[Music]
good evening and welcome to the march 22
2022 meeting in the planning and zoning
commission the time is 6 pm
let me call this meeting to order first
i needed a motion to approve the agenda
please
i know so i would like to make an
amendment to the um
to the minute no i want to prove the
agenda oh okay all right just give me a
motion i make a motion to approve the
agenda
a second
becky
board member smith
yes board member kaiser yes board member
bennett yes chair gordon yes thank you
okay before we start though i would like
to just say something
uh lavon munoz has resigned as
a commissioner for the planning and
zoning commission and
i would like to thank her when she's not
here i hope that she's watching
for the years of service that she gave
to us she contributed greatly and we're
going to miss her she also did a great
job as secretary
so avon thank you very much i'm those
members of the commission who were here
when she was here i'm sure we'll
agree with what i've just said
all right first of all is there any
conflict of interest
no seeing none
all right now the next item on the
agenda we need to elect a secretary
since lavon is not with us any longer
i need a motion
to mr smith i
uh motioned that
scott kaiser uh be nominated for
secretary
a second
okay
becky please board member smith
yes former kaiser yes
bennett yes chair gordon yes thank you i
now i need a motion to approve the
amendments
and if there is any corrections
uh
i make a motion to
approve the minutes with an amendment uh
that harvey gordon be listed as chair um
luis guerrero will be listed as vice
chair and lavon be listed as secretary
in the in the minute
i need a second i guess
commissioner spent that second
board member smith
yes
guerrero
yes
oh sorry yes thank you sorry for bennett
i abstain i was in at the meeting thank
you for kaiser yes
cheer gordon
yes thank you
all right now on the agenda there are
two items one and two which have been
indicated as a postponement
i assume that this will probably be at
the next meeting
there was not enough information
available that we could have acted on
these two items
all right
is there anyone in the audience this
evening who has anything they'd like to
say that is not on the agenda this
evening
all right seeing none
take care of that
all right now the consent agenda
is there anybody on the commission has
any item that he wishes to take interest
in
uh
chairman i'd like to pull
the second item on the consent consent
agenda for discussion that's the nfl
development request at
one two two five chiquita avenue all
right we can get a motion to do that
please
all motion to pull item two from the
consent agenda for discussion
all second
board member smith
yes for member kaiser
yes remember bennett yes
guerrero uh yes chair gordon yes thank
you
all right in that case then
we assume that item number one is
approved for consent and we will deal
with item number two
commissioner fraser
commissioner fraser item number two
kaiser i'm sorry
i'm sorry yeah that's correct pulling
item number two okay
please address your concerns chair if i
could uh just point out that we do still
need to vote on the remaining item on
the consent agenda so just vote on the
consent agenda as a yes so you voted on
polling item number two but now you need
to vote on the consent agenda as a whole
so that would approve number one okay
did i need that motion please
i make a motion to approve the consent
agenda
i'll second it
board member smith
yes board member kaiser yes former
member bennett yes board member guerrero
yes chair gordon yes thank you okay
now commissioner kaiser
uh forgive me but um is
his staff
willing to provide a presentation on
this before i jump into my questions and
concerns
chair gordon commissioner kaiser yes
vincent banegas for the record
i've got a full presentation if you'd
like
to hear that
i would appreciate that i don't know if
other members of the commission wouldn't
mr chair were you going to leave it as
the first item for consideration or move
it to new business we can deal with it
now okay
okay vincent banegas interim planner for
the record
mr chairman commissioners and good
evening
this is an infield development process
request
located at 1225 chiquita avenue
the use as proposed is basically a
contractor's
building for warehousing of
items that they use
storage of items they use and of course
the occasional
vehicle storage in in the yard
the current conditions of the property
are as follows
approximately
75 feet from the intersection of
chiquita avenue and santa fe street sits
the subject property
it is currently zone c2 which is our
commercial medium intensity
district
and it does involve two lots lots 22 and
block 8 of cox's first subdivision 117
they are both vacant at this point in
time and will both be developed if if
the idp gets approved this evening
the properties sit within the infield
development boundary
and because they are underutilized and
within set boundary there are qualifying
parcels for idp consideration
the combined acreage of both
sits at roughly
0.158 acres or 6 900 square feet
and this map is a zoning map showing the
location of the parcel
chiquita avenue is located here
where the pointer is
moving
the subject
parcel is outlined in red sits in the c2
zone as does several other properties
both nor north and south
to the
west of the subject location you do have
a variety of other
not only uses but you have a couple of
different zones both r2 which is our
multi-family low density
residential zone and then our r3 which
is our medium
multi-family medium density residential
zone
you have a mixture of uses in here both
single family
located along the south side of chiquita
in certain spots and locations
you also have some service
industry
car repair transmission repair things of
that sort on fronting parcels in long
solano
immediately
east of the subject location
is where a previous
idp
exactly the same
type of request came forward in 2019
it was ultimately approved by the
commission and again it seeks
the same if not
probably 98 percent of the same
variables as as we have here this
evening for this particular request
immediately
west of the subject property you have i
believe it's a distribution center
or collection center for habitat for
humanity some of their materials are
stored there etc
and then as indicated some multi-family
elsewhere along the west side of
santa fe street
here's an aerial map further
illustrating some of the uses
again this is habitat for humanity
property
you've got the
service type uses here automobile
related transmission etc and then a
mixture of housing
further west
and further south
so the proposal
breaks down as follows
basically they are wanting to construct
a building
that will house the contractor
office small office majority of it will
be storage
as well as the yard for the
placement of some of their vehicles etc
overnight and then of course they would
either drive there
pick those up and take them on site et
cetera
but there are several deviations that
are part of this proposal
number one when i wrote the report there
was a
request to utilize the two properties as
they sit today meaning
they would not be requesting to replat
the two into one property
i've talked with the applicant's
representative before this meeting
they're willing to replat that so that's
less of an issue
that is one of the conditions that staff
placed on
recommend recommending approval of this
case and i'll get to that
later in the presentation
ultimately though
you have
what amounts to a 3 100 square foot
deviation to a minimum 10 000 square
foot lot size for a c2 zoning parcel
in every zoning code or zoning district
however
rather
you have minimum lot sizes and and in
certain instances maximum lot sizes so
in this case it's 3 100 square feet to
the minimum of 10 000 that's required of
the c2 zone
and you also have an 8.46 deviation
foot deviation to the minimum 60 foot
lot width so when you combine those two
properties together
the minimum width has to be 60 feet and
it's just shy of that by 8.46 feet
there's a minimum rear yard setback and
a deviation of five feet to that
and request to provide no road
improvements along chiquita
chiquita is a
city roadway it's an unimproved roadway
has no paving surface no curb and gutter
no sidewalk and so
there are some triggers in the codes
that
may require improvements to chiquita
under different circumstances and i'll
get to those in a little bit
but nonetheless in the design standards
at minimum
there is some language that talks to
requiring
access to the nearest improved street
which in this case would be santa fe
santa fe street and it would be a paved
access
there's also a request to allow
compacted gravel or crusher fines in
lieu of the asphalt concrete or other
suitable surfacing to not only minimize
dust but for parking
on the property for the use in question
and there's a request to not be required
to
install landscaping as per section
article or article 4 of the las cruces
design standards
this is a layout or a site plan showing
the proposed
parcel
it's showing it as a combined element
and the proposed building is shaded out
the setbacks are shown
accordingly five foot on the sides this
other
eastern side has a bit more about eight
feet a little over eight feet so that
would comply your front setback is well
in hand at 25
and the rear that's part of what the
request is to allow five foot deviation
i rounded it a little bit so i just used
a whole number of 5 for that deviation
chiquita avenue is located here
so technically going back to that design
design standards issue
they would have to provide a local
roadway what amounts to a local roadway
or paved surface from this location
out to santa fe which is further
on the west side
in terms of analyzing the proposal
staff did not feel this is necessarily
out of character with the immediate area
surrounding area neighborhood i pointed
out some of the land uses that were in
place
some of the construction that was in
place
is metal buildings much like
what was proposed in this case they
would be
stuccoing the exterior of the structure
applying the necessary
surface onto the metal
panels to allow for stuccoin
we didn't find any health safety or
welfare related issues specifically
and we felt that this proposal again was
consistent with the 2019
case that was approved by the commission
again seeking
the same
allowances as presented this evening
in terms of public input
notice was sent to the surrounding
property owners pursuant to code
i did not receive any
input
any questions any
calls anything regarding this case
staff recommendation is as follows
we
thought that a conditional approval
based on findings would be warranted
i'll start with the conditions first
again the applicant does not have any
problem with the first bullet but that's
stating that lots 22 and 23 be
re-platted into one lot
prior to the issuance of certificate of
occupancy so they'd be allowed if
approved this evening to go ahead and
submit for their building permit
but prior to any certificate of
occupancy that would be issued they'd
have to complete the re-planting process
going from two lots to one
the second condition
would require an opaque screen fence or
wall be placed around any of the
allowable fenced in storage
prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy as well
that can easily be handled via the
building permitting process but i didn't
feel it
had any
harm being referenced as a condition for
the idp
and then finally
staff
when we looked at this and i
recognized that we also looked at the
2019 case
quite frankly the only thing that has
changed is our comprehensive plan
we had a comprehensive plan 2040 in
effect at that time and now we have
elevate las cruces currently
and although there are some similarities
i thought perhaps we were
lending
a little bit too much latitude to the
request and so i put in this condition
that seeks that any change in land use
or occupancy type of the building would
require compliance with landscaping
access parking and other applicable
standards as per
article 7 which is our non-conforming
section of our zoning code so even if
the property sat vacant for a year let's
say
they
they would have to get their business
registration at this location but let's
say they go out of business or they
simply don't renew and we have no record
of a continuance of operation for a year
or more
the non-conforming use provisions would
be triggered
and they would then have to come into
compliance the next business that sought
to locate on the subject property even
if it's the same business
also if there's any expansion of use
10 percent or greater that too would
trigger compliance issues and of course
any change of use so right now it's
technically a service
type
use and that is construction
facility construct contractors facility
if they went to a commercial as an
example that would trigger
non-conforming so there's different
triggers that would require compliance
with with all the other provisions
staff felt that
applying this kind of granted some
flexibility to the applicant the
property owner to to develop vacant land
make those parcels active use parcels
and at the same time guaranteeing that
at least in some future date the city
would ultimately get the development
requirements that would otherwise be
required
so in terms of the findings associated
with the recommendation
the subject properties existing vacant
property as indicated
it falls within the ideo
and it is eligible for idp consideration
it uh basically takes two vacant parcels
as indicated
and develops them into active parcels
furthering potential economic
development opportunities in our
community
it
also is supported by the infill policy
plan
criteria for decisions in the muni code
pursuant to section 2-3-82
it is consistent with that 2019 idp case
deviations are the same
it is also supported by various goals
policies and actions of the elevate las
cruces comprehensive plan it meets the
purpose and
intent of the 2001 zoning code section
38.2
it is
falls within the urban neighborhood
place type which is characterized by
medium to high density residential land
uses in areas of supporting neighborhood
commercial development
this may not be commercial per se
