___ _, 2000 Minutes

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

March 6, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Ginna L. Sanders, Chairman.

Ms. Paula J. Dardin, First Vice-Chairman.

Mr. Preciliano J. Martín, Co-Second Vice-Chairman.

Mr. Jack M. Glahn, Co-Second Vice-Chairman.

Mr. Robert J. Jaramillo, Ex-Officio Member.

MEMBERS ABSENT:

None.

STAFF PRESENT:

Ms. Sharon L. Few, City Planner.

Mr. J. Gregory Garcia, Recording Secretary.

Mr. Kevin P. Heberle, Engineering & Planning Dept. Director.

OTHERS PRESENT:

Ms. Rebecca W. Ehler, City Attorney, Kids Inc. Board Member; Mr. Matt Martin; Mr. Alan C. Baker; City Commissioner Donald L. Cooper; Mr. Albert Wagner, Sr.; Mr. Joe G. Melendrez; Sheriff John A. Lee; Ms. Sharon K. Weaver; Mr. Steven O. Lee; Ms. Josie Jaramillo, Kids Inc. Director; Mr. Stephen DeGiulio; Mr. Gary Lane; Mr. Tommy Messer; Mr. Mark Bolin; Mr. Paul J. Pompeo, Jr. and other unidentified persons.

1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Sanders called the regularly scheduled March 6, 2002, meeting to order at approximately 1:30 p.m. Chairman Sanders noted that a total of five (5) items were to be considered, two (2) under Public Hearing. Recommendations to the City Commission are to be made by the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval or denial of the requests. The City Commission will consider these requests at its meeting of March 26, 2002, to render final decisions.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Chairman Sanders made a motion "TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, WITH A CHANGE THAT THE SUBDIVISION CASES BE MOVED TO THE END OF THE AGENDA AND HEARD LAST". Seconded by Commissioner Glahn. All voted "AYE", passing the motion by a vote of 4-0-0.

3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6TH REGULAR MEETING, AND MARCH 3RD INSPECTION TOUR, 2002. Commissioner Dardin made a motion "TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, AS WRITTEN AND THE INSPECTION TOUR". Seconded by Commissioner Martin. All voted "AYE", approving the motion by a vote of 4-0-0.

4. PUBLIC HEARING.

A. CASE: Z-02-0609(A). PETITIONER: Sharon Weaver, owner, by Kid's Inc. A Safehouse for Kids, agent. REQUEST: Approval of an ordinance to amend the official zoning map of the City of Alamogordo and change the zoning to District "C" (Multi-family Dwelling), or a more restrictive classification; which, if approved, would allow the property to be developed and used for non-profit institutions, which would permit a safehouse and

advocacy center for interviewing abused children. TOTAL AREA: ± 1,092 square feet. LOCATION: 1212 Vermont Avenue. CURRENT LEGAL:Lot 7, Block 83, Alamo Blocks. CURRENT ZONE: District "B" (Two Family Dwelling).

Ms. Few reported that Sharon K. Weaver owns Lot 7, Block 83, Alamo Blocks. The proposed rezoning will allow Kid’s Inc. to use the property as a safehouse and advocacy center for interviewing abused children. The property, 1212 Vermont Avenue, is zoned "B" (Two Family Dwelling) District. Rezoning the property, as requested, to "C" will create "spot" zoning within the "B" district and will open the property to a wide range of allowed uses. The 1971 Master Plan designates this property to be developed as low density residential. The proposed rezoning will not conform to the Master Plan and will create a spot (island) of multi-family zoning. The City Attorney noted that New Mexico appellate courts, while not deciding whether spot zoning is always illegal, have enumerated two factors to weigh in deciding if illegal spot zoning has occurred. Those factors include: a) if the use fails to comply with the comprehensive plan, and b) if the use is inconsistent with the surrounding area, grants a discriminatory benefit to the land owner, and/or harms neighboring properties or the community welfare. In this instance, the proposed use does not comply with the comprehensive plan; the Commission must determine whether the second set of factors is present. Any change in the occupancy (e.g. use) of the property will require full compliance with the Uniform Building Codes (U.B.C.) and other applicable Codes. Pursuant to Section 29-01-020, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Alamogordo, New Mexico, notice of the time and place of the public hearing was advertised on February 17, 2002, in the Alamogordo Daily News, and twenty-seven (27) notices were mailed to property owners within the 200 foot legal protest area on February 15, 2002. Of the notices sent, one (1) protest was received from outside of the legal protest area; and three (3) from property owners within the 200 foot legal protest area. The protest from within the legal protest area represents eleven-point twenty-one percent (11.21%) protest. Due to the fact that the rezoning is requested would not conform to the master plan and would create a "spot-zoning". Staff cannot support a "blanket" rezoning request. Approval of the rezoning to District "C" (Multi-family Dwelling) can only be recommended with the condition that the property be used only for a safehouse and advocacy center for interviewing abused children.

