and they did proceed with that 19 and they did also approach the Sun-News, so they did make the concerted effort 20 to find additional parking. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Harper. Mr. Ludtke? 22 LUDTKE: That adequate parking is not for the residents plus all the people that 23 are going to be at the restaurant. They qualify for the restaurant? They have 24 ample parking for the restaurant? 25 HARPER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Ludtke… 36 1 LUDTKE: And the handicapped and the…? 2 HARPER: According to the Code, yes, they do. 3 LUDTKE: And the housing? 4 HARPER: Yes. 5 BINNEWEG: Doing the numbers. 6 HARPER: Because it is a CBD use, CBD zoning allows for that parking 7 requirement for any business because there are so many public parking spaces 8 available in the Central Business District. 9 BINNEWEG: M-hm. 10 HARPER: It encourages that you have to park maybe and walk, yes, but it 11 is…that is the way the Code is written. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, before we vote on it, let’s discuss amongst ourselves 13 discuss these conditions. You want condition one removed, Commissioner 14 Binneweg? 15 BINNEWEG: Condition A. I would like to allay the City’s fear of the liability. 16 Have the applicant pave back 8 or 10 feet, an apron, to the street. Back 10 feet, 17 and then the rest and the handicapped paving also. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. And as I stressed, I think we should leave that in 19 there, so let’s have a quick vote amongst ourselves on Condition A. Do we 20 accept Condition A as part of the conditions as presented? Let’s call the roll. 21 Commissioner Binneweg. 22 BINNEWEG: No. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Bustos. 24 BUSTOS: Yes. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke. 37 1 LUDTKE: To accept the variance? 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, to leave it as it is. 3 LUDTKE: Yes. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camuñez. 5 CAMUÑEZ: Yes. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And I vote “yes”. So we will leave Section A as one of the 7 conditions. Do we agree on the mature trees? 8 BINNEWEG: M-hm. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Do we agree on the drive entrance, that it needs to 10 be widened? 11 BINNEWEG: M-hm. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right. So under those conditions I will accept a motion 13 on Case Z2608. 14 CAMUÑEZ: I make a motion that we approve Case Z2608. 15 BINNEWEG: Second. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, I will call the roll. Commissioner Binneweg. 17 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on the discussion, site visit, and not necessarily the 18 findings. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. That’s good. Commissioner Bustos. Can you top 20 that? 21 BUSTOS: No, I cannot. Aye, based on discussion, and findings. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes or no. 23 BUSTOS: Yes. Aye. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Commissioner Ludtke. 25 LUDTKE: Yes, findings. 38 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camuñez. 2 CAMUÑEZ: Yes, findings, and site visit. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes “no”. I do not feel this is an adequate 4 location for a restaurant and there is not enough parking. This passes 4 to 1, but 5 it will go to the City Council for final approval. Thank you very much. Next we 6 have two cases. We’ll suspend the rules and hear them concurrently and then 7 we’ll vote on them independently. First case is S-05-080, a request for a master 8 plan for a subdivision known as Dos Lados Estates. Subject property is located 9 west of Arena Drive and east of the proposed extension of Settlers Pass. Case 10 S-05-081 is a request for the preliminary plat approval of the aforementioned 11 location. Is the applicant ready to present the findings? 12 APPLICANT: Yes, Mr. Chair. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the 13 Commission. My name is Kirk Clifton. I represent Katerina, Inc. With us this 14 evening is the President of Katerina, Inc., and our engineer, Mr. Paul Pompeo, 15 with Southwest Engineering. Dos Lados Estates is located directly west and 16 adjacent to Las Colinas Subdivision, PUD, and directly north of the High Desert 17 Subdivision development Phase I, which is located here. The property’s primary 18 access is via Settlers Pass, which is directly accessed off of a direct interchange 19 on US 70 at Rinconada Boulevard. We are requesting master plan and 20 preliminary plat approval this evening. As seen here, this is a master plan. We 21 are initially proposing approximately 215 lots. Utility service is by the City. 22 Again, Settlers Pass, and I would like to touch on this issue because it probably 23 will come up, Settlers Pass had previously been aligned by the subdivision to the 24 south as an offset from our property line along the western boundary. Through 25 the review process, and in discussions with Mr. Thurston, who adjoins us on the 39 1 west side of the property, and based on staff’s recommendation to us, we have 2 agreed to move Settlers Pass partially within our property, so we will be picking 3 up our responsibility for improvements to this roadway to the west and we will 4 utilize this as the primary access. The preliminary plat, as stated, approximately 5 215 lots. It is zoned R-1a currently. It is within the City limits. As you can see 6 here, there is another alternative access point from Arena Drive. I would like to 7 point out that through these discussions we were aware of some concerns with 8 access at this point via Arena Drive, so we do have provisions for alternative 9 designs and we would entertain any recommendation this Planning and Zoning 10 Commission would wish to request of us, but as you can see, here is a blow up 11 of how this property is accessed. At some time this portion of Arena was 12 replatted to curve down to this point. It originally was planned and platted as a 13 straight road so as such we did have difficulty creating this intersection, but we 14 did make it work. It has been approved by the City of Las Cruces, but we do 15 have an alternative design should there be concerns with access at that point 16 and that would be essentially creating a cul-de-sac or even a crash gate at this 17 point and not allowing access to the east. We feel that most of our traffic will be 18 utilizing Settlers Pass since there is a direct link to the highway right there. There 19 are slip ramps at that location. At this time, that would conclude my presentation. 20 Our engineer is here to address any questions specific to engineering or traffic 21 issues that you might have. Thank you very much. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Clifton. Staff? 23 WHITE: The next item on the agenda is Case S-05-080 and Case S-05-081. It’s 24 a request for master plan and preliminary plat approval for Dos Lados Estates. 25 As stipulated earlier, you’re looking at 215 residential parcels on 40.14 acres 40 1 zoned R-1a, which is Single-Family Medium Density. The density range for the 2 master plan is between 5.23 to 6.85 dwelling units per acre. Again, here is a 3 vicinity map showing the 40 acres ± tract of land in question which is situated 4 here in the yellow. Here is an aerial view that shows the development pattern. 5 As you notice that most of the organization within the City of Las Cruces is 6 actually to the east in the Las Colinas area. The Las Colinas area is zoned PUD. 7 The subject property was brought forth into the City of Las Cruces in 1996 under 8 an annexation request. If you look at this area here, you’re looking at Longview 9 Lane which, based upon the Metropolitan Planning Organization will be the future 10 continuation of Settlers Pass as development starts moving to the north. Again, 11 here’s a projection of the master plan as stipulated earlier. Here is a land use 12 table specifying that the actual area to be developed is approximately 29.55 13 acres, of course that’s excluding any kind of internal road street sections or other 14 kind of issues that could not be developed. You’re looking at a density range or 15 actual number of lots of between 210 and 275 for the entire project. As 16 stipulated earlier, you’re looking at the preliminary plat. You’re looking at the 17 realignment of Settlers Pass which now curves upon the actual eastern, western 18 property boundary of Dos Lados Estates subdivision. You’re looking at the 19 secondary access point, as stipulated earlier by Mr. Clifton, in this area here. 20 MPO Thoroughfare Plan, as stipulated earlier as Settlers Pass, is a designated 21 collector status roadway. And for point of reference, it’s actually going to be on 22 the western property boundary and it requires 85 feet of right-of-way. Actually 23 this is the DRC recommendation, is approval without conditions. And that will 24 end staff presentation. 41 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. White. At this time we will open this case to 2 comments from the public. Anybody who wishes to comment? Yes, sir. Please 3 come forward and state your name. 4 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Derek Bailey. I’m a property owner on 5 Galina Drive immediately east of the property and I have some concerns. I’d like 6 the Commission to think, first of all, one of the major streets is under El Paso 7 Electric’s major transmission line that’s running from the southeast corner up to 8 the northeast. They drive directly under a high-voltage transmission line. I don’t 9 think that’s necessarily safe. It is probably not aesthetically pleasing. Several of 10 the lots are directly underneath the transmission line and in the very southeast of 11 the corner where it attaches to Arena Drive, it is very steep. It slopes 12 approaching 45 degrees and they’re probably pretty unreasonable lots. My 13 suggestion is would be to create some kind of a buffer open space along the 14 area along the transmission line because (inaudible) on some of the properties 15 along the southeast corner of the property there are…the terrain is very 16 undulating, existing rock walls will be…probably have to be modified to address 17 the undulating terrain when they redo the lots for housing. My other concern, I 18 also recommend that this area has a lot of family housing and that we 19 be…there’s traffic enough in that area, and I recommend the alternative plan 20 where it would be closed off at Arena Drive, so we could have Settlers Pass be 21 the main thoroughfare. The area probably west of the transmission line looks like 22 very good property to do it but the area to the east of that transmission line, some 23 of the lots are very small, unmanageable, and I would seriously think about 24 creating open space in that area. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Anyone else? Yes, sir. 42 1 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Larry Lang. I live in actually the Ridge 2 development which is across Highway 70, but I just have a general concern that 3 in the East Mesa in developments such as this when there are so many acres in 4 development that are going to be populated by young families, there is no 5 requirement by the City for any type of open space. I was impressed by the 6 earlier presentation about how the developer incorporated bike trails and open 7 space. That doesn’t seem to be happening on any of the developments in the 8 East Mesa. I actually came to comment on one further on in the agenda, but this 9 is a prime example. I don’t want to…I don’t have anything against the developer 10 trying to make as much money as they can, but they take these lots and the 11 purpose is to cram as many lots as they can into their square section without any 12 regard for open space or of quality of life issues. I realize there’s nothing that 13 can be done in this instance, but it’s just a general comment that I’d like the 14 Commission to take under advisement in the future. Thank you. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. We’ll take it under advisement, yes, sir. Okay, 16 next. Yes, sir. 17 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hello, my name is Rick Lamley. I live at 4919 Galina 18 Drive. Just to piggyback on the open space issue, I’d like to make a specific 19 suggestion I haven’t heard yet and that is right here where this water way comes 20 in from Galina Drive, this whole area is kind of a low spot. We get a lot of frogs 21 and stuff in there on wet years and lots of wildlife back in there and bushes and 22 I’m sure they could come in and grade the whole thing. These are actually hills 23 up here that go above the two story houses. It’s pretty bumpy in there and as I 24 said, I’m sure they could cut down all the hills and kind of grade it all out and I’m 25 sure it would be fine as the gentlemen mentioned earlier, with some reinforcing of 43 1 our rock walls back there, but I think a park would be a great addition to that 2 area. You could actually access it through the little water way alley and maybe 3 sacrifice, I counted up about 20 lots or so back in there which I guess is about 4 10% where you could put a good sized urban park back in there. And they’re 5 doing Settlers Ridge down below us, you look at all of Las Colinas, now this area 6 is probably going to start filling in. There’s no little urban parks for all the young 7 families like mine in there and I just think that would be a great place for it right 8 there. Thanks. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, ma’am. 10 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Paula Groves and I live at the fourth house 11 on your map on Galina Drive. Our property line extends up the hill and at the top 12 of that hill are the large utility lines with the easement and I’m very concerned 13 about what all of this property movement up there is going to have on my back 14 yard, because I see all kinds of instability issues possibly, you know, affecting my 15 direct property line and the people below me because…I don’t know if any of you 16 have been back there, but because of that large hill our property lines extend up 17 the hill and then as you go north the hills really don’t exist. But I’m really 18 concerned with all the erosion and all of those things that are going to happen to 19 our property in addition to all of the excess traffic that might be generated where 20 we have a lot of small children playing down on the Arena area, including my 21 own, riding bikes and things like that and I would really urge you all to, if you 22 approve this, to not allow the traffic to go through to Arena and to make sure that 23 the developer has some sort of a provision to keep that land from shifting. 44 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. All right. Thank you. Anybody else? Any other 2 comments? If you want to say them speak now because I won’t let you talk later. 3 Yes. 4 AUDIENCE MEMBER: You talked me into it. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Good. 6 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I’m Ken Thurston. There are two comments that have 7 been made on the road, Arena, a connection to...and I’m not sure that I know 8 what the name of the west street connecting to that… 9 BINNEWEG: Settlers Pass. 10 KEN THURSTON: No, I don’t know…this one right here. I don’t know what that 11 one’s called. I just want to let the P and Z know a little bit about the history of 12 that little triangle down there. Mr. Clifton made reference to the fact that that was 13 a replat. When we did that subdivision the City, as part of the PUD for Las 14 Colinas, we were to give a second access through Arena out to Highway 70. 15 Then when this subdivision was developed to the south, that right-of-way was 16 allowed to be platted as part of the lots for that subdivision, doing away with the 17 right-of-way going out to Highway 70. The intent of Las Colinas master plan was 18 to have a neighborhood connection to the west so that neighborhood connection 19 can occur between Las Colinas and Settlers. I just wanted that to be of record. 