Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call to order the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. All right. Does any member of the commission or any member of the city staff have any known conflict or interest with any item on the agenda?

I do. Case number, the first of 7.1, which is the case 25.

Perfect. Thank you so much. Is there a quorum? Fantastic. I am Commissioner Crystal McCaslin, the chair. Is there any member of the public? Oh, that's next on my agenda, yeah? That would like to discuss anything that is not on the agenda this evening? Perfect, can you approach the podium please?

Thank you for accommodating me. Thank you, Madam Chair. Gregory Shervanek for the public. And I would like to bring to your attention some resources that you may not know about, which is the GIS mapping department. of the city. I use it regularly, and in December, a case came before some of you in this body, and I think had you had the details of that, looking at the parcel map, which then gives you a identification number to an address, because the city owns property, it has no address. and that can be verified by the donna county assessor's office which that parcel number will give you a residential number which will then give you access to eagle and the history of the property and i bring this up because i've heard this body ask for more information and i understand why the city doesn't wish to give you as much as you would desire however the information is out there the city offers it it even has instruments as a slide rule and the reason i mention that is because madam chair i would like to at least acknowledge publicly right now that i would like to have the public speak after 7.2 makes its presentation thank you very much

Hi, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to you. My issue is in regard to 7.2.

Can you please state your name?

Oh, I'm sorry. Daniel Burch.

Mr. Burch, I'm sorry, you can't speak on any items on the agenda. This is only non-agenda items right now.

yeah i'm not going to this is not part of the agenda but it's open somewhat related to what is on the agenda that's what i was prefacing so arm my concern is every morning uh... between seven thirty and nine o'clock on the sonoma boulevard uh... there is uh... just immense traffic and as we are putting in more and more houses in the uh... metro verde area uh... that's becoming just kind of uh... a big log a big traffic jam and so i don't know exactly how uh... what the process is of introducing something like that uh... to this body uh... but i was in it may have been something that has been discussed in previous uh... council meetings um... but i really want to bring it up as a issue that uh... a lot of people in my neighborhood have because you sit there in traffic and it's just there's a stop sign there's a light down on baton and there's that's the only way in the only way out of my neighborhood and they continue we're continuing to put in houses all the way up to uh the golf course to black hawk or red hawk and um and so i was just wanted to bring that up as an item thank you thank you anyone else

All right, can I get an acceptance for the agenda?

Madam Chair. Madam Chair.

I make a motion.

I make a motion to accept the agenda as presented.

Thank you, Commissioner Acosta. Is there a second?

Can I get a second? I'll get a second. Thurston.

Thank you.

All right, this is on the motion to accept the agenda. Commissioner Smith? Yes. Commissioner Kaiser?

Yes.

Commissioner Thurston? Yes. Vice Chair?

Yes.

And Chair?

Yes.

Thank you.

All right. There's no consent agenda today. New business? Thank you, Commissioner Thurston. I'll see you in the end.

Commission, Sarah Gonzalez with Community Development. Before you is the proposed preliminary plat for summer estates. Sorry, Sarah. Hang on just a second.

Do I have a motion to hear item 7.1?

Madam Chair, I'll make the motion to proceed.

Second.

Thank you.

