Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

of the United States of America, which is a republic for which it stands,

NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS.

AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES. THEY'VE ALL BEEN PRESENTED TO US. IF YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THEM. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY ALTERATIONS? I HAD A QUESTION. I THINK THE APPLICANT WAS ART GONZALEZ INSTEAD OF JOHN CORDOVA. SO THAT DOES NEED TO BE CORRECTED.

OKAY.

YEAH.

MY APOLOGIES.

BECAUSE THAT WAS THE PROBLEM WE HAD.

BECAUSE IT WAS JOHN.

JOHN GONZALES, RIGHT? IT WAS JOHN AND ARKANSAS. ARKANSAS. FORGIVE ME, I'M TERRIBLE WITH NAMES.

OKAY. MY APOLOGIES.

OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? Thank you, Mr. Cerner, for that correction. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes with the corrections?

I move that we approve the minutes with the corrections made by Mr. Cerner.

May I have a second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. So moved. Thank you. Public comments will be limited. There are no public comments? Very well. Thank you. OKAY. THEN CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN A HEARING FOR THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY MS. DANIELLE SMITH, ITEM ONE? VERY WELL. AND THERE'S TWO ITEMS ON THE SAME NUMBER ONE, A AND B. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

AYE.

SO OPEN. ALL RIGHT. THOSE THAT WILL BE TESTIFYING FOR Yes, ma'am. You'll be the only one?

Yeah. Okay.

Can I swear you in, please?

Yeah.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you're about to give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you so much.

And Barbara Smith is here, too. She could say something. It depends on what the questions are.

Very well. If she chooses to, then we can swear you in, or we can swear you in right now.

Pardon me?

We could swear you in right now if you believe. Thank you. You solemnly, if you could raise your right hand. You solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Thank you so much. Is it okay to call you Danielle? Yes, please. Thank you. Danielle, would you like to give us a synopsis as to what you're petitioning to accomplish?

I have owned this property since 1984. In fact, bought it from previous Mayor Tony Martinez. Oh, okay. And I've had my office in the front since 1988 and then three apartments in the back. AND I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY AND TRANSFER SEPARATELY THE APARTMENTS IN THE BACK AND THE OFFICE IN THE FRONT. IT'S NO LONGER, I MEAN, RIGHT NOW IT'S BEING, THE OFFICE IS BEING RENTED OUT BECAUSE I JOINED ROY VOLMAC AND CORDOVA ABOUT A YEAR AGO.

OKAY.

SO THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. WE HAVE EASEMENTS THAT RUN FROM THE FRONT, BASICALLY SEPARATE

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS?

I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. BASICALLY, BASED ON THE REPORT WE HEARD SHOW THAT YOU'RE JUST 31 SQUARE FEET SHORT OF BEING THE REQUIREMENTS PER LOT.

IF I MAY, MR. REGENSBURG. YES. SO MS. SMITH WAS SHORT THE 31 SQUARE FEET AS WE HAD SPOKEN BEFORE. THAT'S ALSO WHY SHE HAD TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE. BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW,

split as well so so basically right now she's only 31 feet short if divide so it'd be 62 feet but 31 per lot right so that's all she's asking for is a 31 foot variance for the variance yes i think this one specifically is for the lot split this item right now yeah the lot split but THE LOT SPLIT BECAUSE SHE REQUIRES VARIANCE BECAUSE SHE'S 31 FEET SHORT, RIGHT?

CORRECT. OF THE REQUIRED LOT AREA IN AN 01 ZONE.

IN AN 01 ZONE, RIGHT. YES, SIR.

OKAY. THIS ITEM IS FOR THE VARIANCE, AND THE NEXT ITEM IS FOR THE LOT SPLIT.

YES. YEAH, AS I SEE ON THE AGENDA, ITEM 1 IS FOR THE TWO-LOT SPLIT, AND ITEM 2 IS FOR THE VARIANCE.

just so we're all seems like to be one in the same.

Yeah, I would think so myself.

I would think so too. You can't do one without the other.

My thought on it.

So this is just for the variance of the shortage. Any other questions, Mr. Serna, Andrew, Ms. Moore?

No.

IS THIS A CURRENT SURVEY ON THE PROPERTY? I CAN'T REALLY SEE THE...

THIS IS A PRELIMINARY OF A CURRENT SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE WANTING? YES, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IS WHAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU GUYS SHOWING WHAT THE LOT SIZES WOULD BE IF GRANTED.

Just one more simple question. That's fine. Is there going to be any impediment of access to the apartments?

