MINUTES OF THE DOÑA ANA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF THE DOÑA ANA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 23, :00 a.m. (Note: These are not verbatim minutes, these are summary notes unless noted otherwise.) MEMBERS PRESENT Mel Acosta, Commissioner Bob Czerniak, Commissioner Maryann Galindo, Commissioner Bill Zarges, Commissioner Charles Huestis, Commissioner Greg Daviet, Commissioner Brent Westmoreland, Chairman OTHERS PRESENT Daniel Hortert, Director, Community Development Janine Divyak, Chief Planner, Community Development Albert Casillas, Planner, Community Development MEMBERS ABSENT None CALL TO ORDER Chairman Westmoreland called the Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 9:03 a.m., Thursday, July 23, 2015 in County Commissioners Chambers, Doña Ana County Government Center, 845 N. Motel Blvd., Las Cruces, New Mexico. 1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Acosta Commissioner Czerniak Commissioner Galindo Commissioner Zarges Commissioner Huestis Commissioner Daviet Chair Westmoreland 2. APPROVAL OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Commissioner Zarges made a motion to move agenda Item No. 4 after agenda Item No. 5 with Commissioner Daviet seconding the motion. Commissioner Daviet made a motion to combine agenda Items Nos. 5b and 5c and move them in front of item 5a. Commissioner Zarges seconded the motion. The amended agenda was approved by a vote of ayes by all members present. x:\share\planning department\p & z\minutes\2015\ minutes.docx 1

2 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 23, 2015 Commissioner Zarges made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 23, 2015 meeting with Commissioner Daviet seconding the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of ayes from all members present. 4. NEW BUSINESS b & c. Case #CV and Case #PDR(H) /Ponce, 715 Montana Vista Ave., Anthony, NM Under Case #CV15-003, the applicant, Maria Elena Ponce, is requesting a variance to road access standards within the Performance District. The applicant is proposing a 50 ft. county maintained paved right-of-way with 27 ft. of improved roadway where a 60 ft. right-of-way and 36 ft. of improved roadway is required in order to pursue a High Intensity Residential Application to locate 4 mobile homes on the property. Under Case #PDR(H) , the applicant is also requesting approval to allow four mobile homes on the 2.0 acre parcel. The parcel is located at 715 Montana Vista Ave., Anthony, NM. It is within Township 26S, Range 3E, Section 23, recorded in the Doña Ana County Clerk s Office on June 21, 2006 under Instrument # , and can be further identified by Parcel # Albert Casillas, Planner, presented the two cases as combined. Commissioners Comments: a. There will be four mobile homes installed or three? b. What is the purpose for requiring 36 ft. roadways and 60 ft. right-of-ways for high intensity residential development? c. What is the traffic threshold used to delineate between a 27 ft. roadway and a 36 ft. roadway? d. Does the traffic analysis warrant a 36 ft. roadway? e. Is this property eligible for subdivision? f. What intensity zoning would be required for three additional units? g. If it was subdivided as opposed to changing the intensity, would the 36ft. road be required? h. If we were to grant the variance would the road be adequate? i. If it was split in two and the two lots were going to have two mobile homes apiece, what would be the zoning requirement be for that. j. What would be the road requirement for a medium intensity performance district? k. How many total mobile homes would be permitted on this lot for high intensity residential? l. If you wish to add additional mobile homes, what will be the required process? m. What is your reasoning for requiring a buffer? n. Is distance ever considered a buffer? o. How much distance is there between the last mobile home and the northern property line? x:\share\planning department\p & z\minutes\2015\ minutes.docx 2