Once again, this is for the proposed preliminary plat known as Summer Estates. The scope of the discussion tonight will be to review the Summer Estates preliminary plat. This is not a zone change. The purview of the PNZ is to focus on the subdivision compliance, the lot layout frontage, access, the right-of-way dedication, utility extension, and connectivity. Currently on the property, it is located south of Engler Road and Thurman Road, east and west side of Settlers Pass and Longview Lane. Property encompasses 33.023 acres in size and is currently two tracks. One of them, the larger portion, is vacant. The other track does have a residence located on it. The property is zoned NH1 Suburban, NH3 Suburban. A portion of it is slash zoning. The second portion is just NH1 Suburban. This is gonna be your neighborhood and then your small office and commercial uses. Here's a zoning map of the subject property. As you can see, there is a small portion along Engler and Thurmond Road that are essentially the NH3. The remaining portions that are highlighted in blue is where you're going to see the NH1s. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the two existing tracks into 29 residential lots. These lots will range in size from 0.88 acres to 2.749 acres. The minimum lot frontage is going to be at least 40 feet meeting basically the zoning code. Water and gas will be extended for the subdivision as well as through Longview Lane. There is no sewer as the slopes don't meet for sewer to be extended, so there will be septic on these lots. That is the requirement as far as why the large lots have to be the size they are. Per NMED standards, you have to have a minimum of .75 acres in order to put septic onto a property. There is dedication of Engler and Thurman Road, which is 60 feet, as this is an arterial roadway, and then there's dedication of Sellers Pass and Longview Lane, which is 42.5 feet, following the existing collector roadway that was basically a gap within this area. So at this point on Summer Street, the applicant did go through the DRC process. They are proposing and did get approved for alternate cross sections. The 40 foot wide cross section for Summer Street is going to connect to Cerro Court, and I'll show you that on the aerial map of basically how they're going to connect and align with one another. It will include pavement, sidewalk, curb, gutter, lighting, and parking on one side. That's going to be an improvement from the original subdivision on Carson Ranch where we do see four foot wide parkways that are dirt. We're now going to see sidewalks, so it can actually enhance that roadway and connectivity. On Engler and Thurman Road and Sellers Pass Longview Lane, the improvements are proposed to be reallocated or relocated. They are willing to install the west side of Sellers Pass and Longview Lane. for 42 and a half feet wide, which would include pavement sidewalk, curb gutter, bike lane, and lighting. The reason for that is to actually make the connectivity from the gap we see. So to further describe this, here's an aerial map. The property is highlighted in blue, which is going through the preliminary plot process. The areas in green is where the applicant is required to provide the required dedication. At this point, they have dedicated the 60 feet along Engler and Thurman. They have dedicated the 42 and a half feet if the subdivision were to go through. However, because there is a gap of a dirt road, the applicant is proposing to take the highlighted green area and redevelop essentially or finish that gap in yellow. That is also 42 and a half feet wide. The dedication for two of the parcels had already been provided. So these two parcels were dedicated when they were part of the county before it was annexed in. City council approved the purchase of the final lot here on May 4th for that dedication, knowing that the expansion of this road or the extension of this road is very important, especially for the Sonoma Ranch area being very traffic indulged. This property owner is providing dedication as well. So this will provide all dedication needed to at least do half of the road. The other side on the east side, we do not have dedication at this point in time. The city does not control it as still private property until at the time it is developed. Here's the proposed preliminary plat. As you can see on the northern lot, these areas are going to basically create 28 lots out of the 29. They are at least 0.8 acres in size or larger, meeting the septic requirements. Here is the required dedication and the required dedication. This would be the extension of essentially Summer Street, which would then connect over to Cerro Court. So you're seeing basically a mirror of a lot of the subdivision itself. Here is the other portion that is located, which is block B, that is separate, which is providing the dedication, but is a larger lot. That's gonna be your 2.749 acres in size. So at this point, DRC did review the subdivision from infrastructure utilities and an improvement standpoint. On May 6th, they did approve the alternate cross-section for Summer Street, knowing that it does align with Serral Court. They approved the alternate cross-section for Souther's Pass and Longview Lane, knowing that it is going to provide that connecting point that's already existing there. They also did approve the payment in lieu of for parkland dedication as the size of the park is only 0.19 that would be proposed here which would not meet the three acre minimum and so they'd be paying the fee in lieu for parks recommendation and then recommended approval of the actual preliminary plat in its layout. So with that, staff's findings for approval, along with DRC, is it does comply with the standards within the City of Las Cruces subdivision code. Part of the subdivision code outlined that you just have to meet the minimum frontage and your densities. Based on the property, they would be allowed to have 16 dwelling units per acre. They're at 1.2 because of the large lot requirement based on septic. It also has a minimum requirement of the 40 foot frontage, and so that is being met with each lot. Most of them are about 100 feet wide. You also have the lot widths, that's where I was explaining they do comply with the 40 feet. Subdivision also allows for large lot developments and alternative housing. We do see a lot of density going in, but there has been a request for larger lots within the community. Lastly, it will be the extension that provides an alternative route. We do see and understand that there is concerns with Sonoma Ranch and the amount of traffic that is going through there from the Metro Valley development. This will also create an alternative path. We are currently seeing that Las Colinas is being utilized. However, it is not an extended road, it is going through private property. And so that is going to be something that's fenced in that people are also using that is not a dedicated road. And so this will help eliminate some of that traffic going through private property, put it onto a road that's gonna be a complete paved road. Notice was sent to all the departments, all support of the Premier Platte and the proposed alternate cross-sections and connectivity. We did receive two phone calls that supported the connection, knowing that it is needed within the area. We did receive a late email that is presented to you, to everybody in the council, our commission, Up on the diocese, it came in around 345 this afternoon. There were some concerns related to the traffic, the drainage, and then the natural habitat that's there. To address the traffic, a lot of that traffic is going to not necessarily be created by the additional lots, but you're going to see that traffic is generated as multiple people find alternative routes. And so that road is already being utilized at this point. From a drainage standpoint, as part of the drainage report that the developer is required to provide and the engineer goes through, they're ensuring that there's on-lot ponding for any development that does come in, as well as any historic flows are always allowed to remain, and so you cannot create any more area that you'd actually have to pond. So that's going to be taken care of within each development. With that, here's the commission's options. I stand for any questions, and the applicant is here as well if you have any for them.

Thank you so much. Does the applicant have anything they'd like to include? Hello. Can you please state your name?

Good evening. My name is Zach Libin with Libin Underwood Engineering and Surveying.

Thank you, Mr. Libin. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under the penalty of law?

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you. I don't have a lot to add to Ms. Gonzalez's presentation. I appreciate her thorough presentation. As noted, Summer Estates is a 28-lot subdivision intended to suit the surrounding area with larger lots and not higher density. As noted, I'm going to flip slides. As noted, the developer is choosing to voluntarily, choosing to develop the yellow portion of Longview Lane or Settlers Pass there instead of the two green portions to improve connectivity, vehicular, pedestrian access, and safety there, as that yellow portion is an undeveloped road. Maybe it's not even a road. Barely counts as a road, but the developer is choosing to improve that. There will be paved road connecting from the existing paved road to the south all the way up to Engler following this. The developer and their team have worked with staff to achieve this in a straight manner. straight path rather than deviating or it has taken some work to to achieve a road that's gonna do well here that'll it'll improve that connection there for everybody and as noted at least for this development take some pressure off Sonoma Ranch and the other the other paths in the area That road there, again, is going straight. It'll be two lanes. It'll be compatible with the existing roadways going north and south. The developer's still gonna dedicate the green portions. This lot here to the left side, to the west side of Longview, is included just for that purpose of the dedication of that right-of-way. So there's not going to be any additional lots over there other than dedicating that right-of-way so this road can go straight. And as Ms. Gonzales noted, the southernmost lot worked with staff to achieve dedication of that. And the City Council approved. Again, all of these roads are going to be developed with sidewalks and streetlights, and the Longview portion will have a bike lane, a six-foot sidewalk, and should improve pedestrian connectivity through that area there. With that, we stand ready for any questions as well.

Thank you, Mr. Levin.

Thank you.

Is there any public comments on this? All right, let's start on my left. So if you'd like to come forward.