There's an easement from Lincoln to the back. Basically, it's the way it's always been. People that live in the back have just gone through the area in the front. The IN TERMS OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AT THIS PROPERTY, THE EARLY IS NO DIFFERENCE THAN WHAT IT'S BEEN ALL OF THESE YEARS.

THERE'S NO SAFETY HAZARDS LATER ON THAT WOULD PREVENT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO GET TO THE BACK OR STUFF LIKE THAT AT ANY POINT?

NO, AS LONG AS IT'S SEEN THE SAME. NOTHING'S CHANGING. NOTHING'S CHANGING. OKAY.

AND THE PROPERTY? IS THERE A MORTGAGE ON THE PROPERTY? IS THERE A MORTGAGE ON THE PROPERTY? Nope. And also, are you looking to sell in the future? Is that the reason for the lot split? I am looking to sell. That's the lot split? Which property are you looking to sell?

Probably both of them. Barbara Smith, my sister, lives in the back, so we're envisioning that she will end up with the property in the back and that I'll sell the office in the front.

Do we hear a motion to either approve or deny the variance? What's that? Oh, my gosh. Forgive me. Do I have a motion? If there are no further questions, do I have a motion to close the hearing on item number one, which is the variance?

I'm going to close the hearing for item number one for the variance.

Can I have a second?

I'll second that.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. So closed. Now may I please have a motion to either approve or deny the Item number one, which is the variance of the two lot split.

Move that we approve the item as presented. Item number one for the variance.

Do I have a second?

Second. This is for the lot split.

I'm sorry, the lot split. Like I said, I wish we'd just combine those. That's okay. For the lot split, not the variance. Correct that on the minutes. Do we have a roll call vote then?

Ms. Diane Moore?

Yes.

Mr. Andrew Salazar? Yes. Mr. Travis Regenberg? Yes. Mr. Galen Cerna? Yes. Mr. Oliver Les Frans? Yes.

Thank you. Now can we please have a motion to open item number two, which now is the variance. I move to open item number two, which is the variance. Thank you. And do I have a second? I'll second that. Second. All those in favor?

Hi.

Hi. Very well. And unless we need to hear from Danielle once again, do we have any questions? Danielle, because we've kind of gone over. It's almost one and the same, you know. Any questions or? ANY COMMENTS ON THE SECOND PORTION?

AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS JUST FOR 31 SQUARE FEET PER LOT, CORRECT? SO THAT'S BASICALLY 3 FEET BY 10 POINTS. YEAH. THIS AREA RIGHT HERE.

YEAH. THERE'S ACCESS THROUGH THE ALLEY?

THERE'S ACTUALLY NO DRIVING ACCESS TO THE ALLEY. THERE'S APARTMENTS ALL ALONG THE ALLEY. THERE IS ACCESS. REALLY THROUGH THE FAR RIGHT SIDE. THERE'S AN EMPTY AREA, AND YOU CAN ACCESS THE ALLEY, BUT JUST BY ONE FOOT, NOT DRIVING.

RIGHT, THERE'S NO GATE OR NOTHING. BUT THERE IS AN ACTUAL ACCESS, NOT FULLY BUILDING. THERE'S NOT BUILDINGS ALL THE WAY THROUGH. I CAN SEE THAT AREA RIGHT THERE. OKAY, JUST DOUBLE CHECK ON THAT.

THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES MR. RIDD?

PENDING THE VARIANCE APPROVAL, THERE WON'T BE ANY NEW STRUCTURES BEING ERECTED ON THIS PROPERTY AT ANY TIME. THERE WON'T BE ANY NEW STRUCTURES? NOT BUILDING STORAGE SHEDS, NOTHING LIKE THAT.

OKAY.

OKAY.

MAY I HAVE, IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING ON THIS MATTER?

I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING.

Very well. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Thank you. And may I have a motion to either approve or deny the variance for this law?

I MOVE WE APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR THE LOT OF 31 SQUARE FEET PER LOT. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE. MR. CHAVEZ-WIGGINSBURG. YES. MR. GAVIN-CERNO. YES. MR. ANDREW SALASAD. YES. MR. STANMORE. YES. MR. ALLEN. YES, SIR. YES.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, LADIES. I APPRECIATE IT. NEXT ITEM. We'll be presented by Scott Zunker for the City of Las Vegas. And I have a motion to open a hearing on item number three.

I have a motion to open a hearing on item number three.

Very well.

Do I have a second?

Aye. Second.

All those in favor? Aye.

Aye.

And so we... Motion carries. The item is now open. Since you're sworn in, you're sworn in, right? Each item, okay. Okay. Anyone else? No. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about to give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Very well. Thank you so much. Scott, if it's okay to call you Scott. Yes, sir. Can you please give us a synopsis of what's happening there with that lot and so forth?