20 Thank you. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Thurston. Anybody else? Yes, ma’am. 22 You talked her into it. 23 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Actually, I’m Cindy Bailey. We do have one of the 24 steepest hills on Galina. Anyway, in the last couple of weeks since we’ve gotten 25 the paperwork on this there has been a lot more traffic going up the hill behind 45 1 our house and our retaining wall is already eroding, so it’s increasing the 2 pressure on our wall and we are right under the power lines, so it is a huge 3 concern, even the traffic now that’s going up there looking at these lots, of the 4 erosion. And I agree with the park area, that maybe that can help with some of 5 that. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I’d like to ask you a question before you leave because the 7 other person that talked on that street…what street are you on again? 8 CINDY BAILEY: Galina. We’re like the sixth house up. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Because I travel the area and I can’t… 10 BINNEWEG: Just to the west, no east. Just to the east. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, on this existing zoning map we have, I can’t find it. 12 BINNEWEG: It’s in Las Colinas. It’s in the next… 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Oh, okay. So you live in the bottom part of it. Bottom part 14 of Galina? 15 CINDY BAILEY: Yes, down there. Correct. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. All right, now I get it. Thank you very much. 17 Anybody else? All right, at this time there are no other comments from the 18 public. I’m going to close it to public comment and open it to Commissioners. 19 Mr. Ludtke. 20 LUDTKE: Settlers Bend. I’ll tell you my position right off the get go. I’m sick and 21 tired of sitting here and approving development after development based upon 22 dotted lines on a paper without having the access roads in place. Like 23 Roadrunner. Someday Roadrunner’s going to go out here and then someday 24 Settlers Pass is going up here and then someday this road’s going over here and 25 there and we’re building homes rapidly. They’re building them, they’re being 46 1 occupied. I go to Sonoma Ranch, I see hundreds of people moving in there and 2 living there, and I talk to these people, you know, these humans, and they’re 3 frustrated because these roads that are promised are in the future and so I have 4 a problem with that. I mean, I know the people that are talking about Arena. 5 They don’t want it all to dump out there, so what’s the deadline on the other road, 6 this main road? 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, remember one thing. We can put conditions in there. 8 We can vote it down. 9 LUDTKE: We can do anything, but bulldozers build the road. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 11 LUDTKE: Okay. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Can you imagine driving on Arena and trying to make that 13 right turn as proposed now? 14 LUDTKE: At my age and my speed limit, yes, I could do it. Darn right. And the 15 other comment is about the parks. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. 17 LUDTKE: When I came on the Board I did not…the City isn’t anti park, but the 18 City has enough parks to handle right now. And when is the public going to be 19 informed that the City has enough parks to handle now. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. I think, and I kind of messed up here a little bit, I 21 think what we need to do is go back to Mr. Clifton because there are some good 22 points that were brought up: the transmission lines, the close-off of Arena, you 23 gave an alternative there. The no open space and the parks is basically the 24 developer’s wishes. He can put an open space or he could not put an open 25 space. As you heard Commissioner Ludtke say, the maintenance of these parks 47 1 so they are attractive and safe for your children to play in, who’s going to take 2 care of them? The City really doesn’t have the staff or the abilities to take care of 3 more parks. 4 LUDTKE: The taxpayers are going to take care of them. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That’s right. In time, though, way down the road. So, Mr. 6 Clifton, at this time would you care to comment on the statements that were 7 brought up by the public? 8 KIRK CLIFTON: Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. Just a 9 quick answer to Commissioner Ludtke’s concern. Settlers Pass is actually 10 constructed to this point. It is physically there. There are utilities in the road and, 11 as of I believe, two weeks ago it was my understanding that they were laying 12 base course down in preparation for asphalt. Further to the south, if you all have 13 been out there, you can see that they’ve put in the huge culverts for the arroyo 14 crossing. It’s just a matter of time, before we’re even ready to cut ground here, 15 that bridge will probably be passable. So before long, by the time we actually are 16 prepared to undergo construction here, this will be our access point. It will 17 physically be there. The City has ensured us that the utility lines are to this point. 18 We are tying in the streets here. We will coordinate with Mr. Thurston on the 19 construction of this road and we will have access all the way to the northerly 20 access point in this subdivision. As far as closing off access here, we’re 21 agreeable to that, if it pleases the Commission. I do want to remind the 22 Commission that it was at staff’s request that we open that up. It was primarily a 23 Fire Department and an MPO concern for traffic connectivity and networking and 24 the Fire Department, I believe, is looking at it more as a safety concern for 25 emergency secondary access in and out of the development but again, I mean, if 48 1 that’s your pleasure, we’re willing to close it off right there and place a cul-de-sac 2 or crash gate, whatever your choice might be. As far as…a comment was made 3 about cramming lots in. Cramming lots in would be probably trying to squeeze 8- 4 15 dwelling units per acre. We’re merely requesting over 5, 5-7, in that range 5 and not even 7, it’s probably about 5 ½ dwelling units per acre. We have lots 6 ranging…we have 60 foot wide lots, 50 foot wide lots…we are providing a 7 multitude of housing types and options to people in the area. Hills…we’ll have to 8 meet all of the City of Las Cruces Design Standards, construction standards, 9 drainage standards, traffic standards when we’re doing this, otherwise we 10 wouldn’t be here this evening getting approvals, hopefully. The Public Works 11 Department will review every aspect of our development. Our engineer will 12 design and work with the City of Las Cruces Public Works Department in the 13 construction of this development. I should point out at one time before Las 14 Colinas was there it was of a similar terrain and they managed to develop that 15 just fine. As far as open space, number one, there is an arroyo that will be 16 dedicated for open space. I know that’s a concern of various residents. That 17 type of facility can be utilized for various types of purposes and also to the west 18 of us is Rinconada Ranch’s development, and staff could probably attest to this, 19 but within that master plan development there are several provisions for various 20 tracts of open space. Now, a lot of that hasn’t been actually developed yet, but it 21 is in the master plan that these are set asides for open space, presumably they 22 could be used for just that or even a park-type purpose. And not to mention 23 echoing Commissioner Ludtke’s comment that the City already has made 24 comments to the effect that they have more parks now than they can handle with 25 their staff at levels at this time. As far as constructing a street under the power 49 1 line, that’s the most logical thing to do at this point. We have a subdivision 2 further to the east that went through the process, City Council, Planning and 3 Zoning staff, that we did just that. It’s a much larger transmission line, in fact, 4 and we placed minor local roadways under the power line. We did work closely 5 with El Paso Electric to provide safety measures for each and every one of the 6 poles whether it’s a median or some type of barricade. And again on the park 7 issue, we will be paying all the park fees to contribute to area parks, maintenance 8 or development. And at this time if there are any specific engineering questions 9 that you all might have, I’d turn it over to Mr. Pompeo to answer your questions. 10 Thank you. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Clifton. One more question of you. Maybe 12 it’s an engineering question. You gave an alternative on Arena Drive in the 13 subdivision making it a cul-de-sac. Is there any possibility of making Arena Drive 14 a through street from both directions without that little “V” in it? 15 CLIFTON: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, that is not possible because 16 this roadway is already constructed here and there is a home on this lot… 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. 18 CLIFTON: And there is a home on this lot. So, in order, theoretically for that to 19 occur, the City would have to condemn this property in order to make that right- 20 of-way hit ours at a 90 degree angle here up, yeah, perpendicular. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: So, you’re saying that’s impossible to make it straight? 22 Okay. 23 CLIFTON: It’s not impossible, but it’s… 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: We don’t want to condemn any land that’s… 25 CLIFTON: I don’t think the City wants to go there at this… 50 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: On the hill issue. These people that are concerned 2 because they live on Galina. Are the hills on their property or on your property, 3 the erosion that they’re concerned with? 4 PAUL POMPEO: Mr. Chairman, Paul Pompeo with Southwest Engineering. 5 Basically, as the residents stated, you go up a hill that belongs to their property 6 and the property pins for their lots exist and then the hill continues to go in an 7 upward direction. So, as Mr. Clifton stated, you know, during the construction 8 activities and the grading plan approval and such, you know, we’ll be doing earth 9 work, retaining walls and other types of soil stabilization measures to make sure 10 that the current condition of the hillsides on their property is not touched or 11 changed in any way. As a matter of fact, when we do our subdivision, because 12 of the drainage requirements there won’t be any more drainage coming down 13 those hills onto their property other than what falls directly on their properties. 14 We’ve got to drain all the water out into common or community ponding areas, so 15 therefore, I think that would actually benefit their property because there won’t be 16 water running from those hills that they’ve talked about onto their property, only 17 what falls directly on their property. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, while you’re both there could you do me one more 19 favor? I have the floor now. Could you bring me back the map that shows the 20 arroyos? It’s the overhead view. No. Was it yours or was it staff’s presentation? 21 There we go. Okay. Mr. Clifton, you made a comment about the arroyos. Let’s 22 see, using them for a park area. The one concern I have is that central arroyo 23 kind of to the east, yes, right there. And then the one coming in from the 24 northwest. Are those homes properly elevated where a heavy rain like we’ve had 25 in the last few days would not wash those houses away? 51 1 POMPEO: Mr. Chairman, what’s happening at this time is that this area, there’s 2 a drainage basin in here and all this water is collecting and going through. 3 There’s a drainage channel. You can see it. It’s right here. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. 5 POMPEO: We’re basically going to have to collect storm water inside our 6 development, run it through a community ponding area before it’s discharged out 7 into that channel in a rate that’s either the same as or less than it’s condition 8 today. So, because of that stipulation and the Design Standards in the drainage 9 section, I believe that it would actually enhance because all the water in this area 10 is going to have to go through a ponding area. So, actually you won’t see 11 nuisance storms coming out of this area anymore and we will be required to do 12 that pursuant to the current Design Standard. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: But I don’t see any ponding area in the preliminary plat. 14 POMPEO: Well, there are several land tracts that are set aside and inside of the 15 final review and approval in the Public Works Department. Those ponding areas 16 will have to be designed and sized appropriately. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And you feel those ponding areas are adequate to take the 18 water coming out of the hills? 19 POMPEO: Yes, they will be, in the final design. Yes. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. All right. Now I’m done. Mr. Ludtke, go ahead. 21 LUDTKE: My question is, is the developer agreeable to take the liability for 22 damage to the property of the people who may be disturbed? There may be 23 some damage there or there may not. I’m not saying there is or isn’t. I’m saying 24 are you going to take the liability for any damage occurring to those people? 52 1 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening. My name is Philip Philippou. Mr. 2 Chairman, Commissioner Ludtke, Commissioners, yes, if we do something 3 wrong that is our fault, if we go out there and create a nuisance or a problem, not 4 only are we responsible, we have liability insurance to cover these issues. But I 5 would reiterate again, we do the best we can. We go through a rigorous plan 6 review that should make sure that these things don’t happen and we hire 7 contractors that they themselves have liability insurance. We hire people like Mr. 8 Burns with Burns Construction or Smith and Aguirre. So up the ladder from the 9 contractor all the way to me, we all carry insurance, so even if we couldn’t afford 10 it we could get something fixed if indeed something happened. The answer is 11 yes, we are liable if we do something wrong and we are willing to pay and fix 12 whatever goes wrong. It is no different than any other developer, no different 13 than any other job, no different than a restaurant you go to and they have to…if 14 they do something wrong, they are liable. We are liable as well. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Commissioner Binneweg? 16 BINNEWEG: I have a question with the existing retaining walls along Arena 17 Drive. Are you going to be building your own, a second set of retaining walls for 18 yours or do you use the backside of theirs, or… 19 POMPEO: As you can see, the reason this roadway kicks out here and these 20 lots are deeper is because of this hillside that’s in here, right here, and there are 21 retaining walls and they’re down hill. All our retaining walls or any earth work that 22 we are going to be doing will be wholly on our own property, so we’re not 23 depending upon their hill or their retaining walls in our design. 24 BINNEWEG: Are there…I don’t know, are their retaining walls down from their 25 property line then? 53 1 POMPEO: My recollection is yes, that this property line is up on a hillside and 2 there’s a steep hill right in here in their yards and those walls are actually down 3 inside the property. 4 BINNEWEG: Okay, so you won’t be backing your retaining walls up against 5 theirs because their property is still over… 6 POMPEO: Like I said, all our design work will be wholly on our own property. 7 BINNEWEG: Okay. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, we seem to have a disagreement. One of the 9 people… 10 CAMUÑEZ: Nodding of heads… 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: You’re saying that the retaining…your retaining wall is on 12 the property line. Isn’t that what you said? 13 POMPEO: Right. Well, okay… 14 BINNEWEG: Something about that. 15 POMPEO: In our design, I just want to reiterate, on our design that we’re doing, 16 we are not dependent upon any of their structures on their property for our 17 design, nor will we be getting on their property, or changing the grades at their 18 property line in any way, shape, or form. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: So what they currently have now, their wall, their retaining 20 wall, will be protecting them. 21 POMPEO: Yes. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: You’re going to take the new property, the new homes that 23 you’re building and you’d be putting retaining walls on those lots also? 54 1 POMPEO: Within our lots, so we will have no impact at all on their lots, we will 2 not change the grades at their property lines, nor will we be dependent upon any 3 of their structures for any work that we’re going to be doing on our property. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Will there be a possibility that your retaining walls will butt 5 up against their retaining walls? 6 POMPEO: Not that I can see at this time, no. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: So there would be a dead area in there? 8 POMPEO: Well, we haven’t finished the grading on this project site, so I mean 9 we’re really getting at areas that I just don’t know, but I just want to reiterate, 10 we’re not going to touch, damage, or change any of the adjacent properties. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right. Thank you. 12 BINNEWEG: And I would suggest that homeowners, existing homeowners take 13 pictures of their rock walls. Verify it, because if they do shift and crack then you 14 have to be able to demonstrate that. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And remember, this is just the master plan and the 16 preliminary. They have to come to us again with a final, so when they come 17 again we will vote yes or nay, so be aware of that. No? 18 WHITE: Just a point of order. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 20 WHITE: The final plat is done administratively through staff. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Oh, okay, well…it’s all done through staff, so as you see 22 the work being done and they’ve assured you and these people, we won’t talk 23 about their reputation, we’ve worked with them before, they usually do what they 24 say they’re going to do and I believe if I was in your shoes I would feel 55 1 comfortable talking to them, watching their people, and questioning staff and 2 them as the work is being done. Yes, Mr. Philippou. 3 PHILIPPOU: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, again, we are not just responsible 4 and liable if something happens that we did something wrong. We are also…we 5 do not know, for example, the engineering that went in on their retaining walls. 6 We do not ever depend on the adjacent retaining wall unless we know it was built 7 in a certain fashion, unless we know, you know, what was. For liability, for our 8 purposes, we do not want to depend on the work that was done however many 9 years ago by somebody we don’t know, so we have to stay within our property 10 and we have to make sure that the walls they built before are protected. And I 11 think the answer Mr. Pompeo gave about, well I don’t see any reason why we 12 would be on their property touching the wall…along those lines. We try to stay 13 away from them if we can, we try to protect what’s there if we can, we have no 14 reason to go and push something over or it will create a problem. We do our 15 best not to have to do that. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, thank you. Commissioners? More questions? Yes. 17 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Is there any way I can (inaudible)? 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: If we open it up…okay, all right, go ahead. Briefly, briefly. I 19 would have said no, but they talked me out of it. 20 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you very much. Rick Lamley again, at 4919 21 Galina. The reason I wanted to come back up is you raised the issue that we 22 were going to have an opportunity to view more plans and now you’re saying 23 we’re not going to. I’m sure these gentlemen are great engineers, but, and I 24 should have brought pictures, I apologize, that’s my fault. What we’re talking 25 about, again, is that hill area, the arroyos, you’re discussing. Where they empty 56 1 out is a low spot. I’m the only house along Galina Drive that’s actually…I’m on 2 fill, so some of the stuff they’re talking about I feel…I have construction 3 experience…it’s almost impossible, they’re going to have to dig into my fill and 4 build a retaining wall and address my wall. I may be the only one. The hills that 5 these people are talking about, I mean, they’re incredibly high and their 6 properties are going to be affected I can guarantee it, unless there is, as you 7 said, some sort of buffer zone that they’re talking about. Some alley or 8 something where their walls aren’t going to touch our walls, so I just want to 9 stress that this is our last chance to really deal with this plan. I would 10 recommend some sort of site survey. I don’t know if that’s possible. Thank you. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Okay, Mr. Clifton. 12 CLIFTON: I’ll be extremely brief, Mr. Chair. The public does have an 13 opportunity to review the plans. Once we submit final plat and construction 14 drawings it’s a matter of public record. They can contact Mr. White and the City’s 15 Front Desk at any time, review the final plat, review the construction drawings, sit 16 down with any one of the members of the Public Works staff and have them 17 explain to the member of the public what exactly it is we’re proposing on our 18 engineering drawings. So it really isn’t the last opportunity tonight. There are 19 additional opportunities to go over to the City Office Center on Alameda and look 20 at the plans that our engineer submits with City staff. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, thank you Mr. Clifton. Any other questions? Do we 22 want to do anything on Arena Drive? Do we want to recommend Mr. Clifton to 23 just leave it open and let them make their own decisions on that? Okay. 24 LUDTKE: Leave it open. Drive through there. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 57 1 BINNEWEG: Yeah. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: At this time we will hear the motions separately. I’ll accept 3 a motion on Case S-05-080, the master plan. 4 BINNEWEG: Mr. Chair, I move that we approve Case S-05-080. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 6 CAMUÑEZ: Second it. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I’ll call the roll. Commissioner Binneweg. 8 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on findings, and discussion. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Bustos. 10 BUSTOS: Aye, findings, and discussion. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke. 12 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camuñez. 14 CAMUÑEZ: Aye, findings, and discussion. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes “aye,” based on findings, discussion, 16 and site visit. I climbed the hills. Okay, the second item is Case S-05-081, the 17 preliminary plat. I’ll accept a motion. 18 CAMUÑEZ: I’ll make the motion that we approve Case S-05-081. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Second? 20 BINNEWEG: Second. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I’ll call the roll. Commissioner Binneweg. 22 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on findings, and discussion. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Bustos. 24 BUSTOS: Aye, findings, and discussion. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke. 58 1 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camuñez. 3 CAMUÑEZ: Aye, findings, and discussion. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes “aye,” based on findings, discussion, 5 and site visit. Both of these pass 5 to 0. Thank you very much for your input and 6 your patience. Everybody’s still here, so you must be here on the Consent 7 Agenda. I want to take just a quick 30 second recess to talk to the Board. 8 RECESS 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right. Back in session. This is now New Business 10 number 7. This is Case Z2629, request for a zone change from REM (Single- 11 Family Residential Estate Mobile) to R-1a (Single-Family Medium Density). This 12 is submitted by Katerina, Inc. for Ernest and Alice Ames, property owners. Is the 13 applicant ready? 14 APPLICANT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Once again, 15 my name is Kirk Clifton, representing Katerina, Inc. and just for the record, 16 Katerina, Inc. is now the legal owner of record. The property is located on the 17 east side of Mesa Grande at the northeast corner of Genesis and Mesa Grande. 18 Highway 70 is located here to the south. I’d like to point out recently the 19 Planning and Commission and City Council approved annexation for this 20 property and I believe it was zoned R-1b. The case specifics, the property is 21 currently zoned for half acre minimum lot size, mobile homes permitted, REM. 22 We’re proposing R-1a, Single-Family Residential, site-built only. That is a 5,000 23 square foot minimum lot size. The proposed zone change does not change the 24 existing land use of the property. It’s going from single-family to single-family. It 25 is consistent to the goals and objectives within the Comprehensive Plan. A 59 1 master plan of the subject property is currently under review by City staff and 2 should be before the Planning and Zoning Commission at next month’s public 3 hearing. And as initially proposed in the master plan, we are looking at 4 approximately 60 lots that could be developed utilizing the R-1a Development 5 Standards. Here’s a, just for your information in the event you’re curious as to 6 what it could possibly look like, this is a very conceptual plan in nature with 7 Genesis Road located along the southern boundary, Mesa Grande along the 8 western boundary. I believe Genesis Road is constructed already. The City of 9 Las Cruces built that road through their capital improvement program within the 10 last couple of years. Mesa Grande, I believe the pavement terminates at this 11 point. As part of the subdivision development, we will be responsible to improve 12 half of this principal arterial. The right-of-way at a previous subdivision level had 13 been already dedicated for this subdivision, so the right-of-way has already been 14 given for Mesa Grande and Genesis. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to 15 answer them. Thank you very much. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Clifton. Staff? 17 LANI MCCARSON: Chairman, Commissioners, I’ll try not to repeat any of the 18 information that Mr. Clifton just went over. This is a zone change request from 19 REM, which is a half acre minimum lot size, to R-1a, which is a 5,000 square foot 20 minimum lot size. The subject property is approximately 9 acres and at the time I 21 created this they were looking at 70 lots and now Mr. Clifton said that has 22 changed to about 60. Generally, the property is located in what’s known as the 23 East Mesa. Here’s Highway 70, Onate High School, and the Mesa Grande exit. 24 And as Mr. Clifton stated, this is the Rincon Mesa annexation. Actually the City 25 limit line is incorrect. It should include that property known as Rincon Mesa and 60 1 the subject property is located here. More specifically, it’s at the corner of Mesa 2 Grande running along the west side of the property and Genesis along the south 3 side. This is the MPO Transportation Plan, a spot of it, Mesa Grande Drive is 4 designated as the principal arterial and as Mr. Clifton stated, it will be 5 constructed, his pro-rata share along with the development of the property. An 6 aerial photo of the property, it is currently vacant. This is the Rincon Mesa 7 property that was recently annexed, and a mix of residential uses and mobile 8 homes and site-built homes in the surrounding area. Couple of site photos of the 9 property, this one on the top, this is Genesis located on the south side of the 10 property and as Mr. Clifton stated, it was recently improved by the City. This one 11 on the left is the current improvements, or lack thereof, at Mesa Grande Drive. 12 As Mr. Clifton stated, the improvements do end about where the stop sign is 13 along Mesa Grande. Half of this road will be constructed with the Rincon Mesa 14 Development and then Mr. Clifton and his client will be responsible for the other 15 half of their pro-rata share. Here are a couple more photos. This is the existing 16 Genesis Lane. Staff is recommending approval of the zone change with only the 17 standard conditions, if you may, that the City Council is putting on all the 18 development applications that they see regarding no billboards, the 19 communication structures and the underground utilities. The Comprehensive 20 Plan, the goals and objectives are supported through development on the East 21 Mesa as well as a variety of housing product being provided. And just to point 22 out, the Planning and Zoning Commission, again on the zone change cases, is 23 the recommending body the City Council. If you have any questions I can 24 answer them, but we have not received any public comment so far, and 25 obviously there are people here with comments. 61 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Before you leave, Mrs. McCarson, the conditions are the 2 standard conditions the City Council has placed on all development requests. 3 What do we need to read into the minutes? 4 MCCARSON: They should be on the last page of your packet. Under staff 5 recommendation there is a paragraph that talks about the three items. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No ma’am. No, all it says… 7 LUDTKE: The applicant… 8 CAMUÑEZ: Right here. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Also agrees no billboards…so you want that whole 10 paragraph read into the minutes. 11 MCCARSON: Right. Just like you see on the overhead, that there will be no 12 billboards and underground utilities are required and communications structures 13 require Council approval. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, I’ve got you now. Okay. 15 LUDTKE: Is this City water, sewer, gas? 16 MCCARSON: Right. Kirk, you want to…? 17 LUDTKE: Utilities, all City…I think. Isn’t it? 18 CLIFTON: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Ludtke, yes, sir. It will be all City utilities. I 19 also would like to point out that our neighbor to the west of us, Mr. Thurston, will 20 also be constructing his half of Mesa Grande, so there will be a full roadway 21 cross-section for a principal arterial in the area. 22 LUDTKE: With the bike lanes? It mentions in here… 23 CLIFTON: Yes, whichever principal arterial cross-sections that it shows in the 24 Design Standards. I presume it (inaudible). 62 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Thank you. At this time, I know there was some 2 public comment. Let’s open it to the public and get the input from the people. 3 Yes, ma’am. Please state your name again. 