but there's latitude in how these place
types are applied
and
a service of this sort
at least in terms of what's proposed is
felt to be in in line with those
provisions
the property is also located on a
commercial block that's characterized by
commercial storage and service related
businesses which front chiquita avenue
and your options this evening
mr chair commissioners
is to vote yes and approve
the case as presented
you can vote no and deny it just keep in
mind that denial requires new
information or findings of fact
facts that are not
identified by staff during our review
and you can vote yes with conditions
staff would recommend that you consider
the conditions that were presented by
staff
you could also look at the various
requests the elements of the request by
the applicant and you know you might
feel that you
like
several of those and maybe have issue
with one or two in which case you want
to remove those from
the idp
approval process so you can make those a
condition as well
and you can vote to table
the case
and those are
the options before you this this evening
mr chair and i'll be happy to stand for
any questions you may have
we have mr steve green
the applicant's
representative in attendance this
evening so if you have any further
questions he's here to answer them as
well
i thank you
are there any questions from the
commissioners
commissioner kaiser
thank you chairman um
so i just want to
i guess get some clarification um on the
record here and i don't know if this is
going to be helpful for my colleagues
but
in an earlier conversation today it
certainly was helpful for me
so
i just want to clarify that the
non-conforming element of this
application is not
the use of a commercial storage facility
itself but
the underlying lot size as it pertains
to its
zoning even when
combined into a single lot that's
correct
mr chairman commissioner kaiser that is
correct both lock with and area
thank you um
so i'm i'm certainly
i understand the intent behind this
particular infill development process
this is certainly an area of interest
for the city as far as redevelopment
it's an established part of the city
it's near downtown
but what i'm having difficulty
reconciling here is the fact that
underlying all of this we're being asked
to approve
a non-conforming use
right out of the gate
and in exchange for that approval we're
also waiving all the development
standards that would be required
so
from from my perspective i'm having
difficulty reconciling those two things
and part of the reason is because
if we're going to
give all of this
away as far as the development centers
that we have in place through our
comprehensive plan and our development
code
we should be getting something in return
and i'm just not sure that this specific
use in this specific location
is really
giving anything in return if that makes
sense um
they're getting everything that they
want with no assurances
to the city and the community
that they will come into compliance at a
date unknown
and one of the things that i'm
particularly i guess focused on is the
request to waive the landscape
requirements
do we know what the landscape
requirements would be if
they were required to comply with that
yes sir mr chairman commissioner kaiser
in looking at
the site plan that was provided by the
applicant
staff did some calculations
utilizing article four the las cruces
design standards
the lot size is 6 900 square feet if
again consider it considering both lots
the building was
identified to be 2400 square feet
so you take the lot size minus the
building square footage
and that remaining square footage times
15 percent nets you 675 square feet of
landscape area
and according to the provisions article
4 provisions then it breaks it down by
how many trees how many shrubs how many
how much ground cover you're required to
have and i've got those numbers if you'd
like to hear those please
so
based on those calculations one tree uh
would technically be required as part of
the landscape requirement
uh 14 5 gallon shrubs
100 square feet i'm sorry
67.5
square feet of ground cover
or
6.75 basically seven
one gallon shrubs
thank
you so from my perspective this doesn't
seem like much of an ask for the the
applicant we've got a use that
is
industrial-ish in nature if you will
it's a storage facility
there's already a lot of those on on
solano avenue in this corridor we've got
residents that are adjacent
i just don't think a a fence or wall is
is really sufficient here
[Music]
it just seems like if you know i'm
sympathetic to the the applicant's
position here
um but but i'm i don't think asking to
do landscaping is really a major burden
you know this part of the town could use
some additional landscaping it keeps
dust down it provides stormwater
benefits
it provides
some visual softening of the wall in the
facility itself for for neighboring
residents
so
from my perspective i'd like to see
that requirement still be
in place i don't feel like it's it's a
great burden here
um
[Music]
so those those were just some of my my
questions and concerns
related to this project
commissioner kaiser i just have a
question for my clarification
so what you'd like to do is you like to
have these shrubs in the one tree
also
with the
opaque screen
around the property
is that an additional
it would be in addition the landscaping
would be in addition and actually just
one additional question on top of that
the wall itself is there a setback from
the property line required there
and
mr chairman commissioner kaiser in this
particular case in that the adjoining
parcels are
commercial or
service related they could be
right on the property line
or just inside the property line even on
the
the main access what's the name of the
road um
yes uh mr chairman commissioner kaiser
along chiquita
avenue they could go just inside their
property line they'd have to comply with
a maximum six foot height if memory
serves for front yard
location criteria and then go up to
eight feet beyond that
understood thank you
and to answer the question yeah i think
the landscaping would go would would be
a simple simple request here to soften
the use
and provide some benefit to the to the
neighboring community
thank you um
does the applicant have anything to add
to this
what our discussion just
come forward certainly
says please speak your name and before
you
talk i'd like to swear you in please
okay
you're right
do you swear for him at the testimony
you're about to give is the truth and
nothing but the truth under penalty of
law yes sir okay would you like to
address commissioner kaiser's concern
sure uh steve green for the record um i
would just like to say the reason behind
the non-landscaping sir was not to
necessarily avoid it but what the
purpose of the yard is is basically to
try to get more yard space for the
storage of stuff
the landscaping being that it would more
than intently be behind the fence
because of the fence going to the
property line i don't know if it would
provide a great benefit
to beautifying anything
that was the only reason why not the
other reason is is he doesn't intend to
have any water run to the storage unit
itself so now having to do landscaping
to require a water meter et cetera and
everything else so
technically that was the reasoning
behind not doing that it really wasn't
to try to avoid uh making things
prettier i think
that was the intention behind it so i
just wanted to clarify so
that's why i'm not so sure landscaping
is going to help much now there was a
ponding provided and he does intend to
lay down flat cover
in there you'll see there's a note that
said gravel he will gravel the yard
to help keep the dust and maintain the
dust down from trucks and stuff going
inside there so
that was really it
thank you that's helpful i'm wondering
if
and i don't know if this is the
venue for this but i mean perhaps
there's a compromise here i mean perhaps
bringing the wall in a couple feet from
chiquita avenue and doing some simple
landscaping
along there i think is
is a fair ask here i mean gravel is
great but
what does gravel do my dogs roll around
in the gravel in my ear all the time and
they're filthy they're covered in dust i
mean it doesn't really do anything it's
not providing any mutual benefit here
so i think
i don't know if that if that's something
that the applicant is willing to
entertain but i think
just throwing the book out the window
why do we have the book then i mean i i
understand
the purpose of the end phil
but i also think there needs to be
some discussion about what is the bar to
where we we concede these things
i mean no no offense to the applicant
but i just don't see how
a storage shed is really
providing any additional
value here
at least not to the extent where we have
to throw everything out the window
because we're so desperate to develop
this property
that's just my perspective
commissioner guru
i
actually absolutely agree with that um
you know i think when we when we were
discussing you know uh last year the the
elevate las cruces and talking about
infilling um i mean at some point
i mean to me infilling means you know
like more housing or it means more
businesses or you know parks stuff like
that not just not serious storage
shed not that not that i mean storage is
definitely needed but it can't be that
needed where we have it everywhere so i
mean i completely agree with that just
wanted to throw that out there just for
consideration of everyone
is there anyone from the public who
would like to speak
all right seeing none
then i guess we have to take a vote on
this
i guess we're going to have to
find if someone any commissioner wants
to make an amendment to this
i would assume in this case adding that
additional
that additional condition
yeah so i may need staff's help here but
i'd like to motion to approve this
application
but requiring the landscape
i guess
what is it
yeah
so so i guess i'll make a motion to
approve with conditions
uh as listen to staff report numbers one
through three
and in addition adding
uh the landscape requirements
that are outlined in the development
code
i have a question for council
if if we vote no if the majority votes
no that sort of kills
the whole item
so can you come back with a second vote
without the amended condition
oh yeah if you kill the amendment you
can do a second vote
for without the amendment all right i
think there's going to be some
discussion with mr banegas and the
representative
i want to make sure we get this correct
mr chairman commissioner kaiser
in talking with the applicant they'd be
willing to
move the fence
inward towards the property and
landscape the first 15 feet
yeah i think that's more than fair okay
that
way all right then i i think we need
then a emotion to
[Music]
with this to air this condition specific
to what the applicant has just said
about moving the fence and then putting
in the landscaping is that correct
moving defense 15 feet
back and putting the landscaping on the
street side that's correct
does that satisfy you yes it is
i guess i've been advised that we really
then have to withdraw the motion to
approve this item and make a new motion
with the condition that the applicant
has agreed to
mr chairman commissioner kaiser correct
me if i'm wrong but what i'm hearing is
that the three conditions that are up on
screen
still pertain and that you're adding a
condition regarding landscaping for the
placement of the front
fence 15 feet back from the property and
within that first 15 feet that
landscaping be
installed in that area that's correct
council
you wanted to add something
commission no i had i didn't think there
was a second on the first motion but if
i'm wrong i'm wrong
okay there was never
okay then i think we need now a motion
to approve
item number
two i guess it is
uh we the addition of
this additional condition
okay so i'm making a another motion here
that we're going to approve
uh with the conditions listed in the
staff report numbers one through three
and adding a condition to require a
15-foot landscape buffer
between the
wall fence
and chiquita avenue
do i have a second on that i'll second
board member smith
yes based on staff
recommendation board member kaiser
yes based on staff recommendation and
the applicant's willingness to
compromise tonight
former bennett
yes based on site survey staff
recommendation and the conversation
today
yes based on staff recommendation as
well as uh just a conversation today
with the applicant
chair gordon
i vote yes based on staff
recommendations the additional con the
additional condition
uh the elevate las cruces and
uh
they used finding of another piece of
land infill
all right
now we can go on to old business
i guess item number one
we have we have a presentation from
staff
we do
catherine harrison rogers with staff
this particular item is a variance to
the sign code for a sign proposed at 510
south telshore
if you recall this had been
advertised last month but was
pulled in order
to accommodate
essentially an additional variants that
we discovered during the review
so i'm going to talk about what's being
proposed we do have another sign
variance for the adjacent property as
they work somewhat like
a business center
and that will be discussed later on
under new business
this particular site is currently under
development
if you've driven by you will have seen
that it's been actively undergoing site
development and now there's a building
that is well under construction
for a commercial enterprise
a future restaurant it's a little over
two acres
something that's unique about this
building is that it has frontage along
east lowman avenue
is accessed via telshore
and
through an internal local private road
which is known as mall drive it's
essentially that ring road that circles
the mall
that we we all probably know if we've if
we've actually gone to the mall to shop
um it is zone c3 which is commercial
high intensity and and completely
appropriate for the use that's
being constructed at that location
here's a picture i've listed both
properties as they are somewhat working
in conjunction 510 is this larger
property
right here
you can see that this is the mall
property where i'm swinging my cursor
and the other property that we will be
discussing a little later in the evening
is 550.