Good evening. My name is G. Bruce Brown. I'm the one that owns the head of the lot there. thank you mister brown to use where a firm that the testimony about together is the truth and nothing but the truth under the penalty block so uh... we have some questions the group of us uh... since i now know that i'm not going to be part of summer states that's a good thing um... one of the question is and this is really for the staffers i guess questions i didn't realize i could submit questions so i'm going to sling them out now are there standards for driveways to this major arterial that are they going to be able to cut driveways for all of us residents sorry mister brown you have to ask ask all your questions you have to and i don't have to remain very good i'll get going uh... what's going to happen to the existing dirt road right now it's you know taken all the traffic and those of us especially on the east side of very concerned that there's a lot of four-wheeler side-by-side traffic that comes on that road were afraid they're going to come over to our side so i just like to know if there's some contingencies for that uh... one of the things is there's barricades on either end can we have the barricades of this like end of road can we have those moved over to the dirt to help us out uh... another question is uh... from we have forty two and a half feet from our property line to the new blacktop are we responsible for that forty two and a half feet for the next however many years it gets until it gets uh... so then another one would be can we protect our driveway from therefore wheelers and other people getting off the blacktop that's one of the questions uh... and then the other one is what people brought up is when people from the red hawk and sonoma ranch world here that there's another you know and a new way to get to seventy were very aware of the high traffic patterns is going to be considering the desert view that's going on there's five hundred houses there they're gonna be going that same way and just hoping there's some contingencies and some traffic patterns that are being thought of Is there a way to slow people down? They're already going 35, 40 miles an hour on the dirt road, let alone if this is a major arterial and we're very worried about us coming out into traffic. And I think that's about it.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Brown.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else? Sure, come on down.

My name is George Pearson.

Hi, Mr. Pearson. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under the penalty of law?

Yes, I do.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, my concern is with the cross-section for Longview. It's showing a bike lane, but only in one direction. uh... history of these uh... one-sided roads is it might be another twenty years before they build the other side of the road so we were building unsafe facility for bicyclists for half of the travel if somebody's using the bicycle maybe that they've got a bike lane maybe going to work but going home there uh... sharing an eleven foot lane with traffic that uh... there's also probably in being distracted. So the bicycle facilities for both sides are needed. I saw in the cross-section where there is a five-foot right-of-way still available, so there's an opportunity to maybe put a multi-use trail or a paved asphalt in that space, which would make it safer for bicyclists. We need to build roads. We need to be building 21st century roads where we're building roads that are safe for all users, not just for vehicles. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pearson. Sure, come on down.

uh... good afternoon good evening i guess my name is william gilman's my daughter genevieve i said a couple questions about it do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under the penalty of law i do yes thank you i just had some questions uh... as far as the development is concerned is there a plan for the developers to implement any green space in the place i understand there's a splash pad up there, but that's still pretty far away from a lot of these homes that are going in and the nearby homes. And then secondly, echoing some of the concerns about bike and pedestrian safety, you know, making sure we have that in both directions, but also are there plans to make this huge road, you know, safer for bikes with pallards or anything like that? And who is going to be paying the expense for that? And then also... Oh, there's one other thing. Walkability, you know, it's great that we have those huge sidewalks, but we always tend to put them right next to the road where people are going 35 miles an hour or generally more, such as on Roadrunner. Like, it would be nice if people and our children were not six inches away from traffic that's going way too fast. So can we put in some trees along that? Have like the sidewalk shifted over a little bit with some trees to both provide shade and protection. And even if we need to make the sidewalk a little smaller, I think that is a very fair trade-off. Those are my questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Gellman.

I have a minute and a half left, so I'm going to... I want to talk. Yeah, what do you got?

I want to talk to you.

Miss Timothy. Okay, that's my comments.

Is there anyone else? Good job. All right.

Madam Chair, Sarah Gonzalez for the record. To address some of the questions, I will answer what I can and then defer to Public Works as well as Parks and Recreation Department. As far as the 42 and a half feet wide dedication, that is the requirement per code to provide for a collector right of way. And so unfortunately, because the property is located on one side, what would have happened with the applicant's dedication is if the screen area were to be improved, that's all they would have had to create was the other 42 and a half feet. That's where you would tend to see that the full improvements for that right-of-way would have only been within this area. It would have left essentially the yellow line with no sidewalks, no connecting bike lane, only the dirt path between Carson Ranch and Arroyos at Sellers Pass Phase 2. And so the dedication comes when a property owner develops their land. The city does not own the land on the east side of this yellow line to make improvements for the other 42 and a half feet of that collector right-of-way. That is owned by private property owners until that is dedicated, developed, and then the city would accept those improvements. At this point in time, the city does not own it and has not received dedication or improvements. That's why it's only generally on one side of the road. The way our code is written is a developer is to provide the local right-of-ways within their development and to the full extent. Collectors and arterials are half of their requirement and so you will see half cross sections coming in as developers build out these properties. to go and defer to the green space as mentioned the payment in lieu of was the recommended or Recommendation by the parks department knowing that the acreage required for the park was going to be 0.19 acres and so that would not be feasible for the parks department to accept and maintain in which that's why you're seeing a payment in lieu of as opposed to the open space being these are large lot areas and you will see that a lot of people will be utilizing probably their properties for some of the recreational areas, or you'll be walking down to the park that's located within Arroyo's phase two. The other area, I will defer to Public Works as far as driveways and the barricades as we will have access easements that are located on the east side. It's not improved, but it is a dedicated access easement through Deeds. And so I don't know if those barricades can be moved over while we just continue to use the one side of pavement, but I'll defer to Public Works.

for the record kyle armed with uh... public works and director the driveways can all continue uh... if you have an existing driveway you can continue to have an existing drive if you develop the property then then those terms can be negotiated upon as far as uh... The roadway, the applicant worked with community development and public works to come up with this alternative to promote connectivity so that we have another route to get to those areas out there besides Sonoma Ranch, and public works is in support of that. The developer's only responsible for half the roadway and half of the roadway is what we're getting, but it does provide the full connection. The other half of the roadway is not the developer's responsibility. Those improvements would have to come through future development or

through the city's capital improvement plan thank you thank you so much stuff all right commissioner so i have a motion on this item i have questions okay i'll take discussion once we have a motion that's approved didn't we already make a motion Oh, we do? Good, great, we're great. Commissioner Kaiser.