4 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Chairman and other Commissioners, my name is Shirley 5 Daniels. I live at 5411 Genesis. First of all, it was stated that there would be 70 6 houses. I noticed it’s changed to 60 which is still quite a lot. Several people in 7 that area that live on that street commented about the overcrowding of the area 8 and the Fact Sheet did state that there would be an additional 400-450 cars per 9 day. We have a lot of traffic there already. In fact, that street is used as a drag 10 strip. We had brought up to the City at one point of putting speed bumps, but 11 that hasn’t gone through. Even with speed bumps, that’s going to be a lot of 12 traffic, so people will probably have to leave where they need to go about an hour 13 ahead of time. Another item is the recreational facilities. If you’re going to put 14 that many more families in that area, we have no recreational facilities in that 15 area, and crowding people in like that, you know, when you get too crowded 16 people tend to get violent or whatever and we’re concerned about gang activity 17 out in that area also. Also the schools there, in particular Onate, are already 18 overcrowded and you put that many more families out there and there’s another 19 item that I won’t discuss at this time, but there will be even more families in. 20 That’s going to be even more overcrowding at the schools and you know, 21 overcrowding is not conducive to students learning. So that’s one of, some of the 22 items that we’re really concerned about. And also the construction timing, I hate 23 to interchange these items, but the construction of that area plus another one 24 which is just a block away are planned to be done around the same time, so 25 that’s going to cut off traffic from Mesa Grande and also Mesa Drive. How do 63 1 they propose people to get out of that area? So that’s one of the concerns also. 2 I think we have other people that have comments. Thank you very much. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Daniels. Yes. Anybody else that wishes 4 to comment at this time? Nobody else wishes to comment? Yes, ma’am. 5 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I’m speaking on behalf of my son who owns the 6 property. His name is Terrell Walker and he owns the property at 5020 Melody 7 Lane. It’s the corner of Mesa Grande and Melody Lane, which is just the 8 northwest corner. My name is Mary and I just want to add to what Shirley 9 Daniels had said, that it seems like that’s a pretty heavy amount of homes to put 10 in that area when you consider the homes along the strip where I live, which is 11 north of that property, and homes on the other side of Genesis Lane. Those are 12 all I think about half acre lots or a little bit larger than a half acre and have one 13 home per lot on all of those. And if you divide this property the same way those 14 are you’re looking at about 6 houses. They’re the same space that we each 15 have our one home in. So that’s a lot of, I think it seems, a bit of imbalance here. 16 The other concern that I have is where the roadway, they’re showing a roadway 17 here, and I don’t know what this picture is up here, this is (inaudible) homes… 18 BINNEWEG: It’s a decoration. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Just a decoration. 20 MARY WALKER: Because I like the pretty little picture at the very beginning of 21 the presentation that shows these wonderful little homes. That’s not how it’s 22 going to look if you look at the plan that was up there a few minutes ago. It’s just 23 going to be a lot of homes in there. But I’m concerned about the roadway there, 24 they’re showing here actually going through my house. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Which roadway are you concerned about? 64 1 WALKER: Mesa Grande. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mesa Grande. Thank you. 3 WALKER: Rinconada to the west of me, they have made arrangements to make 4 the roadway curve around my house, around the property there, my son’s 5 property. 6 BINNEWEG: I don’t see Rinconada. 7 WALKER: According to this it looks like they’re just going to come right through 8 my property which will be taking off a quarter of the house. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 10 WALKER: So I guess I’d like to have a little more information on that. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, I do remember that one, yes. Thank you, Mrs. 12 Walker. Anybody else in the audience? Yes, sir. 13 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is John Stowell and I live on Skylark. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I’m sorry, the name again please? 15 JOHN STOWELL: John Stowell. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. 17 STOWELL: I live on Skylark. I’m here mostly for the other development but on 18 this, where Mesa Grande leaves Highway 70, it starts out as a 4-lane divided and 19 then it narrows down to a 2-lane about a half a block from Highway 70 and Mesa 20 Grande has never been finished. They’re putting all these houses in, there’s no 21 curbs or sidewalks along there. They’ve also put a new subdivision between 22 Mesa Grande and Jornada that’s going to put all that traffic onto Mesa Grande 23 and that street has never been finished and I have never heard any plans for it to 24 be finished to go into these new subdivisions. 65 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, sir. Please state 2 your name. 3 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name’s Alex Weiss and I also live off of Genesis. My 4 question is, are we going to have sewage, because we don’t have sewage down 5 Genesis and some of the prior streets before that don’t have sewage or 6 underground utilities. And also on subdividing, some of us would like to 7 subdivide our acres. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, at this time I’m going to 9 close it to the public. 10 BINNEWEG: One more. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, sir. I’m sorry. 12 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Grover Pettes, and I operate a water system 13 out there in the East Mesa, Mesa Development Center Water Company, and my 14 primary concern is I have water lines all around this particular property and yet 15 I’m hearing that the City is supplying water to them. There has been no 16 consideration for our company, so I would like to have some answers or 17 comments or something on this to kind of satisfy my curiosity on that. Thank 18 you. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, at this time I’m 20 closing it to public comments. Mr. Clifton, would you like to comment on some of 21 the items that were brought up? 22 CLIFTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. First, I’d like 23 to touch on traffic, if I could back up here to a vicinity map. First and foremost, 24 Mesa Grande, as designated by the MPO is a principal arterial. That is 25 essentially a four-lane divided arterial roadway cross-section going to the 66 1 highway, the highway frontage road. As part of our Dos Suenos development, 2 we were required by the City Council to dedicate and construct over 14 acres of 3 land for another principal arterial called Mesa Grande within the Dos Suenos 4 development. As part of both Dos Suenos and Los Enamorados we are also 5 constructing our half of Mesa Grande, continuing the cross-section north. As far 6 as the construction of Mesa Grande in this area, I believe Mr. Thurston is on the 7 hook for the construction of a considerable share of Mesa Grande as well. 8 BINNEWEG: Thanks, Ken. 9 CLIFTON: So as far as area road improvements, the development’s 10 encouraging those improvements, encouraging better traffic flow patterns, you 11 know, we are doing our fair share of road improvements simply put. As far as the 12 lady speaking to our development going through her property, we’re staying 13 entirely within the borders of our property. I’m not quite sure I understand what it 14 is she means by cutting across a corner of her land. We’re within our surveyed 15 boundary of the development. Recreational facilities, we had that discussion 16 previously. I really don’t think it’s necessary to continue that issue. Density was 17 discussed. Yes, we are seeking R-1a, but that is still within a considerably lower 18 density than allowed by the R-1a zoning district. We’re at about 5-6 dwelling 19 units per acre. Furthermore, half acre lots is essentially encouraging urban 20 sprawl. If you look around the area, Las Cruces is growing. This area in 21 particular, I mean, there’s smaller lot developments throughout the entire East 22 Mesa and again, the roadway infrastructure has been placed, arterials for 23 example. The construction timing of Mesa Grande, I’m sure the City will have 24 much input as to how that’s going to work and how the traffic control…we have to 25 submit a traffic control plan once we have construction drawings and as part of 67 1 that plan, we have to indicate how and where the traffic goes during construction 2 along with signage and our neighbor to the west will have to the same as well 3 and if they coincide, the City will require both of us to follow these traffic plans 4 approved by the City. And another point I would like to hit, what we are providing 5 here in this area is an alternative to buying in Sonoma Ranch, you know, there is 6 a lot of construction in that area, a lot of home prices that much of the Las 7 Cruces population probably can’t afford. We’re proposing a product here that 8 does in fact provide affordable home ownership. I don’t want to say affordable 9 housing, but it’s affordable home ownership. I think you heard a similar product 10 being discussed with the Legends West annexation. And I believe that 11 addresses any questions. We have City of Las Cruces Utilities’ review and 12 approval, my understanding is at one time the City was in process of discussions 13 and negotiations with Mesa Water Company. Neither side has really indicated to 14 me what the status of that is, but the City of Las Cruces does have utility lines in 15 Mesa Grande and that will be the primary service provider to this subdivision. 16 BINNEWEG: What’s Mr. Pettes’ recourse if he hasn’t been contacted and he’s 17 been supplying water to the various homeowners out in that area? 18 CLIFTON: That is an issue I would leave up to the City to answer, 19 Commissioner Binneweg. 20 BINNEWEG: Hm. Because what do they do? We had this discussion just a 21 little while ago about Legends West I guess, about sewer, who’s going to provide 22 sewer services, provide water, and they said well, their attorneys were talking, so 23 I guess that’s the process that this goes through, Pete? Something like that? 24 Maybe our lawyer knows something about that. 68 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Just a second, sir. Let our attorney speak for a minute, 2 please. 3 PETE CONNELLY: The Deputy City Attorney again. The issue of water in the 4 City is the City has the exclusive right, if it so chooses, to serve water within the 5 City limits. The City is not bound by the Public Regulatory Commission 6 concerning its supplying of water to the citizens within the City. We have no 7 dispute with Mr. Pettes, the…I’m sorry, his water company, and “we” the City 8 have the right to serve and have been asked to serve and will serve. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. 10 CONNELLY: There is no taking or condemnation or whatever. There are also 11 some matters such as fire flow, et cetera, et cetera. I might also add the Dona 12 Ana Mutual has Federal projection under 7 US Code 1926, whenever it has a 13 loan in an area as a domestic water company, domestic mutual water company, 14 no one can compete with it. The other water company that we have are utilities, 15 are not 7 US Code 1926 protected. 16 BINNEWEG: Hm. 17 CONNELLY: There’s a difference between water utilities that are controlled by 18 the PRC and, if you will, domestic water companies that have loans from the 19 Federal government and are protected under Federal Code. There’s a total 20 difference between the two companies. 21 BINNEWEG: That might be a little bit out of our jurisdiction. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. I think what we’re saying is the City’s going to provide 23 water to this land. The rest of the people can take of their water. Okay. Thank 24 you, Mr. Connelly. One more thing before I go any further. No. We don’t need 25 you anymore. Yes. Going through my notes, on June 28th, on Mesa Grande 69 1 Estates Phase 1 and 3, we approved and the City Council approved the 2 preliminary plats for these phases and it includes a 2 acre park. So it’s across 3 the highway but you’ve got a new 2 acre park that will go in across the roadway 4 from this new proposed area. For what it’s worth, it’s just my two cents’ worth. 5 Commissioners, any other questions? I’m sorry, it’s closed to the public arena 6 now, sir. Thank you. It’s getting late and we’ve got three more to do. We’re 7 going to have to…go ahead. 8 BINNEWEG: What’s caught my attention on this is it’s out of character with the 9 adjacent properties. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. 11 BINNEWEG: The density is very out of character with it and I don’t see us under 12 any compulsion to rubber stamp something so dense compared to everything 13 around us. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: It is rubber stamping or is it going along with the approved 15 zoning that the applicant is applying for? He can zone it at… 16 BINNEWEG: But we can say not as dense. I mean… 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: True. Oh, yes, we can change it, but to…again, we can do 18 whatever we see fit. He’s asking for, instead of one half acre, 5,000 square foot 19 lots. 20 BINNEWEG: Which is one eighth of an acre, so the neighbors have one half 21 acre and right over the fence is an eighth of an acre, so you can…you know 22 where all the kids are going to go. There’s not enough room in their backyard so 23 they’re going to be all over everyone else’s backyard. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Well, the one thing that there is, is a barb wire fence across 25 the back right now. 70 1 BINNEWEG: Yeah, and that would be…that would be illegal. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: These are the options that we have. Are we going to… 3 LUDTKE: This is consistent with new development. If you look at that plot plan 4 right there you’ll see new developments right there. It’s consistent with those 5 new developments approved by the City. 6 BINNEWEG: But we generally go with contiguous neighbors. We don’t add 7 such…you know… 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I think this is the first time this has come up and I agree with 9 you. You know we’re putting a lot of homes in an area where they have half acre 10 homes and I had questions on it, too… 11 BINNEWEG: And then we have the man in the audience who says, well, heck, 12 we want to subdivide ours, too, and so that’s what triggers. What we do here 13 triggers how the whole neighborhood goes. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: But are you going to go back and tell the developer you 15 own the land, you’re within compliance of the zoning request, but because your 16 density is too high we’re going to turn you down? 17 BINNEWEG: Well, he’s requesting a zone change from Single-Family 18 Residential Estate Mobile to R-1a Medium Density, so you’re going from, you 19 know, Residential Estate to Medium Density right next door to each other. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: M-hm. I understand. It looks like, let’s give Mr. Clifton one 21 more chance. 22 CLIFTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, there’s a question again real briefly. I 23 would like to point out that the Comprehensive Plan that has been adopted by 24 the City does encourage mixed use developments and quite the contrary this 25 type of smaller lot development in this area is actually encouraged by the 71 1 Comprehensive Plan. That is presumably why an R-1b development was 2 approved to the west of us. So we’re providing a mixed use to the area. We’ve, 3 you know, with our developments to the south of Los Enamorados, we have 4 provided a commercial node of uses in this area. Within Dos Suenos we did 5 provide one acre lots in addition to R-1c, 100-foot wide lots, and even in the R-1a 6 areas we had 65-foot wide lots. 7 BINNEWEG: (Inaudible) a transition there as you backed up to neighbors that 8 had bigger lots, you started with bigger lots. That’s what I’m used to seeing as 9 planning. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, and the other thing with mixed usage, I agree with 11 what you’re saying, but my interpretation of mixed usage would be commercial, 12 apartments, and homes. Yes, Mr. Philippou. 13 PHILIPPOU: We did provide, we try every time we do a development, we try to 14 set aside something for multi-family or especially commercial. There is a big 15 backlash from the community, they don’t want them there. This whole area here, 16 nobody would go for anything commercial in this area. We tried, we managed to 17 get a little bit of C-2 commercial right here which we aim to try and develop in as 18 nice a way as we can, but most of the time when you tell people around a 19 residential area that you’re going to try and put commercial in their backyard they 20 get very upset. And even though the Comprehensive Plan and/or other City 21 Codes encourage that, we go to City Council all the time and either we get shut 22 down because of that or it just goes away, so we have tried and we have 23 achieved some of it. And by the way, this road right here Mr. Clifton spoke 24 about, this is Engler Road. This is the bypass that goes, that’s supposed to go 25 all the way through and go to I-25 and then through the valley, so we are fixing 72 1 Mesa Grande and we placed both sides of Engler all the way to (inaudible) right 2 here. Also, I’m sorry, one more item. We are, Commissioner Binneweg is 3 correct, we are asking for R-1a, one eighth of an acre. We are not going to build 4 one eighth of an acre, we’re going to build 5 to 6,000 square foot…I’m sorry, 5 what is it? Six thousand and up square feet, so we’re talking about 6 dwelling 6 units per acre, not 8. I just wanted to make that point. It’s not an eighth of an 7 acre, it’s a good City sized lot. We could, R-1b for example, in areas of town 8 where it goes in, even without the 45-feet in the front we have gone out 50 and 9 up and the dirt is adequate to create 6 dwelling units per acre and not 8. Also, 10 we’re not proposing, for example, to do townhouses, which is allowed in R-1a. 11 That, you know, for example, if you wanted to condition it, we could do 12 townhouses. We’re not looking to do that. R-1a townhouses would be, what, 24- 13 feet minimum? I don’t know if you were aware of that. You can build 24-feet 14 frontage roads in R-1a. We are not proposing to do that. We are willing to 15 condition that to have 6 dwelling units per acre if you so choose and desire and 16 to have no townhouses. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any more questions? 18 Are we ready to vote or do we want to talk some more? 19 CAMUÑEZ: Let’s vote. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. At this time I will accept a motion on Case Z2629. 21 CAMUÑEZ: I make a motion that we approve Case Z2619 with conditions which 22 are there will be no billboards on the property, they will have underground 23 utilities, and communications structures will be subject to review and approval by 24 Council prior to placement. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 73 1 BUSTOS: I second it. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, I’ll call the roll. Commissioner Binneweg. 3 BINNEWEG: I’m going to vote “no,” because it’s a precedent of heavily intense 4 residential in an area that is not surrounded by it. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Commissioner Bustos. 6 BUSTOS: Aye, based on discussion. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke. 8 LUDTKE: Yes, findings. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camuñez. 10 CAMUÑEZ: Aye, findings, and discussion. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair also votes “yes,” based on findings, 12 discussion, and site visit. This does pass 4 to 1. Thank you. The next item is 13 number 9. 14 BINNEWEG: And it looks like it’s the same thing but a little different location. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, the same thing but different location. 16 BINNEWEG: So I think we could pretty much just say ditto for the vote… 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: But again, I think the first thing is we do need to let 18 people… 19 BINNEWEG: Yes, I agree. I agree. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: So we have to go through the whole thing. Okay. So, you 21 can’t talk yet. Case Z2631, a zone change from REM (Single-Family Residential 22 Estate Mobile) to R-1a (Single-Family Medium Density). The property is at the 23 corner of Central Avenue and Mesa Drive. Submitted by Steve Pacheco for 24 Housing Enterprises, Incorporated, property owners. Is the applicant ready? 25 APPLICANT: Yes, sir. 74 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Go ahead. 2 APPLICANT: Thank you. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, my name is Steve 3 Pacheco, and I am here representing the HEI, which is Housing Enterprises, Inc. 4 HEI is an arm of Region VII Housing Authority and the…of course, there’s a 5 whole bunch of information up there on how it was created. Emmett Johnson 6 Ortiz, the Executive Director, is here as well. Region VII Housing is about 7 providing affordable, safe, and decent housing in the region. The Region VII 8 includes Dona Ana County, Sierra County and Socorro County. Housing 9 Enterprises, Inc. was created to help all the regions be able to provide homes. 10 They were having a lot of difficulty finding property that they could use, that they 11 could sell, that they could help with the people that needed homes and there are 12 no homes in the lower $100,000 range. So, this is one of their projects and the 13 site information is as shown. The current zoning is REM. This is almost exactly 14 in the same location as the previous parcel. We are asking for an R-1a zoning, 15 the exact same as the one that just passed. This parcel, however, is contiguous 16 as you will see in staff’s presentation to the R-1a. The proposed usage is for 17 1150-1600 square foot homes and the price range is estimated right now to be 18 $98,000 - $150,000. There will be no large homes. This will be for the Region to 19 provide homes for their customers that they have a waiting list for that they 20 cannot fill because of the extreme rising cost here in Las Cruces. The 21 surrounding zoning as you’ll see on staff’s map is REM; however, across the 22 street is R-1a. Utilities and access roads are readily available and if we receive 23 the zoning tonight all of the details and plans will go through the subdivision 24 process. I’ll hand it over to staff now and I’ll be available for any questions. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Pacheco. Staff? 75 1 LANI MCCARSON: Chairman, Commissioners, I’ll just run through this real 2 quick so that we’re not repeating any of the information. Again, this is a zone 3 change request just like the case we previously saw, the REM to R-1a, the half 4 acre minimum lot size to the 5,000 square foot minimum lot size. This basically 5 is just around the corner from the case that you just heard that was located here 6 at Genesis and Mesa Grande, and this one is at Mesa and Central. Again, this 7 was the subject property in the last case and this is the subject property in this 8 case. It is approximately 6 acres and at the time we were working on this they 9 were looking at about 32 lots. This was a proposed preliminary lot layout. There 10 are a couple of things on this layout that will need to be changed. One of those 11 things is that because Central Road is designated as a collector it will not permit 12 direct residential lot access like Mr. Pacheco was showing on this, so that will 13 need to be modified. Additionally, the City Design Standards do not allow on lot 14 ponding, so that will also need to be changed on here. So this again, is just a 15 very preliminary idea. Most of the interior transportation plan does indicate Mesa 16 Drive as well as Central as both being proposed collectors and the developer will 17 be responsible for their pro-rata share of those improvements at the time of 18 development. This is the aerial photo. Again, it’s vacant property around and a 19 mix of residential uses, both mobile homes and site-built homes in the area. A 20 couple of site photos, this is the existing property, this is looking at the southeast 21 corner of the property looking north along Mesa Drive. This is the existing 22 improvements along Mesa. This is taken down the northern part of the property. 23 This is Skylark Lane and this is Mesa Drive on the top one. You can see it going 24 to the south. This is taken at the northeast corner of the property. This is the 25 existing improvements on Central Avenue. Just like Genesis Lane that you saw 76 1 on the last case, this is Central Avenue, which was also improved recently by the 2 City. Staff is recommending approval similar to the other case based on findings, 3 goals, and objectives found within the Comprehensive Plan. We are also 4 recommending the City Council standard conditions of the no billboards, 5 underground utilities, and the communications structures require Council 6 approval in this case also. If you have any other questions, I’ll be happy to 7 answer them. There was actually one letter of concern, I guess you could say, 8 that was handed out to you in your places before the meeting that we received 9 late last week. 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Members of the audience, anybody that wishes 11 to make any comments on this please raise your hand, come forward, and state 12 your name. 13 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is John Stowe and I live on Skylark Lane, just 14 adjacent to the property they’re going to develop. Skylark Lane is a one block 15 dead-end street that runs downhill. At the end of the street, there is no drainage 16 down there, so the water ponds and there is no access for the water to go out. 17 It’s all private property down there. So, whenever we get heavy rains, it goes 18 down the street and the street floods. We also do not have any City sewer 19 service out there and I talked to the City about it before and they said the only 20 way they could put City sewer in there is to put in a lift station which they do not 21 have proposed at this time. I wanted to know how they were going to take care 22 of the sewer on that. And also, we’re on Mesa Grande Water again on that 23 there. Also Mesa Road itself, it goes over to Highway 70, is actually in very poor 24 condition. It’s just a two lane road without any curbs or streets or anything. If 25 they develop this land, they’re going do it right at their area. What about the rest 77 1 of the street where all the bus stops and all the kids run up and down? That’s 2 going to increase the school buses that go down that road with no curbs and no 3 sidewalks or anything where the kids are going to be along there. But my main 4 concern is the flooding on Skylark. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Come forward 6 and state your name. 7 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Grover Pettes, and of course, I’m the water utility for that 8 particular area. In that particular piece of property I have water lines on the south 9 side of the street, on the south side of that property, I have water lines on the 10 east side of that property, and I have water lines on the north side of that 11 property, so yes, I am concerned. I know I was cut off while ago and said one 12 thing or the other, but I’m concerned and I will have to have my attorney to talk 13 with the City Water Utility and we will bring this up again with them. Right now 14 we’re in the negotiation stage and we need to come to some kind of an 15 agreement there, a settlement, and so we will be talking about that because we 16 do have water lines not only around this one but the other one also. We also 17 have main lines that are going up Mesa Grande, a certain distance up Mesa 18 Grande. We also have property that goes all the way out to Peachtree, so we 19 need to talk to somebody about that. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Anybody else wish to comment on this? Yes, 21 please come forward. 22 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Rose Ann Valenzuela, I’m on the southwest corner of 23 Mesa and Central, right directly across from there. Central Drive going east of 24 Mesa is heavily traveled. It’s not paved. It basically is an arroyo when it rains. 25 It’s right up against my driveway. This is going to create an awful lot of traffic up 78 1 that way. And that housing is much too dense. I cannot see how they can put in 2 32 lots in a 6 acre plot. But it is going to increase the traffic there especially 3 going up Central because it is heavily traveled. They go up Central to hit Porter 4 where they can get onto Highway 70. And doesn’t Mr. Pettes have a franchise 5 for the water out there? 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That’s not within our jurisdiction. 7 ROSE ANN VALENZUELA: No? 8 GROVER PETTES: Yes, it is. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: But again, that’s a very good point. 10 ROSE ANN VALENZUELA: And we have no City services where we are. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, we are aware of that. Okay. Thank you. Anybody 12 else? Yes, ma’am. 13 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, Shirley Daniels again. I think awhile ago 14 when I was talking about the other project I was talking about construction. I 15 wasn’t referring to the road construction so much as construction of the housing 16 going on at the same time which would, like I say, block the people from getting 17 out of the area from Central and Genesis because the work will be done on Mesa 18 and Central and then also on the other end like the picture showed on Genesis 19 and Mesa Grande and that work will be going on concurrently and so how do the 20 people north of Central get out of the area? 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I didn’t mean to cut you off before and I know your 22 concerns, but correct me if I’m wrong, staff, but the contractors cannot block the 23 roadways during construction. They have to keep their heavy equipment on the 24 property. Yes, there would be some inconvenience, but they cannot block the 25 roadways. They have to keep it open during the complete construction. 79 1 SHIRLEY DANIELS: Okay, I understand that, but there will be some blocking 2 with the heavy equipment getting in and out of there. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes, there will be some inconvenience. When you’re going 4 to grow and add there’s always the inconvenience to start, but the down side… 5 there will be something there instead of weeds and sand. So, yes, there is kind 6 of a trade off, but thank you, Mrs. Daniels. I appreciate it. Go ahead. 7 DANIELS: I would like to also reiterate, I’m sorry, I don’t want to repeat, but the 8 water line situation. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That’s a concern, yes. 10 DANIELS: Mesa Development does have the water lines in that area. 11 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 12 DANIELS: And so how do they propose to get water meters to these houses? 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: We’ll bring that back up with staff, yes. Thank you. 14 Anybody else that, yes? Did you make a comment already? 15 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. 17 AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible) 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Can you make it very brief? All right. 19 AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And your name again? 21 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mary Walker. I just wanted to mention that on one hand 22 Mr. Clifton refers to one per acre or a half acre as being urban sprawl and then 23 he says 8-15 homes on one acre is cramming and yet he’s calling for 12 homes 24 per acre in both of these two. That’s all. 80 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. Thank you. Okay, staff, would you care to 2 comment? 