here's an aerial these were relatively
new i think done last month so you can
actually see the building that is
currently under construction
right here
and i'm going to talk about what the
allowed signage is at the site and
what's being proposed on the site and
i'll go back to those pictures and
highlight generally the area of where
they would like to place a sign
so
this particular property is limited to
one free standing sign
along its primary access which is mall
drive which is a private local road
they can't utilize the standards for a
controlled access roadway which is east
loman they they because it's controlled
by the new mexico d.o.t they can't
actually get any sort of driveway off of
east loman
under these circumstances the maximum
height is 30 feet maximum size of the
sign is 150 square feet and the minimum
setbacks are 10 in the front and 5 on
the sides
the variance being requested is to
actually utilize
the sign provisions for east loman which
is a principal arterial so this would
apply the height and the size standards
and the location for this particular
sign along east loman that would be a
maximum height of 30 feet so so no
change there a maximum size of 200
square feet but i would like to point
out that this particular sign isn't
going anywhere near that it's only 110
square feet according to the site plan
that we do have
and they would like to actually utilize
a setback of nine feet nine inches
normally for the standard front setback
at this location it would be 15 feet but
there is an additional request to
deviate from that
um so
here is the property in question you can
see that the sign location is located
near lowman avenue um here is a close-up
of essentially that sign in the setback
you can see with my cursor right here
that
and then
the sign itself this is just a visual
and elevation so you can see
the freestanding sign
and that the copy area would be what i'm
highlighting here with my cursor
i'm going to go back to the aerial just
to give you a sense of where that might
be located so
generally of course here's the building
and it's located around here as you will
notice
there is a significant drainage area
along lowmen
and there is a significant elevation
difference
one of the reasons that they're
interested in having a reduced setback
towards the front is simply to address
some of those issues having to do
with the distancing because of the
topography
and elevations as well as
that drainage area and the edge of
pavement
in terms of public notice and input this
was sent to staff
to all the applicable reviewing
departments for review
all of those departments did support the
request there was a recommended
condition i will go over that in a
moment
and notice was also sent to surrounding
properties
prior to the pnz meeting of both
february 22nd as well as the march 22nd
meeting tonight we have received no
public input on this at all
there are some specific criteria for
decisions outside of the normal ones
that this board normally considers as as
part of a request
specific to variances
one being a physical hardship relative
to the property in question
the potential for spurring economic
development either at a neighborhood or
a regional level
and then monetary considerations
relative to the options available to
meet the stated objectives of the
applicant
i would like to point out not all of
these criteria have to be met only one
and in this case during staff's review
we did feel as though two of these
criteria
were met and i outlined that also in the
staff report
this evening staff is recommending
conditional approval of this particular
variance
specifically because this really is a
unique site in terms of its access
and some of the other conditions on the
property or adjacent to the property
we do feel as though
the requests for these particular
variances do meet the criteria for
decisions as described in the staff
report and then outlined in article 2
section 38 10 j of the zoning code
the condition is really specific to how
the sign is constructed
if you had an opportunity to visit the
site there is a significant wall that is
being constructed
and
one of the issues is to ensure that the
footing of that sign essentially is not
is is not going to have negative effects
on that wall that is retaining a
significant amount of fill um and so
that is something that we would
determine uh through our permitting
process and our engineers would look at
closely along with their design
professionals
so if there are any questions i'm happy
to answer that there is a representative
from pdg development
also available to answer any questions
about the proposal
i thank you catherine
i just i don't know if any of the
members of the commission at this point
were here i think it was maybe two years
ago
when this item was first approved by the
commission this piece of property
uh and
we approved it and then it was a
tremendous
conflict with the mall owners as to the
use of the mall drive but eventually
they came to some agreement and this
project has gone forward
so i think it's going to be a sleep
store
restaurant and i don't know what else is
going in here at the moment
but anyway is there anyone from the
commission has any questions
mr kaiser just a quick clarification so
what we're approving tonight is the sign
as
proposed or the full
allowance of what they
could do based on the
sign ordinance
so the way the report was written is
essentially to be able to utilize the
criteria as outlined for a principal
arterial
and to allow that freestanding sign
along that controlled access roadway
however if you would like to limit it to
the sign as designed in terms of 110
square feet
the height which i believe is it may be
30 or 29 i'd have to double check you
can do that as well but the way the
report was written was just simply to
apply those criteria
thank you
i do have a request though kathryn it's
nothing to do with the principles we're
talking about
but when we do get our staff
it was simply impossible
to read the dimensions this i don't know
if it could have been done any better
but
even with a magnifying glass i couldn't
see how big or how high or how anything
was
but you've explained it to us so
all right is there does the applicant
wish to make any comments
i sing none is there any questions or
any comments or someone from the public
who'd like to speak on this item
all right seeing none then i guess we
can have a vote
i need a motion then to approve
item number one on the road business
just for clarification point of order
i would recommend adopting that
condition as well
all right
i make a motion to approve
case number one
with the condition outlined in the staff
report
and i'll second it
board member smith
yes based on site visit and staff
recommendation
board member kaiser
yes based on staff recommendation board
member bennett yes based on uh site
survey and staff recommendation
guerrero uh yes uh based on staff
recommendation and uh it just makes
sense to have a sign there
chair gordon
i vote yes based on staff recommendation
and our discussion
we have five zero
all right then we can move under item
number two under all business
uh catherine who's doing that one
catholic i'm going to turn this over to
vincent okay
mr chairman
vincent banegas interim planner for the
record
this case involves property located on
bataan memorial west
it involves the rezoning of
property it's a single property with
three different
zoning designations upon it
it is currently r2
c2
and m1 m2
r2 again is our multi-family low density
residential district c2 is our
commercial medium intensity district and
m1m2 is our industrial standard district
they're looking to maintain the r2
portion as is so that does not change
the
piece goes to c3
and that's for conversion purposes to
make it compliant with current code
and then the m1 m2
designation they're looking to
what we call pancake or slash zone it
and add c3 to it and this is case
21z0500141
so current conditions property has
addressed the 3999 baton memorial west
it is a 28 plus or minus acre
vacant multi-zone parcel as i indicated
i won't bore you with the zones again
but i do want to let you know that the
breakdown of acreage is as follows uh
roughly four acres is our two uh 14.6
acres is currently sown c2
and the remnant portion which is 9.4
acres is m1m2
now the current zoning just to repeat
for the c2 portion and i'll show you a
map here in a second
is
going from c2 to c3 brings it into
compliance with current code there is a
a cap on the maximum lot size for c2
zone properties at present
it is one acre
a cap
and because the c2 as indicated is over
14 acres
we have a non-conforming district
for going to see through c3 is what
staff refers to as a conversion zone and
would make it a compliant portion
so here's a map showing the subject
parcel outlined in red
you have mcguffey street located
on the east side of the property
you've got baton memorial west located
on the south
right up against the property
on the west side you have tavis estates
up in here
and then i believe it's monte sombra a
subdivision you have various
residential
single-family
style development in on the north side
of the property
you do have
interesting zoning here at h zone
probably a holdover from the annexation
that occurred
uh which probably brought in this piece
uh there were two annexations actually
that affected the subject parcel and
maybe this was one of them i didn't find
out enough about it but nonetheless you
do have some
porti porta potty type business
maintenance business here
and i believe what appeared to be
a
small very small kind of
mobile home park
uh in here there were some mobile homes
on the property and it was more than one
so i'm not quite sure what all is going
the eight zone designation is a holding
zone
it was
usually used to
put a place
a holding place on property on the
zoning of property upon annexation when
the applicant or the property owner did
not know what
they were going to use the property for
so
when this property if it ever changed
use
that age should go away and become
whatever's applicable given the land
uses on the on the tract of land but
regardless
this is the outline you've got your m1
m2
shown in this light purple at least
according to those screens the c2 in the
middle
and the r2 up top here
here is an aerial view
of the same parcel
you do see various roadways montesso
street dead ending right kind of at the
north west corner of the property
mcguffey street providing obvious access
there
and baton memorial west as well
so the proposal is again to rezone
maintaining the r2 piece as is
converting the c2 to c3 that was more of
a staff request to bring about
compliance
with that segment
and to add a c3 component to the
existing m1 m2 zoning on the
southernmost portion of the property
roughly speaking 66 if you consider the
r2ps remaining intact
and basically the c2 go to c3
uses basically 66 percent of the entire
parcel remains intact from a land use
perspective it's nothing
immense is changing in terms of land use
it brings about compliance to that c2
zone
and in
pancaking
excuse me the c3 on top of the m1m2
staff feels that it allows for greater
development flexibility
potentially allowing for uses that are
more congruous to the surrounding
development
and neighborhood as opposed to just your
strict application of m1 m2
in that m1 m2 zone you can have certain
commercial
uses they're far more limited than
what you would find in the c2 c3
district but by adding c3 then that
opens that up
it also sets in motion a proposed
and i believe i got this right the term
build for rant style of development it's
a residential style of development
it for
i won't steal too much of the thunder we
got mike clemons or clemen in the
audience who's the representative for
the applicant
he'd like to speak on the proposal that
they have in mind for this property but
nonetheless it it has a look and feel of
some of the residential
neighborhoods that we see
around town but it is geared towards the
renter market as i understand it there
are some amenities that are being
proposed
ball courts community buildings etc