Thank you. So a couple questions that kind of echoes what we heard from public comments. One is the pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure here, I want to applaud the applicant for working with the city to extend a developed roadway of sorts outside of what they're legally obligated to provide. So I appreciate that. But my concerns are around what we heard from a couple of folks in that there's a bike lane going in one direction only. I'd like to know whether or not there's any possibility to have some interim cross-section that provides for two-way travel for cyclists and pedestrians, for that matter, while we wait for the other parcels to acquire the right of way needed to have a fully developed road. Because as we know, it could be 20 plus years before that happens. It could never happen. And so I'm concerned that we're basically building an unsafe infrastructure from the beginning. So I'd like to know from staff if there's any possibility to open that conversation back to find a way to have two-way infrastructure for all road users.

Madam Chair and Commissioner Kaiser, as this has gone through DRC and they are the final body for the cross sections or alternative cross sections, that discussion has been had and been approved. There was no appeal to those cases. The appeal process is within a 15 day of the DRC approval, very similar to that of PNZ when a decision is made. And so I think at this point, staff would take those considerations under review and then see if there's an alternative maybe through the capital improvement program or not. The unfortunate part is because we do not have that dedication, it's reallocating what those numbers would be. However, those cross sections have already been approved.

During DRC, was there any discussion about, hey, we only have sidewalk and bike lane going in one direction?

Madam Chair and Commissioner Kaiser, the discussion for DRC was that we wanted an increased sidewalk. Actually, it was at that time five feet, and so we asked to increase that actual sidewalk so that way it is seven feet whenever you look at, or six feet so that way you have ADA compliance whenever you're going around a light pole. The second thing was to increase the bike lane. It was originally four feet. It went up to five feet. And the reason why there is a median on the other side of the roadway, right after you have the two travel lanes, you have a median. So that way there is expected turn movements. And so that will still be happening for any of the property owners that live within that area. Because they will be turning on from their property to that turn lane.

Sure, and so the five feet that's on, I guess, the northbound side, that space exists?

The five foot area is going to exist in the cross section. It is labeled as a median. That was what it was approved as, only because you will still have turning movements for property owners to access their property on the east side. So you cannot put a full connection necessarily if the median is where they're going to be turning from because you'll have access from driveways to basically their access easements.

So that five foot on the right hand side of the cross section for Longview Lane is reserved exclusively for turning vehicles?

Madam Chair and Commissioner Keizer, that is correct, yes, as these cross sections have been approved.

That's very disappointing to hear. Once again, we don't question whether or not there's going to be two vehicle lanes traveling in either direction. We never question that. But when it comes to pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, you can get half, but then good luck coming home. I'd like to find a way to have an interim bike facility in that five feet to accommodate cyclists who may be coming northbound on Longview Lane.

Madam Chair and then Commissioner Kaiser, I think that's something we have to look at for the entire cross-section area, because if you do notice, it goes all the way from Engler up and through Arroyos. There's only half of the road actually improved, so it's further than what the developer is required to do at this point in time. only half of this roadway has ever been improved for the developments that have come in. And so that's consideration, which is where I say this may be an alternative cross-section that something city council or staff needs to review and see if there is an alternative, knowing that it's not gonna just be this yellow area that the developer is putting in. If you look at Carson Ranch, it is only developed at 42 1⁄2 feet as well. It does not have it. So this is where the applicant proposed essentially the same cross-section that has been approved with Carson Ranch and Arroyos at Settlers Pass by making that connection. And so they're aligning. However, we did request that they widen those sidewalks and that bike lane. And so those are gonna be the two differences, knowing that we were still constrained but that they connect fully to Sellers Pass on the south side. But there's a lot larger area that's not just 1,500 feet that actually has the missing bike lanes or the missing sidewalks on the east side of the properties to consider.

So I had a very difficult time tracking what you were describing. If you could pull up a map, that would...

I would say right here. So if you look at this area here, Only the west side is improved. So on this side, there's no connectivity for a bike lane. There's no connectivity to a sidewalk. So in reconsidering this cross-section here as well, there's no connectivity to the north or to the south for either one of those improvements. That's why staff, when they reviewed it from DRC's standpoint, was that we were seeing the connectivity as a straight shot of the sidewalk, the pavement, and the actual bike lanes being improved. The west side is not, or the east side is not improved at all. the north or on the south side but that green section they would be developing the applicants developing the other half no they're not they're taking those improvements and putting it into the yellow so once again we're only seeing 42 and a half feet here being developed this half over here the improvements that they're required to put in so instead of getting essentially 85 feet in this green area these improvements are being reallocated for the yellow The green is a total of like 1,300 linear feet. We're looking at about 1,500 feet for the applicant. So they're extending more than what their requirement is just to get that connection. So that's where I think DRC considered those improvements, but understanding there was no connectivity to the north or the south side.

Yeah, I'm tracking. But I guess my underlying problem is we only gave half of the connectivity for everyone except for vehicles. kind of problematic along those lines what is what is the applicant or the city rather requiring for the intersections of I think that is had it written down here Cerro Court and Summer Street across long view and then angler is there going to be any sort of traffic calming or i mean you presumably are going to have point of order commissioner kaiser that's not part of this discussion unfortunately i don't understand it's not part of this development that's it in question connecting the intersection they're building the road on the other side does it connect sarah

Madam Chair, Commissioner Kizer, the connection is going to be going across to the paved area, yes. Because it's going to connect through this area and then go to the north side. So yes, they would have to connect in order to get to that paved section.

Right. And then the same thing on the north across Engler, right? You're basically going to have a T intersection.

Madam Chair and then Commissioner, correct. You're going to have to have Ts to get actually to those right-of-ways, yes.

So how are we addressing potential pedestrian crossings at those intersections? It's a residential neighborhood. You're gonna have residents who want to get to either side, whether you're coming out with a bicycle. Is there gonna be any kind of traffic calming measures at those intersections to facilitate that?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Kaiser, I will defer to Public Works as to what our improvements would be required to mitigate.

Again, Kyle Arndt, Public Works. At this point, it'd be preliminary to determine that. Right now, we're looking at the alternative cross-section, which is to provide the connectivity, but we haven't seen the actual details of what pedestrian improvements might be coming across Longview, but they will be expected to meet ADA and PRO-WAG.