3 p. If there were 300 feet between the last mobile home and the property line, would it be appropriate to require buffer type A to be put in place? q. What is the maximum deadhead distance for a driveway before a turn-around is required? r. What is the distance of the driveway proposed in the site plan? s. What is the reasoning behind requiring the turn-around if it is under 150 ft.? t. What is the reasoning behind increasing the safety requirements that are in the code? u. Regarding the roadway on Monte Vista, are we allowed to concern ourselves with future development or are we limited to only the case at the present time? v. They are not part of the requirements in the code. w. Are these circular figures the proposed buffer between the two properties? x. Does the proposed site for the two mobile homes on the west side penetrate the buffer? y. Is there enough separation on the east side to move the two mobile homes in or would they have to stagger them? Robert Duran s Responses: b. Mostly, for that type of roadway, it is to help with the traffic that will be generated. That type of improvement will require less maintenance. c. It just depends upon on what is being proposed by the applicant and the intensity. d. No, but the code does. Albert Casillas Responses: a. There is one mobile home on the property currently and three will be added. e. It is eligible for subdivision. f. Other than the COE, there wouldn t be any further applications required. g. No, it would not be required; the existing road would be more than adequate. h. If the applicant submitted a COE to create four lots, the road would not have been an issue. i. A medium intensity zoning would be required. j. I believe the existing road would be more than adequate for a medium intensity zoning district. k. Four mobile homes would be permitted for high intensity residential. l. The applicant would have to apply for a mobile home park application. m. The code requires buffering around the property. n., there are different types of buffers; some have setback requirements. o. This could better be answered by the applicant. p. Buffer A has the requirement that is needed. q. 150 ft. is the maximum deadhead distance for a driveway before a turn-around is required. r. I don t think it was more than 150 ft. but the applicant can clarify that. x:\share\planning department\p & z\minutes\2015\ minutes.docx 3

4 s. It is for safety. If a fire truck needs to go in there, they have enough space to turn around. t. The reasoning behind the requirement was for safety purposes. u. That is a point to consider. I think it should be done on a case by case basis. w. They are more of a description; below are landscaping notes. x. It appears that way. The engineer can handle this by moving the mobile homes further into the property. y. This is a question for the applicant. Gerald Donohue, representative for the applicant, was sworn in and gave a brief presentation. o. The distance from the mobile homes to the property line is about 200 ft. and from the property line to the next mobile home to the north is about 150 ft. q. For the issue of the turn-around, when it arose on our first submission, staff said we needed to clear that with the Fire Marshall, which we did. The Fire Marshall is not requiring the turn-around. w. The buffer in question is graphical in nature; it is not intended to be definitive. We want to meet whatever landscaping requirements the County has. Commissioners Comments: z. Are the location of tie-ins referring to existing or the proposed? a1. Is there sufficient room between the property line and the proposed locations for the mobile homes on the west side to simply move the buffer location? b1. Given the distance from the mobile homes to the property line, do you believe the requirement for the buffer is reasonable? c1. With the property to the north, is that a legal non-conforming scenario? d1. Why didn t we propose landscape buffering to their south boundary? e1. If we approve the site plan as submitted, does that allow them to penetrate that buffer? f1. Regarding the buffer on the north side of the property, would that go in the El Paso Natural Gas right-of-way and then who would be responsible for maintaining that. g1. Are we approving the site plan? Albert Casillas Responses: z. They are referring to the proposed. c1. No, that is the high intensity residential approved in d1. I would have to check the original case file and see what was approved. e1. I would ask the Commission to make that a condition that the mobile homes to do not cross the buffer. f1. The property owner would be responsible for maintaining that. g1., you are approving site plan Mr. Donohue Responses: x:\share\planning department\p & z\minutes\2015\ minutes.docx 4