based on a proposal that they shared
with staff
some time ago
and certainly the concept that was
presented
certainly
seemed
very nice a very nice fit to what is
around it
and i'd like to emphasize also that with
little effort
the applicant would be able to
accomplish today what is being set in
motion for the near future so with the
r2 and c2 district
they could virtually do what they want
to do
they may have to either seek a
non-conforming certificate for that c2
piece or subdivide into one acre lots
with shared access etc in order to make
the vision a reality but it could be
done
i just show this for
illustrative purposes information
purposes this is what
they shared with us i don't have all the
details of this mike will be able to
better
inform you as to the configurations and
what's going on here but this in essence
is the r2 piece
and what you see here for the most part
is the c2
zoned portion at present
this in here is the m1 m2 so i'm sorry i
had to orient that
in in this horizontal position as
opposed to north being up
but in order to make it a little larger
for us to see i had to do that
some photos just of the property nothing
exciting about it it's vacant at present
there are some billboards and located
along uh the frontage road baton
memorial
but this is looking west at the
intersection mcguffy and bataan
this is looking
due north from bataan memorial west and
this little
set of homes etc is the
easternmost edge if you will of tavis
estates
this is mcguffey looking southwest again
vacant you begin to see some of the the
residential development on the north
and this has going to seoul roadway here
where dead ends uh into the applicant's
property in this area this was that
holding zone property that i was
referencing earlier i didn't take a
picture of of it but nonetheless it is
located there
so in terms of analysis commissioners we
staff did not find any health safety or
welfare related items of concern
the proposed zoning districts
would provide compatibility
with the existing uses that are
surrounding
the subject property and within the
adjacent neighborhoods
the properties within suburban within
the suburban place type as per elevate
las cruces
the comprehensive plan encourages mixed
use and low to moderate residential
densities which i think
the applicant's representative will
illustrate for you in a second and it
aligns the non-conforming c2 district
by going to c3
pursuant to the zoning code
now this case was
noticed if you will twice it was to be
brought forward i believe it was last
month
and so we sent out notice
to the surrounding property owners
and at that time staff received
considerable notice i know myself i must
have received at least 20 maybe even 25
phone calls
some were just inquisitive
type of calls asking what was
being proposed
a lot wanted to know more about
the exact proposal what they were
looking to build etc which i think
tonight the representative can can help
answer
and very few were actually opposed
most of the calls that seem to go in
terms of an opposition direction once
i explained to them the zoning and how
that worked and certainly what is in
place today
and what is being requested for the
future in terms of allowable development
they begin to understand that you know
what is being proposed could be a good
thing for them as opposed to
something that's
considered nightmarish if you will
but
for this meeting notice was sent out to
surrounding properties once again
and this time around believe it or not
staff did not receive any
input i did not and i'm not aware of
anyone else receiving any substantial
input at all
so it it it appears as if the applicant
i know they've been in contact with some
of the surrounding property owners i
know residents of tavis estates
kent thurston indicated to me that he
had met with some of those folks
and i think he allayed some of the fears
that that they may have had
so staff recommendation is approval
based on the findings
the proposal maintains approximately
approximately 66 percent of the uses
authorized under the existing zoning
code
through this request
this conversion to c2 to c3 is really a
staff initiative to make it a compliant
zoning district within the context of
this property
and that the addition of c3 atop the m1
m2
allows greater development flexibility
allowing potential development that's
more in keeping with the surrounding
neighborhood
and
the proposed development which again is
conceptual and and we must keep in mind
that we're not approving the development
per se we're proving the zoning
but what they will show you at least in
concept stage
is compatible with the residential uses
in the vicinity and certainly with the
suburban neighborhood place type
identified in our comprehensive plan
and regarding the comprehensive plan
there were several goals policies and
actions that supported this request
certainly in line with the purpose
intent of the
2001 zoning code
and the criteria for decisions in our
municipal code
so your options here this evening
mr chair commissioners vote yes and
approve
the
request as stated vote no to deny it
you'll have to provide additional
information or findings
not presented this evening by staff
you can vote yes with conditions
or vote to table and that concludes
staff's presentation mr chair and i'll
stand for questions
all right thank you does anybody from
the commission have any questions
i have one question yes sir the only
access to this property will be off on
mcguffy there's a take two i could go
back to that
there it is yes there's
looks like three mr chairman so yeah
what they're showing here and i would
assume this hasn't changed mike can
certainly speak to that but what what
i'm seeing here is definite direct
access off of mcguffey
if they are to seek access future access
off of baton memorial that'll have to be
vetted through
the new mexico highway department i
would go to the d.o.t
all right
all right since there are no other
questions does the applicant have
anything he'd like to add
please come forward
state your name and let me swear you in
mr chairman he's got some slides to show
as well so okay well first please state
your name and then let me swear you in
yes mike clement all right do you swear
affirmative the testimony about the game
is the truth and nothing but the truth
on the penalty of law yes i do then go
ahead thank you okay thank you
is it coming you punched it already yeah
okay um my name is mike clement i'm with
property design from phoenix and i am
part of the development team and and
actually we're excited to be here we
hope to be bringing you good tidings of
joy
um the housing development
director is brought to our attention
you've got a shortage of about 5600 have
we not hit it yet thank you
while we do that you've got a shortage
about 5600
rental units not to mention single
family for sale
units here in in
the community and we hope to be a part
solution in doing so
so um before i start my slides i just
i want to thank
mr venegas what he said was very correct
in kind of posturing our project what
we're
what we're proposing to do and i think
you'll see that it is a very exciting
proposal so let me just go through that
i hope not to um
just click thank you
tweet too much repeat too much of what
he had to share but let me just kind of
go through this here's the parcel again
it's 28 acres in total that's involved
with this case you can see how it's
postured some of the key points of
access are going to be of course it has
all this frontage on bataan memorial
west
the primary access is going to be from
mcguffey street
given that the right-of-way is
one-way directional only along the baton
memorial west and of course sonoma ranch
boulevard will be
an important point for bringing
future residents to this site
as mentioned we
the current zoning is an r2 a c2 and m1
m2 and i might mention there's an error
on this slide where i
have put c2 as commercial medium it
really should be
that is correct i i'm i stand corrected
of what i was going to correct but that
is with and what we really are doing is
we're not doing anything with the r2
but we are going to fix a problem with
the existing zoning was actually created
many years ago a couple decades ago
that that hasn't been addressed with so
what we really have in place
is illegal non-conforming use of sorts
in that we can as was mentioned continue
with the project but in the course of
putting this together and you're going
to show you here actually what prompted
us to come forward with this crest to
make it
more conducive with what's in place in
terms of zoning and actually more
compatible with the neighborhood
so as you can see you've already seen
this slide there are multiple colors
there's the r2 we're not doing anything
with that we have the c2 zoning element
and then also the m1
m2 down here along the freeway what i
want to bring your attention is you'll
see how the color slide
points up in this direction
so here's the thing as we were starting
to put our our proposal together for the
design elements of this community
we discovered we've got a natural
barrier across the property it's called
el paso electric power line
there's not much we can do with that
and if you look closely here you're
going to see there's a little bit of
pink
on this side of the line which is where
the bulk of our the project will be and
again i know we're not here to talk
about the project but the project that
will to be discussed at council meeting
assume we get a favorable vote from you
this evening
we'll get into more detail
and what we are telling you here tonight
is this m1m2 piece that has all the
frontage that is not consideration we're
not doing anything with that our real
focus in coming here is to get in a
position that we can better present
a project to fit this gap right there so
that's the thing we've got this power
line which is a national barrier and we
wanted to address that as you can see
here
we have an overlay of the project
right there where the zoning
line is right now you can see where the
power line is running it's marked in
blue and then we've got this little
sliver of area which was causing some
problems for the project and so it was
semester suggested well let's just go
ahead and clean up the zoning
let's go ahead and change out the c2
with the c3 which is
was mentioned is the conversion zoning
that that las cruces is using and
therefore everything were to comply
we'll put it also on this portion but
again we're not doing anything with this
portion of the property the m1 m2
these items were already stated this as
to why this rezone is warranted i'm not
sure i need to redo that again other
than the fact it's fixing a problem
while it's non-conforming use right now
what we're proposing because we did not
create the problem it was something that
was never fixed but we're very happy to
go ahead and and bring a current so
everything aligns
it really is in support of the elevate
las cruces comprehensive plan
as was discussed and so we are excited
about that and hopefully help at some
point here
fix or at least help fix the shortage of
housing opportunities we have in the
community so let me tell you a little
bit about the project again
if the vote tonight is favorable we will
be talking about this in some more
detail when we go before council in a
few weeks
the portion that we're concerned with
right now
is about 18 acres we're looking to do
about
210 and we're doing it's still in the
conceptual stage so
we are working with this it fluctuates a
little bit but right now approximately
210 rental homes
our density is going to be a very mild
density i might mention that the r2
zoning
that we're not touching allows
up to 15 units per acre
i might mention also that the zoning
with the commercial that's already in
place
allows a density of a minimum of 10 of
10 units per acre up to
40 and so
nothing really changes so our overall
density is very much in compliance
with the zoning
categories that are currently in use and
even those that are proposed after
this change
okay um the project so what will it look
like
yes you've heard a lot of buzz in the