Sorry, could you speak a little closer to the mic? I couldn't catch the last part. You said there may be

they would be expected to meet ADA and pro-wag requirements for pedestrian crossings.

Okay, so specifically, is that a stop sign? I mean, how would pedestrians be able to cross at those locations safely?

Is the question will there be a crosswalk?

or any kind of traffic calming in addition to a crosswalk?

No, I don't believe that there's any traffic calming or crosswalks shown at this time.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Smith?

Those are all my questions, thank you.

Thank you.

um i just had one question this is a photo developer um i know you're paying the hundred thousand dollar in lieu of fee for not developing any type of park and that's because it would not meet the city's requirements for size why wouldn't you allocate space for a park i mean you're going to have twenty eight lights here uh... my guess is that they will be younger families children and uh... i just understand why that wouldn't be part of this development plan

Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, the requirement for a park is calculated based on the number of lots. And as noted, the number of lots only warrants that 0.19 acres worth of a park, both land dedication and improvements. And at that size, the city won't take that over for maintenance. So the minimum, as I understand it, the minimum would be three acres the city would accept for a park. It's just pure economics why the developer's not gonna give up three acres of this development for, to give up three lots of this for a park, for the city to maintain. Otherwise, the city wouldn't accept maintenance of that park.

Thank you.

Commissioner Acosta?

I would just like to make a comment to the developer. I'd like to applaud them for the alternate route for distributing traffic. Public safety is very important, so I would like to commend them for that.

Is there any further questions?

Yeah, I just have one clarifying question on the zoning piece, so that northern portion It appears that they're not doing anything differently. So how does that come into play? Can you explain that again?

Madam Chair and Commissioner Kaisers, basically we do have properties that may have dual zones. And so whenever the new development code was adopted, if you already had zoning that was essentially pancake zoning, then you had the availability to use both of them. And so they could have developed this property as either NH1 or NH3. They could have used either to build out. along angler they could have built commercial offices they could have designated the area and then did single family or they can use single family as single families allowed in both zones and so essentially whatever the zoning allows as far as land uses is how the property can be further subdivided so they would have had either opportunity thank you commissioner smith i have one more question um how long has um

this area been zoned for development?

Madam Chair and Commissioner Smith, so the property was annexed in 1987. At that point in time, it was given zoning.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Acosta? No? All right, we'll call for the vote.

All right, this is on the vote for item 7.1, Commissioner Smith.

Yes.

Commissioner Kaiser?

Yes, and I would like to encourage staff to find some temporary solution for that bike infrastructure.

Vice Chair?

Yes.

And Chair?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for everyone's participation in that. Do I have a motion for the next agenda item? So moved.

Second.

Welcome back, Commissioner Thurston. All right.

Okay, once again, Sarah Gonzalez with Community Development. Before I use the zoning map amendment proposed for the Royal Crossing area. As part of the scope for the discussion will be limited to the proposed zoning map amendment area. PNZ's role is to be a recommending body for approval or denial to city council. The discussion should focus on the land uses, the zoning compatibility, density transition, connectivity and consistency with adopted plans for the proposed area. This request does not approve a final site plan, subdivision plat, building permit or construction plans. The development will still have to meet all of the required developments as far as access, drainage, utility infrastructure and permitting requirements. So currently the property is located within the Royal Crossing development. It is located on the south side of Mercy Drive. It encompasses 22.088 acres. It is unsubdivided and is a vacant parcel. Current zoning on the property is NH2 Urban, which is encompassing about 11.19 acres in size. NH3 Urban, which is 5.4 acres in size, and then OS1 Urban, which is our open space recreational for about 5.41 acres. This is also located within the Apodaca Blueprint. Here's a zoning map of the subject parcels that we are discussing this evening in which the purview is related to. So the current property is zoned NH2 in the yellow, you do have the open space recreational in green, and then you have the NH3 that is located in the orange area. As you can see, the surrounding property is vacant as well as the parcels, and then you do have the single family residential located to the east side. The applicant is proposing to change and modify to NH-1 urban zoning for 14.11 acres. This would change primarily the NH-2 down to an NH-1 urban. The NH-3 urban is about 6.08 acres in size and then the open space recreation will go down to .68 acres. Then you have open space drainage down to .72 acres. There is an area that's left over for future right-of-way and open space that will provide connectivity to the east properties. However, there is no change to the town center overlay as that is still part of the designated overlay that was required in Elevate Las Cruces. So to further explain, if you look, this is going to be your existing zoning map that's currently here. What has been modified is this has been expanded down. So when I'm looking at this line here, it has basically moved down and been reallocated. This is already NH3, however, it has been expanded further. this area here which is the nh2 designation is being proposed in blue to be nh1 as well as the open space and the applicant did go through and update their drainage report where it reflected that the open space recreational area that was also a joint drainage facility was not necessary as they have created on-lot ponding for the properties and so they could be reduced so after staff's review and engineering it was determined that those areas could be modified if they requested to So now there'll be two areas where the drainage actually is maintained. This area is directly adjacent to the Apodaca Park where their drainage facility as well is located. This will be a small retention pond that's located within the property. This is the area that would provide connectivity for the future right-of-way. So as you can see, this is a lower density than what was originally approved through the new development code. So as far as recreation, there is going to be a connection to the linear park that is proposed on the north side of the development. This will create a safe dedicated area that is non-within vehicle traffic. So this would go through the actual development once a developer comes forth with the preliminary plat. So this will be separate from the actual vehicle roads. This does fulfill a conceptual plan that was provided in the Apodaca Blueprint providing multi-use trails that are going to get you to the adjacent neighborhoods connecting to Apodaca Park as well as the Outfall Trail and Trevis Channel. So the benefits with the proposed zone change before you is it is going to decrease in density, especially next to the existing residential district towards that east side. It is compatible with the residential that is there. It also does provide housing services and recreational in a centralized location, meaning the NH3 was designated in the blueprint as a flex district, and that actually called out where you have different offices, services that are going to provide to the residents within that area. This also redevelops the infill area and the urban core. There's a lot of focus right now on redeveloping these existing sites so we don't continue to sprawl out. This will also provide connectivity between the neighborhoods that are existing. Staff did provide a recommendation of approval, knowing that the transition between the existing single-family residence is more comparable to the proposed zone change than what was originally provided. It also does provide all those services as well as commercial needs and necessary services that will be provided to that neighborhood as well as whatever is existing. Connection through the trails is one of the main ideas from the Apodaca Park Plan. because it did actually connect to the Tree of East Trail, which also has a lot of park area, and so you're connecting multiple places within the city. And it meets the intent of what the conceptual blueprint plan was. Notice was sent to all the relevant departments in support of the zoning map amendment. We did receive one call today regarding the notification requirements. To clarify the notification requirements per our code, we are required to send out letters and notification within 500 feet of the area to be rezoned. So it will not be the entire parcels, it's the area to be rezoned. That is higher than what the state standard is of 200 feet. So we understand that, trying to notify everyone as well. With that, here are the Commission's options. I stand for any questions, and the applicant's representative is here as well.