Sheriff John Lee and Ms. Josie Jaramillo, Kids Inc. Director; were available to speak for the request of the Safehouse. Sheriff Lee stated that he is the vice-chair for Kids Inc., A Safehouse for Children and could answer any questions regarding the request on behalf of the President of the Safehouse, Mr. Steven Lee. Sheriff Lee stated that they want to assure everybody including the Planning Commission, that the house would be an unoccupied dwelling—unless an interview is actually taking place. He stated that after reading some of the protests concerning law enforcement vehicles in the area, he also wants to assure that there will be a maximum of two at any given time and usually one will be unmarked—if the detective does the interview. This area, he stated, is ideal for these circumstances because they want a very unobtrusive atmosphere for the child. In the past, if a child was abused, he would be interviewed by a police officer, then the District Attorney, the social services department, and finally the Public Defender and judges. They have most of this process eliminated down to one interview which will help take away some of the trauma the child has already been through. They average one to two interviews per week right now, however this could increase or decrease depending on the amount of cases that are received. Sheriff Lee also stated that the intent in not to have the street flooded with police cars. However, having some police cars on the block tends to be an advantage because traffic slows down in the area. Also, Sheriff Lee added, the house will not be advertised or have any signs on it—it will look just like a regular residence. Interviews will happen once or twice per week for approximately two-three hours and then they’ll be gone. Commissioner Glahn asked how many children will be in this home. Sheriff Lee stated that no children will be in the home. It will be vacant unless they are conducting an interview with a child that has been a victim of an abuse case. That child would be brought in for an interview for a couple of hours and then taken somewhere else. Sheriff Lee stressed that they will not be housing children here.

Commissioner Jaramillo asked what would be the limit on the age group brought to the house. Sheriff Lee answered that normally up to about thirteen or fourteen years of age—unless there were special circumstances, such as special-education children, which might raise the age limit. Chairman Sanders asked if interviews would be conducted during the day. Sheriff Lee answered that interview are conducted during normal business hours—Monday through Friday from 8AM-5PM. Chairman Sanders also asked if the house will have any kind of alarm system installed since it will be vacant most of the day. Sheriff Lee stated that the house will have an alarm system installed because most of the time it will be unoccupied.

Commissioner Martin asked why the zoning has to change before the home can be used to conduct interviews of this nature. Ms. Few stated that under the current zoning ordinance, for a non-profit organization to operate in a zoning district it requires no more restrictive than a "C" zone, multi-family or any of the "D", business and industrial zones would allow for their operation, but not the "B", two-family district. Sheriff Lee also stated that the organization requests that property be allowed for the use at this time, however, if the safehouse decides to move, the zoning could revert back to the current zone so the residents won’t have to deal with anything else moving in to the house because of the "C" zoning. Ms. Few stated that there would be a formal proceeding for it to revert back to the "B" zone including publication and notice to all the property owners that this was occurring. Because rezonings are done by ordinance, it takes public notice for another ordinance to come into law therefore, there would be no other use allowed on the property. For example, if someone wanted to come in and convert the property into a tri-plex or such, it would not be allowed and would be so noted in the Engineering/Planning computer systems. Sheriff Lee agreed and concurred with that statement and noted that the organization is not trying to offend the other property owners, they’re just trying to do something good for the children.

Commissioner Martin stated that the notes on the case include everything that would disallow the rezoning and asked if the Commission could still vote on the case including recommending approval. Ms. Few stated that the Planning Commission may make any recommendation it wishes to the City Commission. Commissioner Martin stated that he could certainly understand why the area residents are protesting and asked if there are any other locations that have been considered. Sheriff Lee stated that in all honesty, they have looked for several locations because they are working out of the Granada Center currently—which is not a good location because the rooms should be sound-proof and that cannot be achieved in an office environment. A home environment makes sound-proofing fairly simple and the price the owner is asking for the proposed home is well within the organization’s budget, which makes this location perfect.