news about build for rent i mean it's
kind of the thing in the country phoenix
is ground zero for build for rent it
started about 10 years ago
i happened to be part of the
project when the first one came to town
i'm also a commercial real estate
appraiser by trade i was involved and
got to fit involved with the whole thing
and the rest is history as i say they're
approximately now in phoenix and this
property type
roughly
5600 units that have been built
and they're about 6 000 more
they're in the process we've roughly 11
000 units that have built of this type
that we're bringing here to las cruces
which is really a great thing so backing
up a little bit here hit the wrong
button
what we're proposing to bring to you
would be these detached and attached
units they're basically single and twin
homes
mostly one stories some will be
two-story
but the key thing about what's happening
here
as opposed to an apartment community
where you have people above and around
and below sometimes
that isn't what happens
in these communities he's built for rent
little communities and these homes are
sometimes referred to as casitas or
villas and some are bungalows
still they're all about the same
everybody's going to get their own
little yard
they're very
pet friendly consequently they have
doggy doors which is a big thing by the
way we have been here doing some due
diligence work in las cruces and believe
it or not in the multi-family sector
almost everybody wants a dog and every
what are you going to do with the dog i
mean the idea of having your little
private yards is phenomenal i can tell
you in phoenix
these types of prop projects are so
popular
they're basically fully leased before
you even build them and we hope the same
thing happens here and who knows we may
be bringing a whole lot more as time
progresses so in this particular project
there'll be one bedrooms
two bedrooms and even some three
bedrooms they'll either be one-story
single or two-story twin homes
it's a gated community
restored resort style amenities we'll
have these little paseos so when you
look on this site plan right here it
kind of gives it away we're creating all
of these little green areas are
literally going to be green with grass
i know we have a community right here
we've got the tavis estates well they're
actually getting an extremely nice
buffer of green space here we are
putting a dog park there we're putting
pickle bark fall courts here but it'll
be very green we'll have another
picnic area up in this area and other
amenities along it in between them we're
putting in these paseos where you see
that they're green and again this is
conceptual the site plan is still in
modification stage but it'll in the end
still look very similar list so this is
a real
good thing coming your way
um
excuse me before you leave that site
just go back one screen what are all
these little yellow things down on the
bottom of their garages those
yeah houses those are houses
yes okay thank you
i know it's pretty hard to tell so yeah
so what we have here these are single
detached homes and those little brown
things you see there is where you
literally get the park there now some
have garages some do not these ones
right here do not but we'll have
detached garage units nearby that they
choose to rent when they can
some of the units which would be these
ones here these are basically two-story
twin homes they will have
at least one garage or a garage and a
half
plus there will be parking in between
them so be very convenient these ones
along here literally are
two-bedroom two-bath
little homes and in the next slide
you'll see what they're going to look
like so that does that answer your
question
yes um
thank you so um if i might also mention
i had referred earlier that there will
be another passage of access right now
as you see here
this is our primary axis the community
will be gated there will be an access
here it will
will align with what
fire is expecting now what will also
happen here we have montesol
as you saw earlier it kind of continues
on right now there's a fence there kind
of dead end sort of and there's a dirt
path that kind of continues along here
as proposed we're not
intending to continue that on through by
the way
to baton memorial and actually it'll
become an alt a secondary axis so those
coming off of sonoma
can literally come right over come in
and out but it'll be gated so it'll be
an in and out
and help circulate in the project so
there'll be multiple points of ingress
and egress
so this will give you some idea of
elevations that are coming here you see
the clubhouse
and then this shows you what a little
two-bedroom two-bath detached home looks
like so those that little patch of those
little colored ones along the long way
this is what they are a lot of these
little homes they literally are
they
and then here is a design element for
the twin home as you can see they're two
bedrooms and three bedrooms
and then also what we have here are the
one bedroom one single story and it'll
be functioning as a twin home
some of the elements again are listed
here that we'll be bringing and we can
talk more about this as we move along
secured gated interests clubhouse
fitness center pool of course pickleball
courts
walking areas ramadas the barbecues
it'll be bicycle friendly and that that
is important to us
the dog park i cannot tell you again how
important this is i mean las cruces
loves its pets that's become very clear
to us
in terms of the homes themselves they're
going to be smart homes so you're going
to have the technology you'll have an
app for those that choose to use it
allow them to access the project through
the gate they'll be able to control
they'll be able to use their doorbell
eye they will have control of the
thermostat and other elements of the
project the other thing
i might mention is is amazon we'll have
dropbox there and it'll be app
controlled so literally you get a
delivery and you'll get a prompt on your
app that you can go pick up at your head
to mailbox
again
one thing and i don't have a floor plan
to show you but
with the pandemic there has been a
change of massive change and this is no
new this is not new news to any of us
where people are now traveling all over
you don't necessarily for a lot of
occupations have to stay
locally
consequently and people are choosing to
work at home we're putting work-at-home
elements so basically it's a little
office in our homes
for those that choose not to do that
it'll be
very accommodating if you might will to
a pen room with a door you can put your
pet in
they can have their own bedroom if you
will or an exercise area so it's really
a nice little mo amenity that's coming
um as far as the
ceiling heights they're ten feet ground
floor nine foot in our and our two story
two ends will be nine so
there's a lot of height and they height
and they feel very spacious
it is a very important element that we
have found in phoenix and of course
we will be charging these will be
adaptable to charging units for electric
cars because as we know that is the
thing on the horizon so if i can show
you some elevations here very quickly
perspectives if you will
these are just renderings i wish to say
that they were already built because
they would be already occupied i really
believe it's going to happen that
quickly but this will give you an idea
this will look look when you get the
clusters together this is what the
access will look like to the various
homes
you can see some of the design elements
and how the parking will be this was a
view from
the dog park area looking towards the
homes and and such here you can see what
the twin homes the two stories will have
will look like and here's one of the
little paseos in between them it runs
the length of the project which will be
a nice place for kids to play or
for the pet to run or for just even a
nice walk it will create a sense of
openness in the project
in terms of points of view i wanted to
let you know that there is a great bill
of separation that's going on
in this particular line of sight
illustration here this would be a
neighboring pro a home on the
neighboring project and this would be
the closest
wall of a unit that we will be building
in this community
and the location is happening right here
on the site plan is where you see this
so if there's a home right there if you
follow my cursor and you're looking over
the fence
we're looking at roughly 44 feet that's
so there's a great separation there
we even have a larger separation um
planned at this point
between
the tavis estates community and the
nearest home they were going to be up in
this area
this is where the clubhouse if you will
are right there and if you see looking
like that
this would be the tavis community over
here their walkway and this would be the
closest home of this one we're showing
it with a two-story unit
that separation is approximately 200
feet
you're not going to find that in any
other subdivision of a normal sense so
we're being very sensitive to the
neighbors and bringing them something
that they can enjoy
that fits it's accommodating fits into
the nature of character of the community
granted it with the c2 that's already
there we could do so many different
things
but that's not the direction we're going
so
i believe that's it um i don't know
if you have any questions but i would
happy happy to answer them if so at this
point
is there anybody from the commission who
would like to answer the question
all right seeing none and is there
anybody from the public who'd like to
speak
this just simply raise your hands don't
know how many
one two three
excuse me one two three all right
i'm sorry
yeah all right so the
we'll go back to the the first the lady
in the bit if you were first you put
your hand up yes then we won't call folk
you can come forward please
will you please state your name and then
let me swear you in
my name is carol my name is carolyn
reese okay
thank you uh do you swear affirm that
the testimony you're about to give is
the truth and nothing but the truth
under penalty of law i do go ahead thank
you um i don't know how appropriate this
is but i have a few questions
if i understood his
description
the light yellow is single story homes
is that correct
i think i think the the
representative of this project should
come forward and answer some of these
questions
so yeah the light yellow on the
outskirts is single story home so these
are all single stories here
and then the nurse those are single
stories and these right here will be the
two stories the twin homes this is two
stories that's two stories what is to
the right of that
this right here to the right of that
right over here yeah
okay we're going to have these these
homes right here they're still single
story twin
one-bedroom homes and that's the same on
the northern part that is correct so
only these ones right here in the center
corridors are two story twin homes i got
it so
um if you go by the zoning
they can build a maximum of 660
dwellings
on
the rezone that they're asking for i
understand that this is their proposal
but this is not guaranteed
but let's just go with their proposal
210 rental units
that's 210 cars
that's going to go through the monte
sombra subdivision
if the people are coming from las cruces
so there's two streets
monte sombra and then the one they're
talking about extending and i don't know
the name of it
currently i live in that subdivision
i've had people pass me
on monte sombra
on that street going home from work
since they built the houses on the
northeast of that subdivision we have
more traffic going through on monte
sombra
i wonder if there could be a traffic
study done
maybe to determine the amount of traffic
before we agree to building
222 more homes i'm sorry i'm very
nervous
202 more homes
with 202 more 10 more cars to go through
that subdivision
they talk about
extra access but mcguffey is a two-way
street baton is one way
so
the traffic will have to either come off
of sonoma or go down to the montevid
mesa grande exit come back up the
frontage road and then go on to mcguffey
if
if we already have extra traffic going