Thank you, Sarah. Does the applicant's representative have anything to add?

Hello, Madam Chair. Paul Pompeo with Sauter Miller & Associates representing the applicant.

Hello, Paul. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under the penalty of law?

Yes, I do.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commission. Staff's presentation was very complete and I don't have anything to add to that other than to stand before you and answer any questions that you might have. I would also remind the commission that this basically is a reduction of intensity. It's basically a reorganization of our drainage facilities and the creation of the trail in the green there. So once again, an enhancement over the existing zoning. So with that, Madam Chair, I stand for questions from this body.

Thank you so much. We will get to you with those questions, I'm sure.

Thank you very much.

Is there any public members that would like to speak on this issue? Okay, great. Would you like to approach the podium?

Thank you. My name is Connie Potter.

Hi Connie. I live at 2505 Desert Drive. Connie, hang on just a second. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under the penalty of law? I do. Thank you.

My comments have to do with the characteristics of the Country Club neighborhood. For about 10 years, I was president of the Neighborhood Association. We worked very hard to make sure that whatever happens to this blighted property, and it is blighted, is consistent with the characteristics of our neighborhood. Our home density is three homes per acre. My home is on .6 acres. My home backs directly to this. We are all worried about our property values. The other thing is there are only four homes in our neighborhood that are more than one story. We are a one story ranch, mid-century modern neighborhood, and we're working very hard to get us designated as a historical neighborhood, mid-century modern. The changes that have been made, may or may not be consistent with our neighborhood characteristics. Because I don't know what in whatever urban, what the density is. But if it's more than one story, it's not. If it's 10 homes per acre, it's not. And the connectivity to our neighborhood through that little pathway, that is an arroyo. That is drainage with a chain gate that's locked all the time. It's not a road. We don't want traffic on Desert Drive and Santa Casio. Our roads are falling apart. Nobody's doing anything for us as far as the roads, as far as maintenance, as far as any kind of improvements. We're doing them ourselves. So as we look at what this is going to do to affect one of the oldest, nicest, most stable residential areas in this city, we need to think about what is compatible with the investment we have placed in our homes, the maintenance we have placed in our homes. We are virtually all first and second homeowners. Virtually all. We've lost a few, you know, to nursing homes, et cetera. But we've been there since there was a golf course that was promised to be there into perpetuity in its deed. How'd that go? So we will be watching. We will be very careful to see that you respect the characteristics of our neighborhood as you move ahead to do something about this blight. And I don't know if you know, but in June of last year, in June, a year ago, we had 20 fires. 20 fires in that property. Fire department came every time.

We're grateful for our fire department.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Please approach the podium.

Can you put me on the floor, appendix? Thank you, thank you.

Please state your name. Gregory Shervanek. Thank you, Gregory. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under the penalty of law?

I certainly do.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mine has to do with safety. The area On the other side of Mercy Street, as you see on this map, is a parking lot. And that parking lot belongs to the medical building, which is not the hospital. Now the parking lot to my right of the picture, which is east in orientation, where is a large brown square, is the parking lot for the hospital. This body gave to the hospital an SUP for a heliport, which is not built. Now, this woman lives 80 feet from that heliport on the eastern side where that new access area is going to be. So the safety becomes this. If these areas are three stories, then we need to monitor how air traffic arrives at this heliport which isn't built yet. And to be very honest, when this resolution, when the commission voted to affix the USP for the heliport, it was appealed and It's all on video, so you can watch all this and staff can give you all the information concerning it, but there are only two ways that a helicopter can land in this area because, first of all, the hospital's a tall building. Secondly, there's high power lines that run north and south behind the hospital, so the entrance to this heliport area, is only in two manners. So I would like the opportunity for you to see a two-dimensional or three-dimensional routing of how helicopter traffic is going to fly over possibly low income areas, high income areas, traffic areas, because you've got a road right by this heliport. And so I think in safety, and under the state law, Nobody's supposed to be landing in a dirt lot irregardless. It's a violation of FAA rules and you are most welcome to call New Mexico Department of Transportation and Aeronautics and get all the rules because when this body was given that information, it was not supplied to them. So I would like the contractor and developer to please show us the two routes over this property.

Thank you. Yes, please come down.

My name is George Pearson.

Thank you, Mr. Pearson. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under the penalty of law?

I do.

Thank you.

So the narrative talks about the multi-use trails and connectivity, but I haven't seen actually any plans on how that works. So I'd be interested in making sure that if I'm coming along Madrid, for example, and need to go to the hospital, will I be able to go through that property area safely? on the trail uh... it sounds like the trails might be dedicated to the city parks so uh... maybe the parks department to do a presentation on that uh... i'm chair of the and he was by school pedestrian bicycle and pedestrian facilities advisory committee and i would invite the developer and see parks and rec to do a presentation that shows that kind of connectivity so that we uh... can make sure that we have proper ability to go through that area. I can tell you that I've gone to the hospital on my bicycle and tried to go towards where that property is, and that was an adventure. That was before some of the construction was done, so I probably can't even do it now. There should be good connectivity from the hospital area through the property to Madrid, to South, to Main Street, to the outfall channel. It's promised, but it's not described, so that's what I'm asking is to see some of those plans. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am.