Very good. Thank you, Chair and Board, for hearing our case today. So the City of Las Vegas has owned a property on 2nd Street across from the football field and they've owned it since 1982. Currently it shows up as two lots. We are asking to rezone the property. It is zoned R1. We're asking to go to R2. The property immediately to the right of that property is zoned R2. The one to the left is zoned R1, which I've spoke with Mr. Branch that owns that property. We're requesting the R2 change so that we can eventually replant those into four lots and put townhomes that will be owner-occupied. We know there's a housing shortage in Las Vegas. The Sapio property that we previously came to this board and got permission to do, we're having to work on redoing utilities in that area. So we would like to move on the second street property earlier and try to get some more housing into Las Vegas. These would be homes that would not be able to be rented in the first, I think it's first 10 years if we go with this current program. They would have to be owner-occupied, and those owners would have to meet the median income. So they're not low income. They would be sold to people who would have to live in the houses and not be able to flip them for a profit. It would have to follow those certain rules through Housing New Mexico MFA.

In regards to acreage, What amount of acreage? Would it come out to half an acre?

Let me look at the plot real quick.

That's okay.

Each lot is half acre. Currently, it would be just over a half an acre there. Of the two lots, each one is .256 acres.

How many homes are you, are planned?

We would be looking at putting four homes there.

That's very reasonable. Right. Seems more reasonable than the other one. Okay. Very well. Thank you.

I don't have any other questions. Are we, isn't this area, is it in a flood zone? No flood zone yet.

I don't think it's in a flood zone. I know there's a low spot on the lot that would have to be built back up. I think lower on 2nd Street does have some flooding. My understanding is the city is supposed to be working on doing something there to improve that drainage. But as far as I know, this is not in a flood zone. If it is in a flood zone, which we know FEMA is changing things, constantly on flood zones if it ends up being in a flood zone then we would have to have the elevation certificates and we would have to build above that I believe one foot above the flood line some very familiar with the area

SO I TALKED TO CHARLES ABOUT THIS PROPERTY, BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE IN OUR PACKET, IT DIDN'T REALLY SHOW THAT THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS OWNED THE PROPERTY. IT HAD IN EXHIBIT 5, IT HAS THAT THE CITY VESTED THIS REAL ESTATE, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE LIKE A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FROM MIKE ALMONZAR, AND THEN ON EXHIBIT 5, STILL ON THE SECOND PAGE, IT SAYS NAME AND ADDRESS OF DEFENDANT WHO TITLE IS DIVERSE. ST. PAUL EPHESIAN CHURCH. AND THEN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, IS THIS LEGAL, I WAS HOPING TO SEE LIKE A WARRANTY DEED OR SOMETHING, SOME KIND OF DEED SHOWING THAT IT WENT INTO THE CITY. Because this legal description, I'm not sure if it describes both lots or individual lots, and it says warrant to deed under a Pena and Gonzalez-Gaygos family. So that was the confusion I had.

And I agree. With what we have is the district court, the transcripts of the judgment for closing liens in favor of the city of Las Vegas, New Mexico, and It says divesting certain owners of title investing such title in said municipality And in that there were several tracks this one is described as one half of one acre of land being in the northeast part of the city and it goes on to describe it I have visited with the county clerk's office with both Jacob and Gary there which are usually very helpful they are going through, trying to see if there is an actual deed that they can find. It would be most likely a master's deed, a special master's deed for the foreclosure. But we may have to go back to district court to get an actual document, as Ms. Moore is requesting.

Yeah, that was, you know, I just wanted to make sure that... Who would say is the legal owner of the lot right now, then?

So this document that I have here that is from the district court grants the legal ownership to the city of Las Vegas. It was filed in the district court clerk's office on June 4th of 1982.

But it doesn't show a legal description.

There is a legal description. I don't think I included everybody's legal descriptions on all of them because I didn't think that those people pertained to this one. But it does describe it as one half of one acre of land being in the northeast part of the city of Las Vegas, San Miguel County, New Mexico. Said half being south half of the acre being... described lying north of the land owned by Henry Turner and immediately east of the line of 2nd Street, as extended from Baca Avenue, etc., as per warranty deed of Isabel Pena to Sinovia Gonzalez and Blas Gallegos. This half acre of land measures 157 feet long. from north to south and 142 feet and five inches from east to west. I think that shows up on, those dimensions show up on the plat that was included.