5 a1. I believe there is sufficient room. b1. The requirement for a buffer is not reasonable. Commissioner Zarges made a motion to approve Case #CV given the findings and recommendations of staff. Commissioner Daviet seconded the motion. Commissioner Daviet noted that the proposed variance does not appear to be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and that requiring the improvement of 1,400 linear feet is an extraordinary economic hardship to the development of this property and that granting the variance upholds the spirit and intent of the ordinance, specifically the idea that this variance would not be required if the applicant had chosen one of the other optional paths to developing this property and I do not believe that their choice of which path to follow should require additional infrastructure improvements. Commissioner Acosta Commissioner Czerniak Commissioner Galindo Commissioner Zarges Commissioner Huestis Commissioner Daviet Chair Westmoreland The motion was APPROVED by a vote of Commissioner Daviet made a motion to approve Case #PDR(H) with no conditions. Commissioner Zarges seconded the motion. Commissioner Zarges made a friendly amendment that the site plan be revised so that the mobile homes do not encroach on the buffering on the west side of the property. Commission Czerniak seconded the amendment. Commissioner Acosta Commissioner Czerniak Commissioner Galindo Commissioner Zarges Commissioner Huestis Commissioner Daviet Chair Westmoreland The amendment was APPROVED by a vote of Commissioner Daviet said I find that the proposed application does meet the requirements of Section 250 and find that the proposed condition for adding a buffer to x:\share\planning department\p & z\minutes\2015\ minutes.docx 5

6 the northern edge of the property is unreasonable and would require an undue hardship. I also find that the proposed condition requiring a dead-end turnaround exceeds the requirements of the code and therefore is also unnecessary and unreasonable. A vote was taken on the motion as amended: Commissioner Acosta Commissioner Czerniak Commissioner Galindo Commissioner Zarges Commissioner Huestis Commissioner Daviet Chair Westmoreland The motion was APPROVED as amended by a vote of a. Case #CV15-002/Juarez, 208 Bedrock Place, Rincon, NM The applicant, Maria Juarez, is requesting a variance for the front and rear yard setbacks within the Performance District. Ms. Juarez is requesting a 7 ft. front yard setback and an 8 ft. rear yard setback in order to place a mobile home on the property. The acre parcel is located at 208 Bedrock Place, Rincon, NM within Township 19 South, Range 2 West, Section 8, recorded on November 10, 2014 under Instrument # in the Doña Ana County Clerk s Office. It can be further identified by Parcel ID # Albert Casillas, Planner, presented the case. Commissioners Comments: a. Under the current code, would a split of this lot be permitted? b. What is the purpose of the setbacks? c. How does this variance impact the safety of this property and surrounding properties? d. Where is the southern property line and what landscaping is being suggested? e. Is the 720 sq. ft. considered a small mobile home? f. Given that the existing setbacks would reduce the building area to 575 sq. ft., in your opinion does the code effectively deny the property owner of all reasonable use of this property? g. What is the justification to limit the size of the home? h. If we grant this variance, does the variance specifically set what the new varied setbacks would be? i. Would they be permitted to put in a larger mobile home that further encroaches on those setbacks without coming in front of the P&Z? x:\share\planning department\p & z\minutes\2015\ minutes.docx 6

7 j. If they came back with a request for a mobile home that was 20 x 60 ft., could they put that in without violating the new variances and still be within their side setbacks? k. What would be the minimum amount of space necessary in order to meet the setback requirement and the parking requirement on the side with the fence? l. Can a parking space be part of the setback area? m. Would it be reasonable to set a maximum size for the mobile home to the point where the side setbacks are met and 10 ft. of parking space is permitted? n. How wide could a mobile home be before it would violate the setback requirements? Albert Casillas Responses: a. No, even though sewer is available to this property, the minimum square footage required would be 6,000 sq. ft. and we are not at that. b. The purpose of setbacks is for safety. c. We looked at the neighboring properties and the spacing from dwellings to property lines. The applicant is proposing a 7 ft. setback, so there is more than 10 ft. of separation between the proposed structures. They are also proposing 14 ft. from the fence to the proposed mobile home. d. The southern property line would be along the fence. Landscaping is just a condition to consider. e. I believe it is standard for single-wide mobile homes. f. That is correct. g. We don t want them to come back later with a larger mobile home that would increase the encroachment on setbacks. h., that is correct. They would be allowed 8 ft. on the rear and 7 ft. on the front. i. They would have to come back in front of this Commission. j. As long as the size of the mobile home doesn t encroach on the side setbacks, they could install a larger model mobile home. Also, keep in mind that they need space for parking. k. The minimum amount of space necessary to meet the requirements would be 9 or 10 feet for a parking space. l., the parking space can be part of the setback area. m. We have the 12 ft. because that s the mobile home that is being proposed. That is one of the conditions that can be stated. n. If, on a site plan, they were able to demonstrate that they going to have a least a 9 ft. wide parking space, and as long as they were not encroaching on the side setbacks it would be alright. Janine Divyak, Chief Planner, notified the Commission that the lot was 45 feet wide rather than 33 feet wide. Commissioners Comments: x:\share\planning department\p & z\minutes\2015\ minutes.docx 7