I'm Eva Navarro, St. John, and I also live in the... Hi, Ms. Navarro.

Give me just a second. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law?

I do. Thank you. I also live in the Country Club neighborhood. So really, I don't have a comment. I have a question. What is the developer intending to put in there as specifically as possible? Can you tell us that? That's what we want to know. You know, the... the kind of housing, the number of units, that's what we need to know. So can somebody please answer that question?

Thank you for your question. Yes, ma'am.

My name is Aubrey Rubush.

Say it again. Aubrey Rubush. Hi, Aubrey. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law?

I do.

Thank you.

Just kind of the same comment. I recently purchased my home in the past three years, and I purchased it in this neighborhood because there isn't a lot of high story buildings there is one or two apartment complexes but they are on Madrid so they don't directly affect my home so that is one of my biggest concerns is if we're gonna be putting stories there because I do like the one level properties thank you is there anyone else all right Sarah would you like to address any event

Madam Chair, the first one to kind of address would be the actual connection that is being made with this proposed zone change is actually gonna be here on Martha Drive back in 1963, essentially too far. there was actually dedication provided to the city of Las Cruces to make this improvement. And so that would be the actual connection that staff would be looking to see coming in with the development as the developer comes in with their preliminary plats to match that zone change that's being proposed. And so we'd want to see that that's already been dedicated to us. It is a 50 foot right of way, so we'd see that connection to where it does provide some type of connectivity. The other questions as far as the actual specifics for the development, I will go ahead and defer to the developer to divulge any information they do or don't have at this time. As far as the park land plans, there are no trail system plans in place at this point in time. This is only the purview of the zone change to once zone is established, then we will probably see the preliminary plaque coming in with more of those details.

Good evening again, Madam Chair. Basically, I'm going to tell you what we're anticipating, but I want to make it perfectly clear that we're not giving up any of our rights to develop this property under what the map to zoning is going to be. the area that's kind of in a red color is right now probably looking at a medical office building other commercial uses such as that the blue will be residential housing i don't know there are concept plans with single family alternatives there's also plans with multi-family so at this time it will be residential but at this point in time i can't say definitively what those will be thank you

Yes, ma'am. This is Catherine with Parks and Rec Department. I just wanted to answer some questions related to the trail connections, if it's appropriate to speak at this time.

Yes, please.

Okay. We've had several discussions with the developer regarding the trail. The intent really is to be able to connect the Outfall Channel Trail into Apodaca Park and provide some connections. Public Works is working currently on a connection from Camino del Rex to the Outfall Channel, and this particular trail will connect... east of Legacy Drive from Camino del Rex, follow along that eastern edge, and then ultimately follow along the undeveloped portion once it gets developed. Then it will culminate at the corner of Apodaca Park where the access road is, not at the drainage. Those have been the discussions with the developer because we have to have people make it into the park. Parks and Rec is currently working on a plan to create a loop around the park, and of course that will provide connection to Madrid and Solano. So I thought I would outline that for you.

Thank you, Catherine. Commissioners? Commissioner Kaiser?

So along the lines of the connectivity piece, first, I think it's great that we're going to have this system, the trail system continued connecting these open spaces. But I want to know specifically how this connects to the interior of the development. As we know, active transportation, cycling, walking is more than just a recreational activity. It's often legitimate. Well, it is a legitimate form of transportation. anywhere you want to go and so I'm just curious how how that is going to interplay here what is currently been built out there under I think phase one there's no cycling infrastructure there's no bike lanes there's nothing so if I was coming from the Traviz trail or the outflow channel or even Apodaca Park how do I then get into the businesses or the residents that will be built in the future

Catherine Harrison Rogers again with staff parks and rec I can speak loosely on a couple of things however I'm not designing it so I would really defer probably to the engineer who is designing it but I would like to point out that there is on Samaritan Drive actually an easement linking Samaritan Drive to Apodaca Park so that that's one It hasn't been constructed yet, but there is an easement. And then also the trail that's under discussion that leads from Camino del Rex all the way into Apodaca Park does have some connections to the interior roadways that have been planned. Again, this is still under design, and so I'll defer to the engineer on that.

Madam Chair, Commissioners, there, and trailing on to what Catherine said, there's also a set aside for a multi-use path or connection in this area here, which comes along the internal roadway, and then from the area in green here, coming across either the northern road here, across the front of lots one, two, three, and four of Park Ridge subdivision, and also the internal roadway here. So that's what is currently set aside, remembering that the genesis of this development happened before This whole area to the north here is part of Park Ridge. Medical replant number one, which has the six primary lots that hold the hospital, MOB and the four lots to the north. All that was subdivided before a lot of these requirements came into place.

Okay, thank you. That's really good to hear. I just hope that we commit to that. I know just what's been built out there, none of that exists, it's just the road. So presumably it's gonna get built out as each of these lots is developed. My concern though with that is if the middle one goes first, it's on an island and we're kind of have to wait for everything else to come together. So I would just like to see a way to actually put that infrastructure in earlier rather than later. If that's even possible at this stage, I recognize that it's slightly tangential to hear but Thinking through how all this ultimately will connect is important Another Yes, thank you You can say I think sorry, I don't know if my next questions are gonna be for staff The The ponding issue, when we were first hearing this for phase one and two at the time, I asked a question about the drainage study and how that was going to work and making sure that we have kind of a cohesive development and we're not just ending up with... however many lots this is and that's how many ponds we end up with the response I got at the time was don't worry we have a master drainage plan and we're gonna find ways to you know kind of consolidate so that we have we don't end up with this hodgepodge ad hoc you know ponds on every lot because that's really going to be destructive to the cohesiveness of this entire neighborhood which is basically what we're building But now we're sounds like we're going the complete opposite direction. So I'm just curious why the change there there have been