Commissioner Dardin asked if the children would be chaperoned the full time that they are there. Sheriff Lee stated that there would be an interviewer, possibly Josie Jaramillo, as she is one of the interviewers; a police officer, the District Attorney and possibly more people in the home with the child, and he or she would never be left alone. Chairman Sanders asked if Ms. Jaramillo had anything to add for the petition. Ms. Jaramillo stated that everything had pretty much been covered. Ms. Jaramillo stated that she is the director for the safehouse and she would be there most of the day and would definitely be there when children are brought in. The officers’ vehicles would only be there for a few hours during the day and would not create a heavy traffic situation. Mr. Martin asked if the home would be used overnight. Ms. Jaramillo answered no.

City Commissioner Don Cooper was available to speak against the petition representing District II. Commissioner Cooper stated that this is the older part of the center of the City of Alamogordo and it’s a pretty well established residential area. The people have worked really hard to maintain that quiet residential atmosphere and, he stated, he has also worked hard at keeping it that way also. He stated that they have had a lot of the streets and intersections upgraded. There are people who have lived there since 1947 and Commissioner Cooper stated that he doesn’t feel that it is right to put this type of house being in a residential area—which is why it would create "spot-zoning." Also, Commissioner Cooper stated that even though the house would have an alarm, the vacant house would attract people who would like to intrude into the house just because they know nobody is there most of the time. Commissioner Cooper stated that he firmly believes in Kids Inc. and feels it’s badly needed, especially because the kids are put through trauma again after having had to live through it. He finished by saying that the kids should have an atmosphere where they feel comfortable; however, when an established neighborhood has an intrusion of this type, it leaves the other property owners feeling like there could be anything put there and it’s not the right thing to do because there are other locations that would be more conducive for type of organization.

Mr. Steve DeGiulio was available to speak against the request. Mr. DeGiulio stated that he owns the property across the street from the proposed safehouse. Also, he stated concerns that his one-year-old little boy won’t be able to play in the yard and come in and out as he wishes because usually the type of people that are alerted to these social services are just looking for trouble—whether it’s breaking into an empty office or just watching the activity in the neighborhood. Mr. DeGiulio stated that it is sad that they have to teach their children to be so very careful of strangers. One of the things he likes about the area is that it’s relatively peaceful and quiet and he would like to see that it stays that way by not changing any of the neighborhood zonings. Mr. DeGiulio also stated that he feels the safehouse and the needs of the children should be handled at another location.

Ms. Sharon Weaver was available to speak for the petition. Ms. Weaver stated that she is the owner of the house in question and it is very special to her because she lived there and she plans to retire to that house in the future. Ms. Weaver also stated that the neighborhood is also very special and if she had any concerns what-so-ever about devaluing the neighborhood or the home, she would not go through with this. She went on to state that she has seen how Kids Inc. is run and how Ms. Jaramillo runs the office, and feels that it would be a very calm and beneficial element to the neighborhood. Especially, she stated, the presence of a police car or two occasionally would be very beneficial to the neighborhood. Also Ms. Weaver stated that there are no concerns about the safety of the property as far as criminal activity, otherwise she would not be in favor of this.

Mr. Mathew Martin was available to speak against the request. Mr. Martin stated that he is the owner of the property immediately adjacent to the proposed safehouse and he is also the safety officer for the Academy Del Sol alternative high school. He stated that the Academy is literally within rock throwing distance from the proposed residence. Mr. Martin stated that they house approximately 200 "at risk" high school students anywhere from the age of fifteen to twenty years. He stated that since the Academy Del Sol started, the neighborhood has changed quite a bit. There are students who skip classes and usually they are students that are inclined in that direction anyway, and they frequenting the alley that is immediately adjacent to the proposed property. The students are constantly in the neighborhood and surrounding area which has led to an instance of graffiti. Also, Mr. Martin stated that there is drug use in the park and the immediate alley. He feels that this area is not conducive to children who have already been given a rough start. Also, he stated that he believes there are probably many places properly zoned within the City of Alamogordo already that would be more appropriate for this safehouse. Mr. Martin ended by saying that he has been in that neighborhood since 1957 and has literally grown up in that nice, quiet neighborhood which has worked progress administration stamps on either end of the property from 1938 where it has always, since the founding of the City, been zoned a residential neighborhood and he is very much against it being zoned otherwise.