through because of the northeast
subdivisions that have been built
northeast of us we're definitely going
to have people coming through off of
sonoma in fact he even said that that
was one of the main
access points so i guess my objection
really
centers around access
and the accret and the increased
increased traffic i am under of the
understanding that
some of the other housing the people
that live on monte sombra have asked the
city for
speed bumps to slow the traffic down
i've seen
those signs that can't that show you how
fast you're going being placed there
periodically
so we already know traffic is an issue
so i would like the counselor please
consider
the traffic issue associated with this
plan
i thank you thank you those are all very
good concerns and i understand what you
how you feel
but those items that you as you're
talking about will right now we're just
going to be talking and either approve
or not approve the zone change but if it
is approved or not approved i will
discuss that later you will have the
opportunity if this project goes through
to come back and discuss
these items that you have talked about
okay so if i understand it if you
approve the zone change you're approving
up to 600
right no we're not all we're doing is
approving his own change the applicant
will have to come back to the commission
with a
design as to what he's going to put in
here and the commission will then have
the ability to approve or not approve
okay but the the allowance of the zone
change is for up to 600 right no we're
just changing the zone that's all
they're doing they're not we're not
telling you how many units we're going
to put in there no but the zone allows
for that possibility
the zone change mr benegas behind you
mr chairman commissioners uh the zoning
of the c2 piece at present
allows up to 40 dwelling units per acre
and the r2 allows up to 15 dwelling
units per acre
i could do the math but
okay
14 yeah
so it's actually 660
that would be possible if the zone
changed
i'm sorry it's actual 660
that would be possible
should the zone change go through so
this isn't guaranteed from what i
understand
so the zone change would allow for the
option or the possibility of that many
units
that's my objection mr bernanke is she
correct
just to answer her question
yes mr chairman
the uh
let me just check on the acreage here
let me do
my math hold on
see i rounded it down
yeah so that's 584
dwelling units for the c2 portion at
present
and
15 times
yes and 60 for the r2 piece
yeah about that
thank you does that answer your question
then that confirms what you're thinking
okay
i just want to make sure that my
understanding is that if you approve
this that could happen
i would say yes
for catherine mr chair i would like to
point out under the current zoning
those
numbers are
identical am i looking at and vince yes
you're correct so regardless if you
approve the zone change or not they can
still develop
at that density it's not changing that
is that isn't that what i just said i
said yes
okay yes mr chairman the c2 whether it
stays c2 or c3
uh the numbers of housing units remains
the same okay but we are going for a
zone change that's correct zone change
only and to clarify a point that you
raised
assuming that
they
are not going to be requesting any
variants
or anything that would otherwise require
any special consideration and they would
go right to permit if they receive zone
change approval at the council level
all right thank you is there someone
else in the back who wish to speak would
you come forward please
will you please state your name and let
me swear you in
my name is anne tomczak i'm a resident
of tavis estates all right do you swear
for him at the testimony about to give
us the truth and nothing but the truth
under the penalty of law
i do
all right go ahead thank you
um i actually had a question for the
gentleman
uh when you showed the uh
screen there you're gonna have to speak
it to the microphone because she's
taking this to the record
the site uh two for tavis estates
help
tell me one stop
sorry i'm back you showed the houses you
want me to show the house oh the side of
you the site number two yes
this one right there yes
um
i i purchased i really need you to speak
into the microphone sorry thank you
i apologize um i purchased a lot there
about four years ago and
i'm in love with the oregon mountains i
come from the east coast
and it's a beautiful city i love it here
what i'd like to know is because i
bought a premium lot
will my view be obstructed will there be
an obstruction from me seeing the lovely
oregon mountains
he was you will still excuse me yes you
will still be able to see you lovely
oregon mountains now you may see
other improvements
as you're looking at your lovely
mountains but no you will still be able
to see them these are two-story that
they're not three
they could be massive but they're not
and one last question
i was hoping to find out what the
timeline if
i'm jumping ahead i apologize
from the time that the company gets the
approval to start building what is how
long of a timeline uh between
with all the phases phase one two and
three
that's an excellent question
it will take us approximately
six to nine months to do site work
and then a proc
can't shout out how long do you think
it's going to take to build these 210
units and then i'll repeat your answer
it depends that's a good answer
let me tell you what happens in phoenix
if we were doing this in phoenix you
would be looking looking from start to
finish about three years
so in reality if he's really as good as
he keeps telling he isn't building it
maybe a little faster but
we'll just give him the benefit in case
so much
okay
was there a gentleman in the back who
wish to speak all right would you please
come forward
and will you please state your name and
let me swear you in kevin connor
do you swear from that the testimony
you're about to give us the truth and
nothing but the truth under the penalty
of law i do go ahead thank you
i guess this might not be the right time
um because
uh
again
it's this is just a zoning change but
when you get into the approving the
design and the and the layout of this is
there gonna be another meeting or how
does this work
yes tonight we're just gonna either
approve or not approve the zone change
okay we'll then have to go to city
council okay if
depending on how the vote goes here and
there okay if it is eventually approved
then they'll have to come back with all
this other information that you prefer
okay about the site plan
all right vince i'm sorry
sure go ahead
mr chair commissioners uh tonight's
approval is recommending
approval
of the zone change to city council
assuming city council
approves it
the applicant would go straight to
permitting
so they wouldn't have to come back to
this commission for any site
approvals unless there are some
variances or things of that nature that
need to be considered they're not
subdividing
the land they're basically developing in
phases on the track that that was
presented
but if they do come back with anything
they may have to come back to planning
and zoning yeah if there's uh variances
to be considered or maybe they
you know if they want to pursue some
type of planned unit development
site plan or something like that but
the word that i got is is the next step
would be permit but what they're showing
us is just conceptual
that's correct
all right
is there anyone else
i'm not finished um okay i'm sorry
yeah i mean if it's conceptual then we
don't really know what's going to end up
and you're we're going to prove
something that we don't really know what
we're not here tonight to prove anything
of that nature
we're just here to approve or not
approve the zoning change
okay
yes sir
yeah i was just discussing the matter
with this this line of sight with
my team members and they wanted me to
clarify let me show you here write this
that this perspective while correct may
not necessarily be this point of view
right here so because it's going to vary
so let me restate that it could be up to
200 feet rather than as an absolute
and the comment was or the question was
made will i be able to see my mountains
and i just want to reiterate you will
but it doesn't matter what we put there
you're going to also see in your
anyone would see other things besides
the mountains in that
in that view the whole goal here on our
part
as you can see is to make it green as
lush as possible
and a great amenity
for all residents in the area so thank
you
is there anyone else yes sir come
forward
please
[Music]
again please state your name and let me
swear you in my name is jack zealy
do you swear affirmative testimony about
to give is the truth and nothing but the
truth under the penalty of law
i do thank you go ahead
i'm a resident davis estates and i think
this
proposal sounds beautiful and just
wonderful but
just to me common sense it seems like
you're putting the cart before the horse
why would you prove a zoning change
based on the possibility
they might once they get the zoning
change and they can
propose something totally different or
if something's c3 there's a
from what i understand there's a
number of things that can go on a c3
approval
so it seems like the card is being put
before the horse you're
basically approving the
their plan or you're proving a zoning
change based on what they might do
seems like you would
wait till they want until they propose
the development then do the zoning
change
there's a ton of things you can put on
this lady that was talking about the
traffic
it's going to be unbelievable a traffic
that goes through their neighborhood
there especially for that one street
that it's not mcguffy but the other
street
i mean
to funnel those cars through their
assist and i mean
unbelievable really so
i just want to make a comment
just think that this is
way ahead of it that
should wait till this proposal for the
development before you approve a zoning
change
thank you
all right thank you was there someone
else who raised their hand
yes sir
again please you state your name and let
me swear you in george mamaro
do you swear affirmative testimony
you're about to give us the truth and
nothing but the truth on the penalty of
law yes i do go ahead thank you
uh
and my questions are going to be
premature because i know that this
uh development is not necessarily what's
going to be concluded after final
approvals
and permits are done
but
i also had a real concern about the
access
i know there's an access ingress and
egress on mcguffey
but the other one i was not clear of in
the previous presentation on how that
was going to be opened up
or how it was going to run i know it was
going to connect to sonoma ranch
in some way but
i was
also wondering
and looking at the
pictures of the dwellings
the yellow buildings well that one isn't
up there now but the small yellow
buildings that run probably uh
90 of the total length of the
property line there
i don't see
in in looking at the pictures of the
dwellings and their lovely
dwellings but i don't see any garages on
any of those
and i don't see any
uh
ability to accommodate
cars being parked on the outside now
maybe
i'm misinterpreting how this is laid out
but
um i'm concerned that there's going to
be adequate parking for all of these
homes that are in here and i don't see
where it's provided for now i know it's
not
the
mr thurston's
responsibility to have a final plan here
but
i was just i just wanted to mention that
and
i had one other concern
and
i'm afraid
as this brain gets old and solidified it
doesn't function well
and i can't remember what it was so
that's it
all right thank you
because you have to know this you'd like
to add something to that no i was just
going to respond to a question
and by the way that was a good concern
where are they going to park and i don't
see any garages that is a characteristic
of this concept
if you will
go back and if i may use phoenix since
that's where that is the heart of all of
this
in many and say most of these projects
none of the units have garages
it's all covered or they'll have
detached so it's optional