8 o. Are we required to approve the site plan? p. Is the variance only for the current owner? q. What is the rationale for the potential condition of obtaining approval for the mobile home? Albert Casillas Responses: o. That was just a site plan submitted for the mobile home permit. Technically we are not approving the site plan, just the setbacks. p. The variance stays with the property. q. This is just a standard comment that we include. Maria Juarez and Melissa Amador were sworn in and offered to answer questions. Commissioner Czerniak made a motion to approve the case with Commissioner Zarges seconding the motion. Commissioner Daviet noted that the granting of the variance is not detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and that the granting of the variance is justified due to an extraordinary physical hardship of the size of the property and the granting of the variance upholds the spirit and accomplishes substantial justice. Commissioner Acosta Commissioner Czerniak Commissioner Galindo Commissioner Zarges Commissioner Huestis Commissioner Daviet Chair Westmoreland The motion was APPROVED by a vote of OLD BUSINESS Chairman Westmoreland called a 10-minute recess at 10:45 a.m. and reconvened at 10:55 a.m. a. Review and Discussion of Draft 3 of the Unified Development Code Daniel Hortert said we are looking at August 25 th for the Comp Plan to go before the BOCC and hopefully the UDC a month later. In discussing the UDC, Daniel said Articles 1 and 2 have been reorganized, but the context remains the same. Commissioner Czerniak asked if Dan was getting closer to the Engineering Department in terms of the code. Daniel Hortert said they had never been that far apart. The biggest thing is that the County has a stand-alone erosion control ordinance that s part of some deal they cut x:\share\planning department\p & z\minutes\2015\ minutes.docx 8

9 with the EPA in terms of erosion, storm water runoff, etc. We ve taken that stand-alone ordinance and incorporated it within our ordinance so it is not stand-alone. The question is will EPA accept that. Commissioner Acosta asked about the 10 acres and what was going to be done. Daniel Hortert responded that, historically, land owners who have broken off acreage for family members, have used the claim of exemption process. I m trying to find a way that, in certain instances, if family wants to do a COE for four family members with one acre lot minimums, I think in the spirit of the COE statute or the Subdivision Act that defines what a COE is, I don t see why we couldn t have some kind of application/waiver request to do smaller lots than 10 acres for COEs. Commissioner Czerniak asked what is your opinion on the 10-acre minimum. Daniel Hortert responded that the 10-acre minimum, because it serves two purposes on one hand it says you ve got to have a 10-acre minimum, but on the other hand it says if you do a community type, you can do whatever you want in that community type and all the minimum lot sizes, the 10-acre minimum is thrown out the window when you are developing that property. Commissioner Czerniak asked if he had reconsidered the 50% dedication of open space? Daniel Hortert said I thought we had resolved that already to 20% which is what it is currently. Commissioner Czerniak said on page 29, the civic space requirement for a small village is from 0 to 5%. If somebody did 5% on a 10-acre parcel, that would be ½ acre. If the 20% minimum for the open space is added to that, that s an acre and a half. What s the point of asking somebody to set aside an acre and a half? Why not just require the open space? Developers need to be incentivized. What do we give someone that gives 30% for open space? Daniel Hortert responded we haven t figured it out that way and I don t think that we should. It gets too complicated. In a sense, the community types or place types are kind of a negotiating tool. Commissioner Daviet said in changing our mindset from just looking at what is the minimum lot size to what does development look like in the area, there is always the conflict in ag about the level of development that I can retain on my own property and the impacts of that level of development will have on me when my neighbor does it. If you take Article 5 and expect it to stand on its own, 10-acre lots do not work; they effectively remove all residential development in the rural area of the County. But when you combine it with Article 3, I think there are some opportunities. With regard to the 50% open space, I do like the idea of having some way that the form of development on that property is done in such a way that it buffers the potential incompatibility of residential life and commercial agricultural operations. Commissioner Czerniak said the concern is that in creating open space, weeds will grow. Couldn t you just put that into someone s lot with a buffer at the back end of the lot and say that you can t develop that part of your property? Daniel Hortert said the problem in New Mexico is that homeowner s associations don t really have authority. The County has no jurisdiction to enforce CC&Rs. x:\share\planning department\p & z\minutes\2015\ minutes.docx 9