3 LANI MCCARSON: Commissioners, I just want to differentiate between the two 4 cases. The comments that she just made were about the last case and they 5 have nothing to do with this case. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 7 MCCARSON: These are two separate applicants, two separate property 8 owners, two separate cases. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. All right, thank you. Yes, sir. 10 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, my name is Alex Weiss again. Also, I live on 11 Genesis and both these developments are happening in front and behind where I 12 live at, and it seems to me that both developments are having the benefits of 13 having the sewage and power and utilities except for ours and that we’ve been 14 there so long, you know what I mean? 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I understand. Thank you, Mr. Weiss. Anybody else? 16 Okay, at this time I’ll close it to public comments. Mr. Pacheco, would you like to 17 comment on the water lines, traffic? 18 STEVE PACHECO: Yes, Chair, thank you. Steve Pacheco again. Mr. Chair, 19 it’s basically the same issues: the flooding, we will be required under the Zoning 20 Code to take care of any flooding problems that will occur. As it stands right 21 now, of course, it’s very preliminary in the process, but we believe there’s going 22 to be about two lots at the very end on the west side of the subdivision that will 23 be for ponding, so I believe it will actually help the area. There is also a large 24 ponding project that the City built right above on the other side of Mesa that has 25 controlled quite a bit of the problem there, but yes, we will be addressing the 81 1 flooding problem. Road and traffic: we will meet all requirements for each of the 2 roads that we will be affecting. We have every plan to follow the requirements of 3 the Code. The water lines: we have not spoken to any of the utilities yet and 4 that’s coming up in the next project. The utilities, you know, the gentleman was 5 saying that the utilities, that we will be getting utilities and they won’t, but please 6 remember that the utilities are paid for by the owner of the property so we will be 7 paying to bring those utilities into the property as well as the roads, we’ll be 8 paying for that as well. Thank you. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioners, questions? Commissioner Camuñez? 10 CAMUÑEZ: We’ve talked about water and stuff, but what about sewer lines? 11 What are these people going to do for sewer service? 12 BINNEWEG: City. City sewer. 13 CAMUÑEZ: Is the City going to provide it or are they going to have to do their 14 own septic tanks? 15 PACHECO: No, it will be on sewer system. On the City’s… 16 CAMUÑEZ: On City sewer? 17 PACHECO: Yes. 18 BINNEWEG: The developer brings the sewer onto their own property. 19 CAMUÑEZ: Okay. 20 BINNEWEG: Where is the sewer now? Is it on your west portion of your 21 property or do you have to go farther west to find it? 22 PACHECO: No, it is on the south side, I believe. 23 BINNEWEG: Southwest? 24 PACHECO: Yes. 25 BINNEWEG: Okay. 82 1 PACHECO: Southeast. I’m sorry. 2 BINNEWEG: Oh, east. It goes all the way past your property? It goes out to 3 Mesa? Oh, the sewer comes up Mesa, so you’ll connect it onto Mesa? 4 PACHECO: Right. 5 BINNEWEG: So the man, who, the gentleman in the audience who is asking 6 about…he didn’t have any City sewer or water on his property. You have to get 7 a map of where the City has installed sewer lines and water lines and see how 8 much it’s going to cost you to bring them down to your property to subdivide it. 9 AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible) 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, that is a whole other issue but that is something that 11 definitely should be brought up to City staff. 12 BINNEWEG: This whole area is undergoing change because the City’s coming 13 in with sewer lines and water lines and that’s where the City is assuming that as 14 Planning and Zoning we will go ahead and go with these dense projects because 15 the only thing that’s limited you in the past is the fact that you had to have three 16 quarters of an acre for your own septic tank. And now that you don’t have to, 17 that’s changing the whole demographics and as close as you are to a sewer line 18 and the water line, the less expensive and the sooner you can get your property 19 on City services. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Correct. Other questions? 21 LUDTKE: The East Mesa is the model case and the development case which 22 will be flourishing in the West Mesa in the future, so this will be repeated. We’ll 23 more or less learn from this scenario. 83 1 BINNEWEG: Not really, because there’s not developers, I mean there’s not a 2 water system up on the West Mesa that’s been there for…how long have you 3 been there, Mr. Pettes? Fifty years? Forty years? 4 PETTES: Almost that long. 5 BINNEWEG: Yeah. 6 PETTES: Since 1964. 7 BINNEWEG: Yeah, see there’s nothing like that on the West Mesa. 8 LUDTKE: Right. 9 BINNEWEG: So this is not a test case for the West Mesa. 10 LUDTKE: I’m referring to the development of the East Mesa. Flourishing and 11 development of the East Mesa foretells the flourishing of the West Mesa. The 12 water issue is strictly a legal aspect left up to the City and their lawyers. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Any other discussion? All right, at this time I will call for the 14 vote on Case Z2631. Is there a motion? 15 CAMUÑEZ: I make a motion we vote on Case Z2631. 16 BINNEWEG: How about you approve Case…not vote on it. 17 CAMUÑEZ: I mean approve with conditions, which are no billboards on the 18 property, underground utilities, and communications structures to be reviewed 19 and approved by Council prior to placement. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 21 LUDTKE: Second. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I’ll call the roll. Commissioner Binneweg. 23 BINNEWEG: Well, since I got shot down soundly last time, I have the same 24 objections, but I’ll vote “aye,” based on discussion. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Bustos. 84 1 BUSTOS: Aye, based on discussion. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke. 3 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camuñez. 5 CAMUÑEZ: Aye, findings. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair is going to excuse himself from voting on this 7 case. I find that I have done business with some of the people involved. It 8 doesn’t make any difference. This does pass 4 to 0. Case S-05-050, a request 9 for Preliminary Plat for a subdivision known as Diamond Springs 5. This property 10 is located west of Sonora Springs Boulevard and east of Roadrunner. Submitted 11 by Gunaji-Klement & Associates for Binns, Ltd. Is the applicant ready? 12 APPLICANT: Good evening. My name is Eddie Binns. I was looking to see if 13 we had a map of the region which might give a little bit more of the tie in to the 14 High Range. You don’t have one? Okay. I can’t believe this. Anyway, I thought 15 it was on the Consent Agenda, but this is the High Range area. This is an 16 entrance from the Sonora Springs area in the Sonoma Ranch area. This is 17 Sonora Springs Road, which comes down to this point and stops at this time. 18 Eventually this road will go all the way down to Roadrunner and will tie into 19 Roadrunner. This is Cheyenne Road, which is an 80 foot road, it is a larger road 20 for traffic carrier, it goes back in and ties into Mission Drive in the other part of 21 High Range. Development has just finished in this general area of Diamond 22 Springs 1, 2, 3, and 4 and the Cimarron Hills Unit #11, probably 125-30 houses 23 that have gone in that area. We had an option of starting this section of 24 development either upstream or downstream. We elected to start it from the high 25 side going down, that way we didn’t have development storm water running down 85 1 on top of existing houses below us. There is development land that we’d be 2 working and we start to try to keep it a little more orderly. The upper side abuts 3 to the Ridge Subdivision that Curry is playing with so that there are large homes 4 on the area up above and this is an infill that’s taken place. I had a phone call 5 earlier in the afternoon from a neighbor that is down in the Cheyenne area here 6 and it was the first I had heard concerns from that end of it, and visited with her 7 and do understand that there are some people in the Diamond Springs area that 8 have concerns about the traffic that would be going on Cheyenne as this area 9 develops. I told her I would certainly look into it, consider alternatives, options, 10 and try to evaluate it and address the issues. That is at this time the only issue 11 that I’m aware of in this area. With Sonora Springs Road going all the way 12 through and that is currently being designed as we do the next phase, it is 13 identified and will be a main arterial to take traffic on out. With Cheyenne being 14 an arterial-type street and a wide one that was built oversized to handle traffic, 15 we have addressed it from some, more than one standpoint, but in trying to listen 16 to the neighbor’s concerns about the traffic that may be going through here, what 17 options do we do, how to we address it, and how do we try to address their 18 concerns. One alternative that I told them I would look into and that would be the 19 grading of Sonora Springs Road on down to Roadrunner so that we did have an 20 alternate access for construction vehicles to get in and out and try to reroute as 21 much of that as possible off of Cheyenne to accommodate that concern and also 22 the safety aspects of traffic in this area. We’re concerned and trying to address 23 it. I don’t personally have a copy of the communication but my engineering firm 24 representative does. You may possibly have had something that came from the 25 people, but I was just made aware of it recently and said let’s look at it, let’s 86 1 evaluate it, let’s talk about it, because at this time that’s the only concern that I’m 2 aware of and I’ll address it on the front end so we can move on. I’ll turn it over to 3 staff and let them move forward, rather than going through a lot of other details. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Binns. 5 WHITE: I’ll go ahead and give a concise presentation on this. Case S-05-050 is 6 a request for Preliminary Plat approval for a subdivision known as Diamond 7 Springs 5. The property location is west of the existing section of Sonora Springs 8 Boulevard and east of Roadrunner Parkway. The property size is 41.22 acres. 9 The number of proposed lots is 135. The zoning is PUD. It was a High Range 10 PUD that was actually created in the early 1980’s. Stipulations in relation to this 11 tract of land was a minimum of 6,000 square foot lots and also would permit a 12 zero foot sideyard setback on one side of the property boundaries. The 13 preliminary plat, as shown earlier, you have two access points currently, one for 14 Sonora Springs which is classified as a major local roadway. If you notice in this 15 area it’s showing a 60 foot right-of-way. Cheyenne Drive is very similar; it’s also 16 stipulated as a major local roadway. It has a 60 foot; it actually tapers as you 17 move north and diminishes to 50 feet. As development occurs in this area, 18 you’re looking at two potential connection points from this development. The 19 connection point here, which eventually could actually alleviate traffic and go 20 back out to Roadrunner Parkway, but that will be based upon future platting of 21 different subdivisions in the general area. Here is a zoning map stipulating 22 again, you have the property zoned PUD under 1980 High Range PUD. This 23 tract of land here is zoned A-2, is owned by the BLM. There are negations and 24 the process is under effect to actually create a community park in this area here 25 that’s owned by the BLM. MPO Thoroughfare Plan, of course, you have one 87 1 existing principal arterial road network in the area which is Roadrunner Parkway. 2 Aerial view, these are the 2004 aerials, again you can see Cheyenne Drive, 3 which is a major local and Sonora Springs which is also a major local roadway. 4 DRC recommendation is approval without conditions. And that will conclude staff 5 presentation. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. White. Anyone in the audience wish to 7 make a comment? Yes, ma’am, please come forward and state your name. 8 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Tara Booth and I live at 2957 Cheyenne and 9 I represent, I’m the person who had the communication earlier today with Mr. 10 Binns…it was brought to his attention, but there were several of us. In fact, I 11 have a petition here that was signed because we all believed that this 12 development would have its own access road from Roadrunner, which it seemed 13 reasonable to us and when we found out today, actually, but the…all the 14 construction would have to be forced through our residential area. We were a 15 little bit concerned about the traffic. But basically…so I’m going to just read what 16 everybody wrote because I’m a little nervous here and so I’ll just read it the way it 17 is. “Although we accept the inevitable goals of Las Cruces and welcome new 18 homeowners into our neighborhood, we are concerned with the impact the initial 19 development and construction will have on the health, safety, and the quality of 20 life our homeowners have in the area. While direct access from Roadrunner to 21 Diamond Springs is planned for the future, most, if not all the construction and 22 related development activity in the upcoming years will be forced to come along 23 Cheyenne and Calais.” I won’t read the rest of it, but basically I was...I’m new 24 here…and so I went from door to door and everybody in our neighborhood 25 signed it, but what I’ve also found out is that the trucks coming through our 88 1 neighborhood for the last six months, no one’s out there on the streets because 2 there is so much construction going on and everybody was kind of hoping that 3 this would be over and we could get the kids out in the streets and we could use 4 our streets because it’s been really difficult. So I’m really glad to hear that Mr. 5 Binns is open to doing like a temporary construction road that will take the large 6 trucks straight out to Roadrunner because that would be the fix. I was listening 7 to Mr. Ludtke. It’s a proposed road and I’m sure when they looked at the overall 8 development they thought to themselves this is great, there is good traffic flow 9 straight out, but that road probably won’t be built for another year to two years, 10 long after they’ve built those 134 homes. So our suggestion, all of our neighbors 11 welcome it, we’re open to it, we’d like to see if there’s an alternative for the 12 construction activity because if it winds through…the only thing (inaudible) if you 13 look at the map, all the big cement mixers are coming down off of 70, they’re 14 hitting Roadrunner and they turn at the church there, Calais is the road at the 15 church, and instead of going all the way down to Mission it’s quicker, there’s 16 (inaudible) issues so they turn and they wind through our little community to 17 come up do everything and it’s pretty intense. And that was for only maybe 60 18 homes that are still under construction and there are still about 10-15 more lots to 19 be built, but we’re really concerned what it’s going to be like when they build 135 20 homes and they have to do all the paving. So we’d appreciate Mr. Binns working 21 with us because we’d really like to work with him. Okay, thank you. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Booth. 23 TARA BOOTH: Oh, and I’ll submit this…who do I give this to? 