Commissioner Martin made a motion to "RECOMMEND DENIAL OF CASE Z-02-0609(A) FOR VARIOUS REASONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS." The motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Dardin made a motion "TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR THE REZONING WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PROPERTY BE USED ONLY FOR A SAFEHOUSE AND ADVOCACY CENTER FOR INTERVIEWING ABUSED CHILDREN AND THE CONDITION THAT IT WOULD REVERT BACK TO ‘B’ ZONING IF IT BECOMES VACANT AGAIN." Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Glahn asked Officer Lee if the children that are there for interviews are brought there by law enforcement officers, or if they would be walking there at any time. Also Commissioner Glahn asked if the children would be unsupervised at any time during their time at the safehouse. Sheriff Lee answered that the children would be escorted by law enforcement, the social services worker, the District Attorney or the interviewer. Sheriff Lee added that there would not be a time that the children would be unsupervised while there.

Commissioner Dardin made another motion "TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR THE REZONING WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PROPERTY BE USED ONLY FOR A SAFEHOUSE AND ADVOCACY CENTER FOR INTERVIEWING ABUSED CHILDREN AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT WOULD REVERT BACK TO ‘B’ ZONING IF IT BECOMES VACANT AGAIN." Motion died for lack of a second.

Chairman Sanders stated that the case will be heard before the City Commission on it’s meeting of March 26th 2002, at 7:30PM in the Commission chambers.

B. CASE: Z-02-0610(A). PETITIONER: Joe G. Melendrez and Mercedes Melendrez, owners. REQUEST: Approval of an ordinance to amend the official zoning map of the City of Alamogordo and change the zoning to District "D-2" (Neighborhood Business), or a more restrictive classification; which, if approved, would allow the property to be used and developed for limited retail business activities, which would permit a barber shop. TOTAL AREA: ± 3,050 square feet. LOCATION: 810 Puerto Rico Avenue (formerly 1102 ½ E. Ninth Street). CURRENT LEGAL: South sixty-one feet (61') of Lot 12, Block 136, Alamo Blocks. CURRENT ZONE: District "C" (Multi-family Dwelling).

Ms. Few reported that Joe G. Melendrez and Mercedes Melendrez own the South sixty-one feet (61') of Lot 12, Block 136, Alamo Blocks. The proposed rezoning will allow the property to be used and developed for limited retail business activities, which would permit a barbershop. The property, 810 Puerto Rico Avenue, is zoned "C" (Multi-family Dwelling) District. Rezoning the property, as requested, to "D-2" will eliminate a "spot" zoning within the "D-2" district. The 1971 Master Plan designates this property to be developed as commercial. Any change in the occupancy (e.g. use) of the property will require full compliance with the Uniform Building Codes (U.B.C.) and other applicable Codes. Pursuant to Section 29-01-020, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Alamogordo, New Mexico, notice of the time and place of the public hearing was advertised on February 17, 2002, in the Alamogordo Daily News, and twenty-six (26) notices were mailed to property owners within the 200 foot legal protest area on February 15, 2002. No protests to the requested rezoning were received. Approval of the rezoning to District "D-2" (Neighborhood Business) is supported to eliminate an island of "C" zoning.

Mr. Joe Melendrez was available to answer any questions for the petition. Commissioner Martin asked if there is there is a way to access the barbershop from both Ninth Street and also Puerto Rico, as there is a sign on Ninth Street. Mr. Melendrez answered that it is accessible through that property in Ninth Street because he owns the land.

Mr. Glahn asked staff why the notes state that the barbershop is not considered "professional" because a barber is a professional. Ms. Few answered that it has nothing to do with the individual that is running the shop. By definition in the ordinances and cases, professional offices are viewed to be attorneys, physicians, CPA offices. She went on to say that there have been opinions though the AG’s office and such on other occasions that such things as real estate offices, services, etc. are not included in this. Personal services, as in this instance, are specifically addressed in the Business district, which are "D" and "D2". Sometime in the far distant past, for some reason, the North half of this lot was split into two separate parcels. Whether the rezoning of the North half of the property was done at the time of the split or prior, we don’t know, however, Ms. Few stated, we do have the case showing where the zoning on the North part of the property was done to bring it from "C" to "D". The properties both to the East and West of this are "D-2" zoning, so there is only one little island of "C" zoning left. It would be quite appropriate to bring it into compliance with the rest of the block. Ms. Few also noted that this case came to light at the time the business registration was be processed and the barber had to be put on hold until the procedure was approved.

Commissioner Glahn made a motion "TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CASE Z-02-0610(A)." Commissioner Dardin seconded the motion. All voted "AYE", passing the motion by a vote of 4-0-0.

C. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. Chairman Sanders stated that the Public Hearing was closed.