10 Commissioner Czerniak brought up the question of reducing taxes for a landowner if land at the back of their lot was a landscaped buffer area. Daniel Hortert said it would be an ag preservation or ag buffer easement. I would have to ask Andy about a reduction in taxes. It s a complex issue. Commissioner Daviet said he d like to see the idea of the buffer defined. I think a potential solution for claims of exemption, particularly in the R zone, is simply to say that COEs are permitted and then define a standard for what a COE may be: a minimum lot size of X and have to meet NMED requirements something of that nature. Commissioner Acosta spoke about the Comp Plan for the Sheriff s office. Commissioner Huestis asked how the code affects such areas as Rincon and Anthony that have lots of 2 to 5 acres. Daniel Hortert said I would imagine, even though they are not even 5 acres, that most of those lots were done in R5 which is five acre minimum or somewhere around there. I d have to look at them. Some, we may have to address on a case-by-case basis. Hopefully, we re getting it right with the zoning maps and we re proposing zoning that meets the intent of the existing zoning as well as rights and responsibilities of your property under the current zoning district and the new one. Chair Westmoreland spoke about zone corrections. Commissioner Huestis spoke about properties use being changed and the public notification process for any rezoning that will occur. He asked if there would be an appeal process for zoning changes other than going to court. Daniel Hortert responded the public outreach process was a 3 ½ year process. This is what we heard from the communities. The current process is to take what we ve heard, verify what we ve heard and make changes necessary to the plans using our planning expertise and knowledge. We will notify the public after the fact because they ve already been notified for the most part, some way, somehow, whether they got the notice or not; we ve been notifying people for 3 ½ years and it s into the thousands and thousands of people that we ve notified. Commissioner Huestis asked once this code is adopted by the BOCC, does that mean that map is now the rule of law these are the new zoning rules? Daniel Hortert responded as with every zoning map, it is part of the ordinance that it represents. The map will become the official zoning map of Doña Ana County. Commissioner Huestis said then there s a process of appeal. Daniel Hortert responded if someone says I think what you gave me is unfair, there is no appeal process for a period of time. We will look at the property, ask questions and make a determination after that. It will be yes, you re right or no and this is why. They could technically appeal to the P&Z Commission at that point, but to me, if we can t get it resolved with staff, we re not doing our job right. Commissioner Huestis asked about a current matrix to see what changes have been suggested. Janine Divyak said comments are due today on draft 3; submit them at the latest by tomorrow morning. I will compile a matrix for draft 3 that will be submitted to the consultant and her intention is to develop a final draft that will be released on August 7 th. x:\share\planning department\p & z\minutes\2015\ minutes.docx 10

11 Daniel Hortert said he would make an effort to get the Commission a red-lined version so the Commissioners could see what was added or moved. Janine Divyak said the comments have not been consolidated into the matrix or the document for the third draft yet. Chair Westmoreland said the next meeting will be Thursday, July 30 th at 9 a.m. 6. PRESENTATIONS None. 7. COMMITTEE REPORTS None. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS None. 9. STAFF INPUT None. 10. COMMISSION INPUT None. 11. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Westmoreland adjourned the meeting at 12:15 p.m. Officer: Planning and Zoning Commission x:\share\planning department\p & z\minutes\2015\ minutes.docx 11