Madam Chair, Commission, there has been several drainage reports that since that time have come up and gone through the review process with Public Works. Some of those elements of those plans that changed over time was there was supposed to be a major ponding area in this area here, which was to take all the runoff from this side of the development, including the hospital MOB. That has changed. This ponding area is just, there's also a pond here in front of the hospital itself. though the combination of those two ponds takes care of the runoff from the hospital itself but one of the elements that came up later was the drainage on solano so we the developer and and in the approval of those reports is taken upon themselves to have increased on-lot ponding in this end of the subdivision, which we have to do, required by code. But the combination of these ponding areas and those on-lot ponds reduces the actual runoff that makes it out to Solano because of the overload that's on Madrid. So those changes were necessary as we moved forward to make sure that the drainage on Solano did not get any worse. So it was a shift, but basically still a combination of both. The pond that's in the lower corner here was simply created because that's the topographic location of that corner there. Also, this open space was supposed to be open space and ponding, but it just, because there's an arroyo that comes off of this roadway that's here that makes its way through, we had to design for that, and so this area just couldn't be, it couldn't be used for open space because it was gonna be an arroyo. So the decision was made to not go in that direction.

Okay. All right, thank you for that. I think my last question is on the zoning. So the NH3 going, well, let's see. No, the NH2 becoming the NH1, this is a question for staff. My understanding is, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there's no minimum density requirement regardless. Is that true?

madam chair commissioner kaiser that's correct the you have a maximum density is what was placed in all of the zoning districts so right now that current density is at 50 based on nh2 it will be reduced down to 40 so it is going down to where you can reduce some of those densities not necessarily when you start including roadways and stuff will you see those densities actually appear

Right, so I guess the question that I have is why the need to lower the zone, to basically go from an NH2 to an NH1, when you basically can do the same in either. You can do less density, but you also get the flexibility to do more should the developer choose that path at a later time. Why the need to actually lower the cap?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Kizer, one of the reasons would be is to reallocate that area that was already zoned as that open space for drainage in the park area facility that provides you the density that can go there. By reducing it, it's more compatible with the existing east side. However, with the town center, you do still have the opportunities of increasing that bonus with the density. And so you're still not losing necessarily that density as it's still part of the town center. So if someone did come in with the development, you can increase your density, I believe it's by 150%, if you actually do residential units. So there's still that opportunity to see the density come in and be appropriate for the area based on the urban core was wanting more of that density bonus.

Okay, and the bonus that they would be eligible for is an administrative bonus or do they have to come back before us to request it?

Madam chair and commissioner Kaiser because the town center is already in place it is administrative and so they can use that opportunity to build out the town center and actually use all the commercial development the office as well as the residential units can you use the town center requirements.

Okay. Thank you. I'll just editorialize for a moment. It's strange to me that we would sort of handicap ourselves here in this situation. You know, we just went through Realize Las Cruces. One of the big efforts there was trying to increase densities in our core. This is a major redevelopment project, probably one of the biggest that the city's we'll ever see because of the size of the lot where it's located in our urban core. I just feel like we're sort of stepping back from that effort by reducing this zone here. And I think for me personally, I love everything about this. I would just ask that we keep the NH2 NH2. That's all I have. Thank you.

Any other questions, commissioners? Commissioner Thurston?

I have a couple of questions for clarification. Is this NH1 urban? Is it NH1 suburban?

What's the... Madam Chair, Commissioner Thurston, this is NH1 urban. And so you do see a higher density. You do see maxable densities in these areas.

Okay, the second one is more on, I don't know if this is zoning, if I can even ask this question for tonight, but is secondary access for that area, if that's even applicable right now to ask that question, because it seems like, I'm on Google Earth trying to figure out where the secondary access off of that would be to, if we're to put a lot of homes there for the zoning, don't know if that's even applicable tonight.

but madam chair commissioner thurston uh... at once the zoning is established and gone through city council to see what those lying designations would be then you would be presented with the primary passion and connectivity at that point in time the fire department does have requirements as to how many access points you do have to have for each unit uh... my other one is that i don't know the history of the the blueprint history of this area uh... what i just notice on here was

it seems like we have five point four one acres of open space and then because of the ponding and changing of ponds uh... and go back to it it looks like we have a reduction of open space and which is also going into the in each one but we have a reduction of i think it's roughly like three three point six acres reduced in open space Is there anything in the blueprint that would prevent us from wanting to allow that to happen? Is there like certain amount of open spaces that we were supposed to have or certain amount of densities according to the blueprint?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Thurston, there was a limit or a conceptual plan that was provided. So when we look at blueprints, they are conceptual. As part of that plan, it did look to have about four acres as far as open space. But that was going to be the continued trail system. That was going to be any connections to the park. And so they'd all be encompassing. So what you see as part of the zone change tonight may not be the included amount as to the acreage that's being presented for the open space. The reduction in this open space was primarily due to the drainage structure. That's no longer needed as it's gonna be used as on-lot ponding.

Okay, so as far as the master plan and other things like that that were previously approved, by reducing the open space, it's not affecting any of the previously things that were approved, is that correct?

Madam Chair and Commissioner Thurston, that is correct. And so by moving these ones, you're just gonna see them basically being reallocated throughout the rest of the actual development.

I think those were my only questions I had, thanks.

Commissioner Kaiser? I'd like to make a motion for an amendment to retain as proposed but keep the NH2 zone NH2. Is that kosher?

Okay. Is there a second for that amendment? Seeing none, the motion dies. Is there any further discussion on the main motion? All right, let's call for the vote.

This is on the vote to approve item 7.2. Commissioner Smith? Yes. Commissioner Kaiser? Yes. Commissioner Thurston?

Yes.

Commissioner Acosta?

Yes.

And Chair? Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Motion passes. Is there any staff announcements?

There are no staff announcements at this time, Chair. Thank you so much.

I would entertain a motion for adjournment.

Madam Chair, I make a motion.

I second.

Thank you. All those in favor? Aye.

Aye. Aye.

And we are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.