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there anyone else? Yes, sir. 89 1 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, my name’s Larry Farmer, and we live on Lookout 2 Ridge Drive, which is the Curry properties and Emerick properties that are on the 3 upper side along that edge right there. Thank you, Mr. Binns. And my only 4 concern, and it’s a small one, and maybe I can only appeal to Mr. Binns’ good 5 will, I don’t know. But I thought, my only concern is there’s a considerable drop- 6 off on the lower side of our lot and there’s pretty high walls which we paid a 7 premium to build to accommodate that drop-off. My only concern is right now we 8 have some fantastic views, both left and right. Left, we have the Organ 9 Mountains, right, we have the beautiful City of Las Cruces lights at night. As long 10 as single-story homes are built there we will… our views will not be impacted to a 11 great extent. We’ve always known there were going to be homes built back 12 there. Some of the people assured us that there would only be single-story 13 homes on the immediate down side from us, but, and like I say, maybe all I can 14 do is appeal to Mr. Binns’ good will. A lot of us up here are retired. It would 15 certainly impact our property values if we paid $20-25,000 premiums for those 16 lots. And that doesn’t concern me so much as our quality of life. To lose those 17 views would be a tragedy. Thank you so much. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Farmer. Yes, sir. Please state your name. 19 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, sir, my name is Tom England. I’m also a resident 20 of Lookout Ridge, and bought a dream lot. Never built a dream house, hope to 21 do it, hope you won’t obstruct my views. Starting to sound familiar, Mr. Binns? 22 I’ve got to say something to the panel, though, and this is not a complaint, it’s an 23 observation. In 1993, I chose to move to this community when I finished my 24 Army career. One of the things that I first noticed about Las Cruces when I was 25 going back and forth was the number of small parks. The fact that it was very 90 1 childproof, not childproof, child-friendly if you will, pedestrian-friendly, and 2 bicycle-friendly. If we change that part of the nature of our City, we’re going 3 backwards. End of story. And I scold you, Mr. Ludtke. I heard exactly what you 4 said and I believe you. It costs a lot of money to keep parks up, but there are, I 5 think, less expensive forms of green space. The Triviz pedestrian/bike way/ 6 skate way is magnificent. We need something like that off the Roadrunner area 7 to allow access to the Bataan Memorial park and some of the other related parks. 8 Some other points very quickly because I know you folks are busy. I’ll talk to Mr. 9 Binns after this about height limitations because my concern is a two-story will 10 block my home. I’m encouraged to know that there is discussion with BLM to 11 build a park. I’ll be happy when it happens, but discussions aren’t the same thing 12 as real green space. Once you give it up you’re not getting it back. I see only 13 drainage (inaudible) on the south end of this property. Is that… I’m not an 14 engineer, so I’m asking a question. Mr. Binns or his consultant, is that 15 appropriate, or would it make sense to do another one on the north edge as well? 16 Retaining walls, I had been told that I had Mr. Binns’ permission to have a 17 retaining wall on his property just below mine. Okay, I’ll deal with that, not with 18 you obviously, sir. But it’s already in place and I will be taking photographs. It’s 19 already been built. And finally, traffic is going to be a problem, even with the 20 temporary road that the lady asked for, and I hope she gets it. Otherwise, I feel 21 very sorry for the folks on Cheyenne. Thank you. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. England. Yes, sir. 23 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I’m Bill Lynch. I live in High Range. I have the same 24 concern as the first woman, but I wasn’t entirely sure from her comments, I 25 thought she said something about she’d be pleased if there was a temporary 91 1 road for the construction vehicles. I think Sonora Springs ought to run all the way 2 through to Roadrunner and I need to know when it will, because if it gets put in 3 right away I’m good to go. You can develop it. But I’m concerned that if it’s 5 or 4 10 years, it’s going to be a major problem. Thank you. 5 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. 6 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Larry Lang, I also live in High Range. I just have a 7 question for Mr. Binns. On the west end of the property, is it going to be 8 developed in the same style as this Phase, or is that going to be substantially 9 different? 10 CHAIR BUCHMAN: When you’re talking about the west end… 11 LARRY LANG: The vacant land to the west of this lot is also Mr. Binns’ property 12 and my question is, is that going to conform to… 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, thank you, Mr. Lang. Anybody else? Go ahead. I 14 knew we’d get the people up here eventually. That’s what they’re waiting for. 15 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Cecil Campbell, and I just wanted to 16 address the Chair and the Commission that I’ve worked with Mr. Binns for many, 17 many years as a builder on lots that he has developed and he has always been 18 very concerned of the concerns of the people that we were building around. 19 We’ve had conversations sometimes on a daily basis for complaints for things 20 that we were doing and I think if there’s anything that he can do to alleviate that 21 concern, he would be more than willing to as my experience has been that. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, thank you, Mr. Campbell. Anybody else? There’s 23 still a lot of you people that haven’t talked yet, come on, come up here. 24 AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I’ll give you thirty seconds. 92 1 AUDIENCE MEMBER: The other issue that we have… 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: In the microphone, please. 3 BINNEWEG: And your name? 4 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Tara Booth. Once they open that road up, 5 what’s going to happen is all the construction that is going on in Sonoma Ranch 6 on the back side would start using that road, too, because it’s a lot easier to 7 come through where we are than to go all the way around. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 9 TARA BOOTH: In fact, Mr. Binns was telling me a couple… about three months 10 ago, he had to blockade because they were beginning to create the wrong roads, 11 so we know that this could be a problem, so we just really…I know he will do this, 12 so… 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Okay, first off, Mr. Binns, 14 would you care to…what have we got, Sonora Springs Road, when; the roadway; 15 the height of the buildings; the retaining wall; the drainage, wow, there’s a lot. 16 Go ahead. 17 EDDIE BINNS: There’s a number of them. First of all, the drainage. There is 18 currently a drainage channel that has been built in this region. This ground falls 19 off and drains into that channel. It was designed to take care of the drainage that 20 is fed off of this entire region. Since we’re involved in it, it was master planned, 21 the channel was designed to accommodate those needs and it was built before it 22 was needed to that it wasn’t eroding things away. The engineering firm has 23 handled and has addressed that issue. The issue of two-story houses in this 24 region is a concern of the people. It is a legitimate concern. It’s a good question. 25 It was addressed to me by the Curry’s when they started developing up there. 93 1 And they asked me what do you think about putting a protective covenant and 2 limiting to single-story? I said, John, I’ll put one on my lots if you’ll put one on 3 yours. He wasn’t very interested in doing that and I said, well, basically, you 4 know, it’s a two-way street. I’m willing to limit if you’re willing to limit and I think 5 that’s a good answer to it. Now, obviously, the people that had bought in this 6 area knew I owned the property adjacent and I get one or more phone calls a 7 week from people that are looking at that location to buy and invest and they say, 8 Eddie, what about two-story homes? I say I do not plan to restrict and eliminate 9 two-story homes and I tell them the story about both sides of the property line, 10 but I do follow up with a story that if you look at the High Range region there may 11 be one or two two-story homes in there and basically, my history has shown me 12 that most of the people that are retiring and come to our area don’t want stairs. 13 And therefore, you don’t see very many two-story homes because they don’t sell 14 and the odds are of a two-story home is pretty slim. Now, to further give you a 15 little protection, I offered to sell, and there’s a potential of a row of lots over there 16 that would be sold to Curry so that he can take the pressure from the neighbors 17 and that’s a good way to solve that problem also. So that he gets the heat if he 18 builds a two-story on it. There was a considerable grade differential up here, so 19 that basically if a two-story was built here, the two-story would not be taller than 20 your house. The second story would be at the same level as your house, but it’s 21 not going to be up above it, so that you’re still going to pick up views between 22 houses because there is a considerable grade differential. There was some 23 misunderstandings and there are some problems with some retaining walls that 24 are encroaching over the property lines, and again, to solve those problems 25 amicably without going to lawyers and everything else, the Curry’s and I are 94 1 talking about them buying the lots and solving that problem, because they have 2 got some encroachments on some retaining walls. They’re retainings and sep 3 site I agreed to, but when they wanted to put concrete and other things on my 4 property, that was not what was on the paper, not what was agreed to, and I am 5 the type of person that looks for solutions rather than try to make problems and 6 letting Curry solve their own problem is a good way and they need building sites, 7 so that looked like a good way to solve it to me. There was a question about 8 Sonora Springs Road. That road currently is designed to come down to this 9 point. It is further designed on the Preliminary Plats to come on down to 10 Roadrunner and our engineering firm is currently working on the design of this 11 region. There will be a piece of the action coming back to you here fairly soon. 12 There is an area in this general location of the High Range Planned Unit 13 Development that would provide for the construction of apartments, offices, and 14 light commercial activity in this general area. At this time, my feeling is that the 15 master plan needs to be amended and we will be asking for an amendment and 16 shifting that land use that is presently existing under the Planned Unit 17 Development here to the west side of Roadrunner, so that any commercial, any 18 apartments, or such would be between Roadrunner and the detention dam. 19 There is some property over there that currently allows that, but from the 20 standpoint of overall neighborhood usage and such, this area needs to be 21 contiguous in the same general nature of homes rather than going into 22 apartments and/or some light commercial over there, so that answers the 23 question of what’s going on between here and downstream. We may be playing 24 with something with some slightly smaller lots as we get down in this area, where 25 as up in this area we’re playing with some larger lots and larger types of homes. 95 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: The temporary roadway for construction… 2 BINNS: Temporary roadway for construction is currently outlined on the 3 Preliminary Plats. It is identifiable and it is something that could be graded at the 4 time we do our grading to alleviate those construction vehicles and give them an 5 alternate route. Probably by the time we get ready to start building houses up 6 here, this other subdivision will already be in your hands for review which shows 7 the location and such because we will be moving forward on the development 8 and design of this immediately. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: So when you bring to us that other subdivision on the 10 southwest corner, will you also bring to us the extension all the way through to 11 Roadrunner once Sonora Springs…? 12 BINNS: Yes, that will be part of that. It will all be in one package. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: All right. Thank you, Mr. Binns. Commissioners? 14 BINNEWEG: I have a question. Mr. Binns, does your East Springs, does that 15 go al the way to Roadrunner also? East Springs Road, or does that stop? 16 BINNS: Yes, it does. That is a road that goes all the way through also. That 17 would be the road that would be just below this tier of lots coming all the way 18 through. That way we’ve got a secondary outlet for the neighborhood. Yes. 19 BINNEWEG: Thanks. All right. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke. 21 LUDTKE: As a matter of fact, the cutouts for those roads have been in there, 22 Roadrunner, for quite awhile. 23 BINNS: Yes, that is correct. 96 1 LUDTKE: And then what will happen is, when that construction road is put in 2 there, those people that complain to me about the drive, they’ll probably be 3 whizzing over there to Roadrunner. I know I would be. 4 BINNEWEG: In their SUV’s…going over hill and dale. 5 LUDTKE: In my Lincoln. 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioners, any other questions? 7 LUDTKE: One more thing, to the gentleman about the parks. You know, I’m 8 actually the proactive park person. I’m not anti-park. I’ve tried to, since I’ve been 9 on this Commission, to persuade developers and the City to give our kids what 10 we had when we were kids and not take it away. It’s such a beautiful City, that’s 11 just part of being the beautiful. 12 BINNS: Well, I’ve had the opportunity to participate in the Veterans Park and the 13 parks next to it and I can look with pride to what has developed in this particular 14 region and am pleased to have been a small part of it. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. At this time, I’ll entertain a motion. 16 BINNEWEG: Mr. Chair, I move we approve Case S-05-050. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is there a second? 18 CAMUÑEZ: I second it. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I’ll call the roll. Commissioner Binneweg. 20 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Bustos. 22 BUSTOS: Aye, based on findings and discussion. 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke. 24 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camuñez. 97 1 CAMUÑEZ: Aye, findings and discussion. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes “aye”, based on findings, discussion 3 and site visits. This passes 5 to 0. Thank you very much. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: We have one more case before us, S-05-078. This is a 5 request for a preliminary plat approval for the subdivision White Sage, submitted 6 by Gunaji-Klement & Associates for Sonoma Ranch Subdivision. We’ll let these 7 people get outside just a minute before we start. Okay, is the applicant ready? 8 APPLICANT: Yes, sir. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Proceed. And it’s 9:20, you’ve got two minutes. 10 APPLICANT: I’m afraid I can do it in two minutes. Mr. Chairman, 11 Commissioners, my name is John Carmody, Sonoma Ranch. We’re here tonight 12 to take another look at a preliminary plat. which I believe maybe Commissioner 13 Binneweg saw back in 2000-2001, something like that. This is a vicinity map for 14 our White Sage, Phase 2. Highway 70, we go up here, Sonoma Ranch 15 Boulevard, this is Northrise Drive. Unlike other subdivisions tonight, Northrise 16 Drive is built. Sonoma Ranch is built. The connection to Highway 70 is built. 