we're actually far exceeding that in the
fact that all of these two stories will
each have a garage and a garage and a
half actually plus we're bringing in
detached garages to share amongst those
who don't want them
if you look at the communities here that
are say multi-family oriented they have
garages not everyone gets a garage but
i'm going to tell you not everybody
wants a garage this is a market rate
project
you know and it would come with as
additional fee for that use
our allowance for total garages far
exceeds anything that is being offered
in metro phoenix for the same product
type
all right thank you
has anyone on a commission have any
questions or any comments
commission guerrero
yeah um thank you so much for for
bringing this forth um you know as
discussed there is definitely a crisis
as far as rental and just housing in
general um i actually live really close
to this area i live on the other side of
the montre not monte sombra but across
there's a neighborhood across uh
called uh gosh what is my neighborhood
called sierra norte
so so i know the area really really well
um because i
drive there on the occasion um the
street montesola i mean i i i get it
it's it's a small street
um
i i just my only concern and i don't
really think it's a concern and it's
probably not something we need to bring
up right now because we're just doing
resulting
but uh where the access point is in
mcguffey is fairly close to where bataan
memorial sits
so i don't know if that's necessarily
the best point of access it might create
some bottlenecking for sure
i mean that whole area because there's
so much development being built i mean
you have metro verde and you have like
metro park and metro blah blah blah
whatever whatever they're calling them
these days uh there is
a really really high amount of traffic
especially in the mornings especially
you know 5 30 6 o'clock so
again i know we're not voting on this
tonight it's just something to consider
for whenever you guys do you put your
plans together that's that's all i had
anyone else
commissioner for age kaiser
yeah some similar i guess comments um
after uh staff um
confirmed that this is the sort of the
well aside from city council this is the
last stop before they moved to the the
building permit phase so i guess my
question is we've got
um you know some current some concerns
about traffic
though regardless of whether or not this
reason goes through
they have the ability to build out most
of these units right now so
but that doesn't mitigate the impact
that would occur so i guess for staff i
mean what what do we have i know we just
passed the complete streets ordinance
what sorts of improvements would
this development trigger
moving forward to address some of these
traffic concerns particularly on
mcguffey road
though i do just want to say i
appreciate the traffic circle
inside the development
mr chairman commissioner kaiser
i was going to bring this up because
it's
it's come up regarding traffic but one
of the review
reviewing staff
from transportation
approved the zone change
submittal
upon review with the following
contingencies
number one was the tia would be required
prior to development and i think that
would take into consideration
uh whatever was submitted
for development
you know they would take a look at
anticipated traffic and require the
developer to submit a tia to address
impacts accordingly
they've also
submitted some information in that
traffic circle one of the main entrances
to to the development that they're
proposing i know it's conceptual but
they welcomed the um
allowance of city transit to
you know have a route that
actually went into the development
and so much so that they asked that
35-foot
bus that to make sure that that radius
was adequate enough to to accommodate
that so they're
at least from the perspective of
potential transportation related issues
and improvements they're looking at
you know transit as a means to
facilitate
access to the property and
transportation measures to the property
but but staff's also
recognizing that there could be impacts
and and they need that study in order to
determine how best to address those
concerns uh staff has not seen any this
is more than
um than i recall seeing
i think we got a cursory very cursory
review of the concept so until we see
something more substantial we wouldn't
be able to go any further in terms of
comment on that
i understand thank you for that um
explanation on the
that transit idea i mean i think it's
great is this currently on
a transit line does there's a bus
currently run by this i believe uh mr
chairman commissioner kaiser i believe
so uh transit actually did comment and
provide input they'd like to see a bus
pull out on alongside that main access
road where the circle is
and so they're already considering that
so i would have to assume yes
that's really great to hear um i guess
my last comment would just be
encouraging the applicant to
[Music]
find and leave room for
other connectivity uh to that commercial
the remaining commercial site the m1 m2
c3 if this does get approved
i think that would also address some of
the traffic concerns here i mean gated
communities are by definition
exclusionary so
you know if you don't include additional
access specifically pedestrian access
for future development there you're no
matter what you do
if it's a shopping center or anything
like that you're going to be requiring
all these people that live in this
development to essentially get in their
cars generate additional traffic
literally to go
back around their house
so i just consider the or encourage the
applicant to look at opportunities to do
that within this concept of a gated
community
but i'm encouraged to hear about um the
conversations ongoing about transit
any further comments
uh yes it's just commission smith um i
do have one comment slash question um i
know traffic
seems to be
a point of uh issue with with the
residents of tavis
states and i'm just looking at
the possibility of on monte montesol
street i know it terminates along that
northwestern boundary
has the developer
look very closely at that possibility of
extending through that
through that the roadway through that
property to alleviate some of the
traffic concerns um i know it just in
reading this that you know right now
it's not anticipated but
it appears that that may be something
that may
have to be seriously considered
if this project is going to
not have a
really big impact on on traffic
in and around this development
is there's a gentleman here who wants to
speak
sir
i didn't see your hand before but you're
welcome to come
up he will please state your name and
let me swear you in
my name is uh chaplain scott o'neill i'm
a public safety chaplain and it's just a
passing comment it's not an objection
but it's a concern
that mcguffy's a pretty dangerous street
where i see
people that are speeding
and it's a real safety concern
of mine because i do a lot of call outs
that aren't pleasant
and
i'm just concerned about the traffic
from a public safety concern because
even myself and my wife we walk along
mcguffy all the time
and
there's a lot of foot traffic there i
don't know how that's going to be
impacted and that's just a it's just a
question and a concern
thank you all right thank you is there
anyone else
any further comments from the commission
i'm sorry
please you have to state your name and i
have to let i have to swear you in also
ken thurston
all right
do you swear affirmative testimony
you're about to give us that truth to
nothing but the truth on the penalty of
law yes
um i just wanted to clarify a couple
little things um so today we're just
asking for the zone change from the c2
to c3
and then also the pancake zone on the
front to add the additional c3
a lot of the discussion right now was
having to do with a lot of tia what what
are we doing with some of the the
buildings what's the future development
of it i know some of the concerns were
this was just a conceptual drawing uh
right now and what can you do in the
future what if we don't approve it what
if we do approve it what happens
and
so
say worst case scenario you know
we don't get approved and that's that's
okay i just wanted to uh
i would hope we'd get approved but a
couple of things on c2 that you
currently can do on here
let me see if i can find it says a
hospital
so any hospital that i've seen lately is
is fairly tall
and brings a lot of traffic
and so
going from c2 to c3 you're still being
able to put a hospital in c3 you're
still put able to put a hospital in c2
so the discussion going back and forth
of how is it going to impact us right
how is it going to impact the city going
from a c2 to c3
the
zoning difference really isn't in my in
my views it's not that big of a change
from c2 to c3 other than the ability to
instead of carve it up into one acre
pieces and still accomplish the same
thing it's really to be able to leave it
as one block which is easier for the
city to maintain it's easier for us to
put
you know one parcel in there together so
that's kind of one of the bigger reasons
of going from c2 to c3
the ability to put high density in there
is is existing right so
so if we wanted to go in today and put
very high
high density
housing other things like that it's
permissible in the way that we would do
it now
going through the process we've gone
through the processes of building things
you do have staff that'll grill us to
death okay so
we do have to provide tias all of the
questions that you have asked your staff
does ask all of those and in greater
detail so we do go through all of that
what are you going to do with the
sidewalks what are you going to do with
the traffic what are you doing sewer
what are you doing with drainage what
are you doing with you know how how are
we going to help the the new transit
going to come in how are so all of those
discussions do happen at the next step
so if it gets passed today from a c2 to
c3
still know that that it's not just like
hey the developer can now go do
willy-nilly whatever he wants we still
get grilled left and right right we
still go through the big process of
having to get all of the things approved
through staff so it still happens we
still follow all the code other things
like that that have to happen so going
from c2 to c3
really
on the front portion helps it out uh in
my opinion on the city i know the m1 m2
you could end up putting you know car
like
auto body shops other things like that
the open yards the
there's
you can really do industrial complexes
out there that's permissible by code so
you could throw the chain link fences
and other things like that and just have
it basically a junkyard out there on on
the beginning of it so but
now you don't have that much opportunity
to do commercial on the front end of
that so by zoning m1 m2 and adding that
conditional c3 to it it really does
allow the flexibility of being able to
have
the possibility
maybe some restaurants maybe some other
things like that in that area that that
aren't so
eyesores to the area
our our intent is to come in here so we
we try to show a little bit of our
our uh
intent of what we will do with it um and
so with a neighborhood right behind us
and then being the owner of it uh we
would also try to
beautify the front end of
of batan memorial so we wouldn't want
something really ugly right there beside
us anyways as well so that's kind of one
of the clarifications just wanted to
show that c3 is really adding the
flexibility adding the ability to to
make it a prettier landscape prettier
buildings and things like that instead
of the the m1 m2 that that is currently
zoned that way and then once again just
to reiterate the c2 to c3 the abilities
in c2 c3 are fairly
pretty pretty close if i think staff can
agree to that being the abilities of c2
to c3 is is pretty much the same other
than weren't able to do a bigger chunk
of it instead of having to break it down
into one acre that's it
okay thank you
now is there anyone else
sir you'd like to come back i'll let you
speak again but i think this should be
it
and the question that i forgot to ask uh
please please please just repeat your