5. MISCELLANEOUS.

CASE: M-02-0298(A). PETITIONER: Wagner Homes, Inc. REQUEST: Reconsideration of a previous City Commission directive and approval of a curb cut and driveway onto Scenic Drive; which, if approved, would allow a sixteen foot (16') side yard curb cut and driveway onto Scenic Drive to remain. TOTAL AREA: ±9,600 square feet. LOCATION: 3749 Rosewood Avenue. CURRENT LEGAL: Lot 307, cottonwood Heights, Unit 4. CURRENT ZONE: District "A" (Single Family Dwelling).

Ms. Few reported that Wagner Homes, Inc. owns Lot 307, Cottonwood Heights Unit 4. A curb cut was installed on Scenic Drive, in violation of City policy and without the required City permits for the work. The owners have requested that the City re-visit this policy. The property, 3749 Rosewood, is zoned "A" (Single Family Dwelling) District. The 1971 Master Plan designates this property to be developed as low density residential. When Cottonwood Heights Subdivision was given preliminary approval by the City there was extensive discussion regarding the development of Scenic Drive, as an arterial, through the subdivision to connect White Sands Boulevard and Florida Avenue. Cooperative funding was secured for the development of the roadway and it was agreed that no curb cuts would be made onto Scenic Drive (an exception was made for six lots in Unit 3 which would have "circular driveways" to eliminate the need for any "backing movements" onto Scenic). With the approval of the Cottonwood Subdivisions, the agreement was clearly stated in all the minutes and documents with the exception of the plat and of any ordinance amendment. All other lots were to face side streets and driveways would be off of those streets. Staff conferred with the City Attorney on this case, and because if was a clearly stated intent of the City Commission, it needed to be revisited by the City Commission with a recommendation by the Planning Commission. However, since it was not an ordinance, in fairness it couldn’t be process it as a variance with hearing and notice. The driveway in question is into a side yard (into the back yard) to primarily allow a recreation vehicle to be parked in the back yard, although the driveway and pad could be used by any vehicle. Access into the yard is available from the alley. No permits were obtained from the City for the work. As the driveway violates City policy on Scenic Drive within Cottonwood Heights Subdivision and contributes to the safety hazard on an arterial, denial of the curb cut onto Scenic Drive is recommended with the requirement that the curb on Scenic Drive be re-poured by the property owner with the appropriate permits to City standards.

Chairman Sanders asked for a clarification as to what was considered City standards and if it was in the restrictive covenants. Ms Few answered that it was something that was put into public record and it was a stated agreement with the developers and the City of Alamogordo for approval of the subdivision. But, there was no ordinance put in place with it. It is not on the plat, and restrictive covenants are a totally separate issue because the City of Alamogordo cannot enforce restrictive covenants in New Mexico. Chairman Sanders asked if the City policy is more of a wish list. Ms. Few stated that it was a condition of approval for the subdivision and it was a "gentlemen’s agreement" that the subdivision only be approved under the condition that there would be no curb cuts onto Scenic Drive, other than those of the six lots identified with circular driveways.

Commissioner Jaramillo asked if the agreement was only a verbal agreement. Ms. Few stated that it was incorporated into the minutes and the permanent documents of the proceedings, so there is documentation.

Mr. Wagner was available for questions by the Commission. Commissioner Glahn asked why the curb cut for the driveway was installed if there was a gentleman’s agreement against it. Mr. Wagner stated that he didn’t know about the agreement, because the subdivision has been there fifteen to twenty years ago. Also, he stated, most any contractor working in the subdivision probably doesn’t know about that "gentlemen’s agreement" either. Mr. Wagner stated that as far as the permit is concerned, he did have a permit to build the house. Ms. Few stated that as far as staff was able to determine, this curb cut was not shown on the permit to build the house and also, that from everything she was able to obtain, it was not shown on the site plan and it was not included in the documentation and approval for the building permit. Ms. Few stated that there may have been something she was not aware of, but to the best of what she has been able to document, those were the findings.

Commissioner Martin asked if the City policy is enforceable and can the Commission have any affect towards its enforcement by the City of Alamogordo. Ms. Few answered that according to the City Attorney, yes we can—which is why this case was brought before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Martin also asked if the other people in that neighborhood want to build a driveway onto Scenic Drive and they submit for a permit, would it be correct in stating that it would not be allowed, and it would come before the Planning Commission to hear. Ms. Few answered that yes, it should. Ms. Few stated that to make an absolute statement that nobody would be allowed to get a permit would be to say that there is no human fallacy in the world, or that the computers aren’t down someday. However, in a "perfect world" with "perfect employees", it is correct that no permit would be granted and it would not be allowed.