17 The elementary school that you see in your picture is a very important part of 18 why we’re here tonight and it is currently under construction and I’ll explain that 19 to you also. This preliminary plat consists of 66 lots. I’m going to try and hit on 20 some of the points why I know some of the people are here tonight. This top part 21 up here remains unchanged from what was previously approved. They’re half 22 acre lots. There is a sewer interceptor that comes right down this passage right 23 here through Purple Sage and continues on south. There is a 24-inch (inaudible) 24 water line that has been constructed by the City that comes on down here and 25 then continues at Sonoma Ranch Boulevard. We’ve done a great deal of 98 1 planning. I had a full construction set ready to go. We sat down and we worked 2 with the school. Over on the west side of the school property we gave the school 3 an entrance; actually we’re giving them the land that will connect them to White 4 Sage. We’ve worked with them for a couple of years. They came in this summer 5 and said here’s our plan and you can see this beautiful elementary school that 6 they’re going to build which spans a piece of property that’s got a lot of slope to 7 it. So our major change, the changes that we’ve made, are right in this area right 8 here. We’ve previously had this street that connect right here, Russian Sage, 9 and the problem is that the school set their building so high right here on this 10 corner that we were stuck with about a 15-foot retaining wall. So we 11 reconfigured our streets so that we could take grade out between the lots coming 12 up and that’s why we’re here tonight. It’s because we’ve changed the lots in this 13 area to try and closer meet these grades with the school. We didn’t want a 15- 14 foot high retaining wall. It’s an elementary school, little kids there. So that’s why 15 we’re here tonight. We’ve changed our streets. We had a couple of issues while 16 we were in the design process. One of them had to do with secondary access 17 with the Fire Department. We worked that out with them and the schools by 18 providing…there’s a drainage channel right here and so we’re providing a 20-foot 19 emergency route that not only will benefit Sonoma Ranch, but it also provides 20 emergency access to the back of the school because there is a great grade 21 separation right here. I’m handling about 4-5 feet right now. By the time they get 22 up onto this driveway right here, they’re picking up another 4 or 5 feet, so we still 23 have some slope considerations right in this area. You couldn’t get an 24 emergency vehicle around there. It was a win-win deal for both of us. We’re 25 going to do the improvements on this area over in here for the school. And I 99 1 think I’ve about covered all of the issues that I know of. I’m going to take you to 2 the final plat because there was a lady here tonight that asked me a question 3 about her lot. She lives, I think, one of these two lots right up in here. What’s the 4 grade going to be? Right now, there’s a hill that comes right in here. This road, 5 not only is it dedicated, but it’s two grade because it’s there’s a sewer line that 6 exists underneath it and also there’s a 24-inch (inaudible) water line underneath 7 this road also. We’re matching up to her backyard and I think her question was 8 regarding the run-off. Will we be running water up against her wall, and I wanted 9 to state into the record that no, we are not going to. We’re not allowed to. These 10 lots will have ponding areas in the back. They must maintain a 5-foot separation 11 between the wall, so we’re not running any water up against her wall. Our lots 12 are going to match pretty… they match up pretty nice over into the Jornada 13 Subdivision area, and like I said before, nothing’s changed in that northern part. 14 Half-inch acre minimum was required. We didn’t change anything from this line 15 north. Our changes are right in this area, so with that I’ll answer any questions 16 that you have. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Carmody. Staff? You thought you would 18 get one or two presentations, Mr. White, didn’t you? 19 WHITE: Absolutely. The final presentation this evening is Case S-05-078. It is 20 a request for preliminary plat approval for White Sage Subdivision, Phase 2. The 21 property location is north of Northrise Drive and west of proposed Caballo Road. 22 You’re looking at approximately 66 residential parcels on 24.965 acres. Current 23 zoning designation is R-1a (Single-family Medium Density) and RE (Residential 24 Estates). To stipulate the breakdown in the zoning, you’re looking at the northern 25 17 lots being zoned RE, which has a minimum lot size of half acre, and you have 100 1 47 lots in the south which will be zoned R-1a. You’re looking at a 2004 aerial 2 photograph, showing the impervious surface roadway that you notice here. You 3 have Northrise, which is continued to this point here. To the actual north, you 4 have the Jornada South Subdivision and you have Planned Development over 5 here, I believe this Alamedas de los Pueblos in this general vicinity here. Again, 6 you’ve got the site plan of preliminary plat in respect to this subdivision. That is 7 the actual 10-foot pedestrian, or emergency access easement to the Las Cruces 8 Public School site which is situated directly adjacent to this tract of land. Here 9 are a couple of aerial photographs of the actual property and in this tract here 10 you’re seeing the actual construction of the Las Cruces Public Schools 11 elementary school. MPO Thoroughfare Plan, very basically you have Northrise 12 Drive which is a minor arterial roadway. The DRC recommendation is approval 13 without conditions. And that will conclude staff presentation. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. White, you have no problems with the change that 15 they’re proposing from those north/south roads to the east/west cul-de-sacs? 16 WHITE: Chair Buchman, the answer is no. 17 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Audience? Anybody from the audience? 18 Somebody took this off the Consent Agenda. That person is still here, or 19 somebody has a question? Yes, please state your name. 20 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I’m Joan Cole, and I’m the one who spoke to Mr. 21 Klement about the land abutting our property. At present, we have an easement 22 with telephone poles. I understand that this area is not going to have telephone 23 poles, is that correct? 24 BINNEWEG: Probably underground utilities. 25 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I think that’s correct. 101 1 JOAN COLE: Is there anything we can do about those telephone poles that are 2 between us and this property? 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Not through this forum, but you can do it through the City. 4 You can try. We are just voting on this one. I see your concerns, yes. We can’t 5 help you on that, though. I’m sorry. 6 COLE: Thank you. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you. Anybody else that wishes to speak on this? 8 Okay, closed to public comments. Commissioners? In that case, I will accept a 9 motion on Case S-05-078. 10 BINNEWEG: Mr. Chair, I move we approve Case S-05-078. 11 LUDTKE: Second. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I’ll call the roll. Commissioner Binneweg. 13 BINNEWEG: Aye, based on site visit, discussions and findings. 14 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Bustos. 15 BUSTOS: Aye, findings and discussions. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Ludtke. 17 LUDTKE: Aye, findings. 18 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Commissioner Camuñez. 19 CAMUÑEZ: Aye, findings and discussion. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: And the Chair votes “aye,” based on findings, and 21 discussion, and site visit. This also passes 5 to 0. 22 V. OTHER BUSINESS 23 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you very much for sitting for three and a half hours. 24 However, I still have some things to discuss. Don’t close up. Have you sent in 25 your ballots for the NMAPA? We have some of our people running. 102 1 CAMUÑEZ: Yes, I did. 2 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Did the rest of you send in ballots? 3 BUSTOS: I didn’t get a ballot. 4 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Why didn’t the rest of these people get ballots? Staff? 5 LUDTKE: What’s that? What is that? 6 CHAIR BUCHMAN: The New Mexico Association… 7 LUDTKE: I had a ballot. I sent mine back. 8 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Never mind, staff. The Commissioners don’t know what 9 they’re doing. 10 BUSTOS: I didn’t get one. 11 BINNEWEG: You might be too new. They might not have the name yet. 12 LUDTKE: Probably went to the previous Commissioners. 13 CHAIR BUCHMAN: The conference on…September 14-16. Would it be 14 advantageous to us to attend any of the meeting sessions, et cetera, et cetera? 15 Hello? Do you care if we attend? Oh, Mr. Banegas. There he is. 16 VINCENT BANEGAS: In regards to your attendance at the conference, by all 17 means, I think from as far back as all the years I’ve here it’s been advantageous 18 for the Planning Commissioners to attend. If nothing else, it gives you insight as 19 to issues that New Mexico Planners, New Mexico communities are facing, so 20 we’d love to have you in attendance. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Will we get mailed to us an agenda from the Association or 22 would you provide us one? 23 BANEGAS: Sure. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: About what time should we expect it? 25 BANEGAS: We can get that to you… 103 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Well, no, I mean in the mail from them? 2 BANEGAS: Oh. I don’t know. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 4 BANEGAS: Christine Ochs is assisting in the coordination of the conference as 5 well as Brian Harper, so I can touch base with them and make sure that there’s 6 some coordination. 7 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yes. Okay, when you hear could you touch base with us? 8 BANEGAS: Sure. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I’d like to go to a couple of them. 10 LUDTKE: Didn’t the registration close on the 19th I thought? Or are we exempt 11 from that? 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: I think that even though we’re not registered, we can attend 13 some of the panel discussions and work sessions, can we not? 14 BANEGAS: I’ll check into that as well. We may be able to certainly look through 15 the budget and find some monies to send you all as well. 16 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Money? This is not a freebie? 17 CAMUÑEZ: Nothing’s for free. 18 BANEGAS: It’s never been a freebie. They’ve got to pay for something. 19 CHAIR BUCHMAN: When we have meetings they’re free. 20 BANEGAS: But we’ll look at that. 21 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. 22 BANEGAS: Usually they encourage, you know, the maximum attendance 23 possible, so I don’t think they’re going to turn anyone away. 24 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Okay. And one other thing I had was I didn’t see the 25 Council Actions for July. 104 1 VI. STAFF COMMENTS 2 BANEGAS: Right. We will bring those as well as the actions that were recently 3 taken the next time, next go around. We have some staff changes that I also 4 would like to report. Karen Bennett is no longer with us. Last Friday was her last 5 day. She is seeking greener pastures in terms of some of the work that she had 6 envisioned doing, working at home, doing some web design-type work, that kind 7 of thing. So, with that vacancy and with the vacancies that already exist in the 8 Department, as you well know, staff embarked on an opportunity to fill those, 9 both the Senior Planner vacancy and what constitutes three Planner vacancies. 10 Cheryl Rodriguez, who worked in the Department under David Dollahon (formerly 11 Carpenter), was successful in acquiring one of the Planner vacancies. So you 12 will be seeing Cheryl very often, at least once a month if not more. Cheryl will be 13 working closely with James White on subdivision related issues. We also hired 14 Sandra Gaiser, not to be confused with Sandy Geiger. If you recall, there’s 15 someone who’s been in attendance…and I merely state that because she will. 16 She wants to insure that her name is pronounced correctly and that she’s kept 17 separate from consideration of the other individual. She comes to us with quite a 18 bit of experience in the Planning field, has worked in various communities in 19 several states and so she will be working on the zoning related issues with Lani 20 McCarson. And Nancy Hanks is the third individual who was hired on as the 21 Senior Planner. Nancy comes to us with extensive knowledge in what I would 22 consider the comprehensive planning side of things, but she’s well aware of the 23 need to get up to speed on the development side of things and help with the 24 coordination of activities, and becoming your liaison, as we used to have the 25 Senior Planner serve as your liaison. Nancy will start in September. Cheryl 105 1 started this Monday in her new role. Sandra is with us in her new role as of 2 Monday, and so we’ve got three of the positions filled. The third Planner position 3 was offered to an individual as an Associate Planner. That individual had two 4 other job opportunities available to him and unfortunately, he did not work out. 5 He chose one of the other options he had available. So, we will be going out to 6 advertise that vacancy and we will be listing it as an Associate Planner. It kind of 7 gives us a little bit more latitude as to how we can structure internally our 8 positions, its functions, that sort of thing. 9 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Banegas. Anybody have any questions of 10 staff? Yes, sir. Mr. Connelly, you have something you wish to… 11 PETE CONNELLY: Yes, last meeting I was remiss. I want to introduce you to 12 Mr. Steve Almanza, who is our Associate City Attorney. Mr. Almanza will be 13 hopefully being brought into Planning and Zoning. He is presently attending with 14 me the Planning and Zoning meeting. He does the ETZC, he does the ETZA, 15 and he has a full gamut of planning. He is also working the Planners in the 16 Community Development Department and Mr. Banegas, so we’re trying to fuse 17 him into it so…he has a better sense of humor than I do, so I just want you to 18 know that he is with us and we’ll be bringing him forward to you. Thank you very 19 much. 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: You’re welcome. Thank you. 21 CAMUÑEZ: Thank you. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Mr. Banegas, you had your time. 23 BANEGAS: One more quick point. City Council, this past Monday, if you recall 24 you heard a case regarding a proposed lot split and the respective re-zoning that 25 would be necessary to facilitate that lot split. 106 1 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Is that at the tin barn? 2 BANEGAS: On Las Cruces Avenue in the Historic District. 3 CHAIR BUCHMAN: Yeah. 4 BANEGAS: City Council wanted to express to you all their gratitude in looking at 5 the big picture, in this case looking at the impact to the Historic District and what 6 such a lot split could have done or would have done. The Mayor specifically 7 asked me to bring this back to you and thank you for your insight in that. 8 CAMUÑEZ: Oh wow. 9 BINNEWEG: Oh, I thought you meant bring it back because we had to hash it 10 over again. 11 BANEGAS: They thank you for your view of the issues. 12 CHAIR BUCHMAN: That was neat. Thank you. 13 LUDTKE: I’d like to inform everyone that I am actively seeking the District V 14 Councilman seat. 15 CHAIR BUCHMAN: No, no, don’t encourage him. 16 CAMUÑEZ: Who sits there right now? 17 BINNEWEG: Who sits there now? 18 LUDTKE: Wes Strain. 19 VIII. ADJOURNMENT 20 CHAIR BUCHMAN: It is now 9:40 p.m. I’ll accept a motion to adjourn. 21 BINNEWEG: Yeah, okay. 22 CHAIR BUCHMAN: So adjourned. Thank you. 23 24 __________________________________ 25 CHAIRPERSON 107