So that was the question. I didn't know that legal was this one because I didn't know if it was for a lot, for both. 1222 and 1223. ON SECOND STREET, IF THAT DESCRIBED IT. AND THEN IT THREW ME OFF BECAUSE IT SAYS THE WARRANTED DEEDS ARE INTO THE PENA, GONZALES, BLAS, I MEAN, GAIGOS NAMES. AND THEN NEXT TO THIS IT SAYS THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF DEFENDANT WHOSE TITLE IS DIVERSED IS ST. PAUL APRISCAL HUNDRED CHURCH. AND THEN THE FIRST PAGE ON EXHIBIT shows Mike Almanzar. So that's where my confusion is. I don't know if I'm the only one that's kind of confused on this. I'm totally confused.

Again, like I said, we may need to go back to district court and check in their records from back at that date to see if what we have is everything that they have. Because right now you have 1,300 on one side

And 1218 on the other side is, I guess that's identification of the lots on the map.

I'm not sure, Mr. Hinson.

So the 2nd Street, there's a little diagram of the lots. So 2nd Street, and then it's got 1302, 1300, 1226, 2nd, 1218, 1214. I don't see them. It was because when we read the description of real estate... And then we look at the lots as I described. I really don't know who's who and where's north, where's south. Basically, I know where it is because I'm familiar with the area. But when you're talking to people that aren't here, we'll pick up the packet and There's not even a north described down here, or east.

There's a... From that one?

Yeah.

From that one, it'll show you the north.

Yeah, I understand that. I see that.

My question is, what... Like, maybe... I'm happy. Has the city had to pay taxes to the county on this land, or...

The city is exempt from paying taxes. They're exempt, okay. So we have all those records of when it was all changed.

Yeah. But is there an actual deed that shows the city as the owner?

In this thick folder, I've not found an actual deed. I have found the judgment filed in the district court that says the title is vested in the city of Las Vegas to these tracks.

Who did you foreclose on? I mean, was it a foreclosure? I'm okay with that then.

That's what it looks like, Ms. Moore. It says notice of foreclosure of lien by the city of Las Vegas, New Mexico, a municipal corporation. And that was filed through the district court. And like I said, your question came up today. I did contact the county clerks, and they're looking to see what they can find. But the more I look at this, I may have to go back to district court and go in to check their records.

So the foreclosure was with Mike Elmanzar?

That's what it looks like in this document, but I'm not sure exactly how the court address this because there are other names on there like you've stated so we would need to to get with them this may be each each individual person may have a separate transcript and so that's what I'm saying I can go to to the district court and check in their records. They're always very helpful when we're doing abatements and we find that someone's deceased. We not only check the county probate, but we also check district court probate to see what we can find. So they're very helpful. It may take a while since it was 1982. I'm not sure how their records are indexed, but we will be visiting with them also.

IT'S MORE, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, HAVE A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE IN THIS DEPARTMENT, RIGHT? SO IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT 4. AND THEN THE SURVEY DONE BY TED WOODS DID. VERY TOP VALLEY SURVEY AND DIVISION OF PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS WITH A LAS VEGAS LAND GRANT. SO BASICALLY I GUESS THIS SURVEY TED WINSTON WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE RESEARCHED THE WARRANTY TO BE ABLE TO RECORD A SURVEY AS SUCH AS THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS OWNING THE PROPERTY AT THE VERY TOP WHERE THE HEADING IS ON THE IN BOTH LETTERS. SO I THINK THE SURVEY IDENTIFIES THE CITY AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. AND YOU'VE HIGHLIGHTED THE LOTS IN THERE. SO OTHER THAN THAT, PROBABLY LOOKING FOR THE WARRANTY DATE REFERENCING BOOK 56, PAGE 19, WHICH IS THE RECORDED SURVEY, PROBABLY REFERENCE THAT TO IT. Later on, when we approve this, you'll be coming in for a lot split, four lot splits. At that point, we'll have to create four different warranties for the lot split based on the survey, right?

That's correct.

So at that point, yeah. So at that point, we'd be presenting the... You know, the accurate warranty date. So you won't be able to divide it unless the surveyor finds a warranty date.

And these are all from 07. So, I mean, it's not from 82. Yeah. These are all from 07.

I'm comfortable with that, especially with that statement.

That's a good point. Thank you, Mr. Riggins. Appreciate that. Any other questions? And I have a motion to close the hearing on this matter.

I move we close the hearing on this item.

I have a second.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. I have a motion to approve or deny the zoning change from an R1 to an R2.

I move that we approve the request by the City of Las Vegas from an R1 to an R2 zone change.

I move. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY FURTHER BUSINESS. THANK YOU, BOARD. AND CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO ATTEND THE MEETING?

Motion to adjourn. Second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Thank you very much.