name first oh george mamaro you've
already been sworn in go ahead yes um
are the billboard billboards that are
there coming down
i i was just
okay because we were hopeful i would
much rather look at mr thurston's
property development than those
billboards
okay
ma'am do you have anything in addition
are you just going to repeat
okay come again but this just a couple
just a minute and that's it
just repeat your name for the record and
you've already been sworn in my name is
carolyn reese
and if i understand it correctly going
from c2 to c3
means that he doesn't have to use one
acre plots he can use it as all one big
chunk of property
and if you use it as one acre plots that
decreases the number of houses
traffic
and everything that's there that's the
reason for going from c2 to c3 is so you
can get more density
and if i'm wrong
i would like to know
mr chairman members of commission
if you carve out
c2 property into one acre lots
you potentially
have less density i i think the density
that was shown here is already much less
than what could be
not that we're approving that but
but nonetheless you do have setbacks to
contend with
on each one acre lot
how much that impacts overall density
until we laid it out and calculated it
out we really wouldn't know
versus an entire tract of c3
you know you have the outermost edges to
contend with in terms of setbacks not
every one acre
segment thereof
so
mr chair if i could point out i'm just
going to add to some of what mr banegas
stated
some of the things to note is c2
properties can have zero
setbacks on the sides
and can also share
facilities such as access
parking
landscaping if it works as a cohesive
unit so i did want to point that out so
vince is right we have no idea if there
would really be a significant decrease
in the ability to develop it at this
density
all right thank you catherine
all right before we vote on this though
i would like to let everyone know
that this
will have to go to city council
at their next meeting i believe or
whenever they do
take up this item
if we approve this tonight
the
public or the residents who have here
this evening will have the right to
appeal that decision to city council
you'll have the right to go there
so i would suggest that if you if we do
approve this that you speak to mr
benegas or to
to find out what is the procedure for
doing that
and
you can take it from there and the
converse as well also works if we do not
approve it you have the right the
developer to go to city council
so with that i think that we might be
ready for a vote
i know i want to make sure nobody else
has anything to say
but i need a motion
please
i will motion to approve this
application for a zone change
per staff's recommendation
hi a second
board member smith
yes uh it meets uh staff recommendation
and also uh it's in harmony with
neighborhood compatibility and also um
and and the character of the
neighborhood
board member kaiser
yes based on staff recommendation and
consistency with elevate las cruces
board member bennett
yes based on staff recommendation this
means elevate las cruces and the purpose
intent uh purpose and intent of the code
board guerrero
uh yes uh again based on staff
recommendations as well as elevate las
cruces and also just the need for
additional housing
chair gordon
i vote yes based on staff
recommendations it complies with elevate
las cruces
our discussion this evening and my my
site visit
all right with that we can go to the
last item on the agenda
which is new business
uh let's see
mr chair members of commission catherine
harrison rogers with staff
as i had mentioned earlier that we would
be returning to
south telstra
and the properties
that were interested in having sign
variances
address in particular is 550 south
telstra and the request for this is
different than what was requested on the
adjacent property to the east
currently this this property is vacant
this one does not have a building
currently under construction but the
site is being developed
it's a little over one acre
it too has frontage along east lowman
and mall drive again is also accessed
from mall drive via south tillshore
boulevard and is zoned c3 commercial
high intensity
again these are the properties in
question
this one in particular is 550 you can
see that it is what we call a flag lot
whereby the frontage a long mall drive
is actually just this itty-bitty little
20-foot um
uh what we'd call the flagpole
right here these two properties do share
an access easement between the lot lines
there is also a shared driveway that is
planned
to be placed again
between these two properties
you can see in a little bit more detail
generally how this looks i'm sorry that
these lot lines are in black so that
they are hard to see but you can see
that flagpole generally where i am
circling my cursor should be noted that
maldrive of course runs adjacent right
here and there is a drainage structure
essentially to the southwest
that serves the mall property
as currently sits one freestanding sign
is allowed along
the primary access which is mall drive
which is again that private local road
maximum height of 30 feet maximum size
of 100 square feet
with minimum setbacks of 10 in the front
and 5 on the sides i would like to point
out that the staff report did have a
typo that indicated that the size would
be limited to 150 square feet per coat
it's actually a hundred square feet and
my apologize for the my apologies for
that typo but i did want to point that
out
um
what is being requested specifically
this evening is actually to deviate
simply from the side setback
and that would be a deviation of three
feet ten inches for a side setback of
one foot two inches
and ultimately that's to allow the sign
at the location it would normally be
allowed in with just that slight
deviation to the setback simply because
they can't place it inside of the access
easement
nor would there be room for a driveway
at that location
here are some general site plans you can
see this is the location that we're
speaking of this is the property in
question
this funny wedge shaped piece again is
the adjacent drainage for the mall
here's a close-up of where you can see
it's 10 feet away from the property line
but again the sign would be placed
close to the edge of the property near
that drainage area and really wouldn't
impact anything but that drainage area
in terms of visuals
nothing will ever be at least the way
this is constructed with drainage there
won't be any any plans for any sort of
commercial building at that location
here is just a picture of the sign
itself very compatible with the sign
that we saw earlier
they are proposing a smaller sign face
than what is allowed by code only 57
feet by this particular site plan
again staff did send
reviews to all applicable departments to
look at this sign variance
notice was also sent to surrounding
properties prior to this meeting
we received no input from the public on
this and um all the departments did
review this and didn't indicate that
there were any issues associated with
the placement of the sign at that
location
again um
in addition to the normal criteria that
the board reviews for
decisions
there are also criteria specific to
variances again a physical hardship
the potential for spurring economic
development and then monetary
considerations
as with the first one because of the
unique site features associated with
these
staff is recommending
approval based on these particular
criteria we do feel as though it does
meet the physical hardship based on the
very narrow frontage the fact that it's
encumbered by that access easement and
the shared driveway
that really do limit the location of
that sign along that frontage
also we feel as though the ability to
essentially develop this long vacant
property and advertise it and direct
traffic that are internal internal on
that mall drive to businesses within
would
essentially help for economic
development at least at that
neighborhood level
staff is recommending approval
with the findings that were outlined in
the staff report
and of course your options this evening
are to vote yes to vote no yes with
conditions or to table and we do have
the applicant's representative here if
there are any questions of the applicant
on this and so with that i'd be happy to
answer any questions
thank you are there any questions from
the commission
is there anyone from the public how
about from the applicant does he wish to
speak
he or she
if not as anybody from the public
okay in that case we guess we could i
need a motion then
i mean i'll make sorry i'll make a
motion to approve uh this item
with wait hold on can we are we doing
i'm just really confused about this one
yes sorry this new business uh case
number one
uh i second
board member smith
yes based on staff recommendation board
member kaiser yes based on staff
recommendation board member bennett yes
based on staff recommendation cuomo
guerrero
yes based on staff recommendations as
well chair gordon
yes based on staff recommendations
all right
thank you for going over the item is
there any comments from the commission
this evening on anything other than what
we've been discussing
are there any staff announcements
mr chairman david weir with the
community development department
i just wanted to make the commission
aware um
staff has been requested to provide a
technical advisory committee to the
realized las cruces if you recall that's
the update to all of our development
codes it's been a request
of certain interested parties and
advocacy advocacy groups i just wanted
to make the commission aware of that
staff has drafted
a
technical advisory committee for the
council to consider
appointing
the way it's structured right now is
it would be a 15-member committee it
would be
individuals that are involved with
development the financing title
neighborhood representatives etc
they would be
recommendations of appointments from the
six city councilors
they would it's been drafted they would
appoint two
then the mayor would appoint three to
make that and the mayor would endorse
all the recommendations
basically it's an additional public
engagement and oversight into that
process
just wanted to make that the commission
aware of that and if you felt um that
that would be a good thing
your endorsement would be appreciated
but it's not an official action or
anything
staff is going to go forward with that
but we did also want to make you aware
of that and get any input that you may
have
well i certainly will endorse it i think
that we need somebody to get this
this done it's been a long time in
process and as far as i'm concerned it's
fine with me
commissioner kaiser
is there any
i guess structured breakdown in who the
representatives are on that committee
mr chairman and commissioner kaiser
there is a general oversight of who
would
who to draw from but then it would be up
to the recommendation of the
city councillors themselves
i would think one strategy they could
take would to have somebody from the
development community and someone as a
neighborhood rep or a business
representative to be their other ones to
balance
the perspective on that and then as i
said
the mayor would have to endorse all of
those going forward
yeah i guess that would be my
recommendation to ensure that there's
some sort of equal representation of of
all
as many voices as you can get with 15
people
mr chairman and commissioner kaiser we
drafted it so there could be the widest
spectrum as possible
from view points and perspectives
as i said we've also
it's been drafted as a technical
advisory committee
so it's not advocating it's just their
professional or
representative experience that they
would bring to the process
yeah i just i don't want to see it
overwhelmingly filled by the development
community i think there need to be
different voices different perspectives
people with different backgrounds so
that's that's just my recommendation
anyone else if that's the case i will
entertain a motion to adjourn
i emotionally adjourn
a second
all in favor
all in favor aye aye aye aye
aye it's 8 15 and we are adjourned
you