Chairman Sanders asked if the main objection if simply because of it being on an arterial street. Ms. Few answered yes. Chairman Sanders stated that the same situation was seen on Fairgrounds Road when Regional Medical wanted to have a curb cut from Fairgrounds Road to the rear of the property on Aero Loop. They were backing up onto Fairgrounds and the objection to that was that it was an arterial road. The curb cut was allowed and the same scenario took place there. Ms. Few stated that in that particular case, questions were raised because of the size of the curb cut and the proximity to the corner. There was a backing issue, however the reason it was before the Planning Commission was not a policy on the street, but the size of the curb cut because it was the issue that can be addressed by a variance.

Commissioner Glahn asked where the City inspector was when they were doing the curb cut, if it wasn’t something that was supposed to happen. Ms. Few stated that she did not have an answer for that.

Chairman Sanders asked if the space was put in for a motor home. Ms. Few answered that it was put in for a motor home, but anything could park there—from a motorcycle to a V W. Chairman Sanders stated that with the double gates, the impression is that the driveway is for a recreational vehicle of some sort. Ms. Few stated that anything could be parked there and there is access to the back of the property from the alley. Chairman Sanders stated that if indeed it’s for a recreational vehicle, the owner would be hard-pressed to turn it around from an alley and get it in the back yard. Chairman Sanders stated that a motorcycle would have no problem, however anything else would have trouble. Ms. Few stated that conversely, with a fifteen-foot side-yard setback on the Scenic side of the property, there would conceivably be room to bring parking in from Rosewood. Chairman Sanders stated that she looked at that, but could not see that it would be enough space for that.

Commissioner Dardin made a motion "TO APPROVE THE CASE SINCE THE INSPECTOR MISSED IT, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE BUILDER NOT DO THAT AGAIN." Commissioner Glahn seconded the motion. Commissioners Dardin and Glahn, and Chairman Sanders voted "AYE", Commissioner Martin was opposed to the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 3-1-0.

6. SUBDIVISIONS.

A. CASE: S-02-0731(A) Continued from February 6, 2002. PETITIONER: Sedona Development, Inc., owner, by Gary L. Lane, Secretary-Treasurer, agent. REQUEST: Approval of the preliminary plat of SEDONA RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION - MASTER PLAN, for forty-eight (48) lots; with variances on the construction and installation of alleys, on the construction and installation of South Florida Avenue, on the development of double frontage lots, on the length of a block, and on the dedication of public land, and; with all utilities, paved streets and public access; located within the City of Alamogordo. TOTAL AREA: ±19.30 acres. LOCATION: Oakmont Drive (extended east) at South Florida Avenue (extended south). CURRENT LEGAL: A tract of land in the North one half of Section 6, T17S, R10E, N.M.P.M. of the U.S.G.L.O. surveys, Otero County, New Mexico, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a set one half inch iron rod and Cap 8081 for the Southwest corner of this tract also being the center quarter corner of said Section 6, whence a found one half inch iron pipe for the East quarter corner of said Section 6 bears South 89 degrees 47 minutes 11 seconds East a distance of 2655.39 feet and a found chiseled stone for the South quarter corner bears South 00 degrees 08 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 2635.77 feet; Thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 998.31 feet to the beginning of a curve marked by a found one half inch iron rod and cap 8334; Thence along a curve to the right that has a radius of 325.00 feet, a curve length of 33.79 feet, a central angle of 5 degrees 57 minutes 25 seconds, a chord of North 53 degrees 51 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 33.77 feet to a point of reverse curvature marked by a found one half inch iron rod and cap 8334; Thence along a curve to the left that has a radius of 239.08 feet, a curve length of 60.69 feet, a central angle of 14 degrees 32 minutes 40 seconds, a chord of North 49 degrees 24 minutes 29 seconds East a distance of 60.53 feet to the end of this curve marked by a set one half inch iron rod and cap 8081; Thence North 47 degrees 51 minutes 52 seconds West a distance of 50.00 feet to an angle point of this tract marked by a set one half inch iron rod and cap 8081; Thence North 32 degrees 58 minutes 15 seconds West a distance 197.72 feet to an angle point of this tract marked by a found one half inch iron rod and cap 8334; Thence North 29 degrees 56 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 141.22 feet to an angle point of this tract marked by a set one half inch iron rod and cap 8081; Thence South 00 degrees 08 minutes 51 seconds East a distance of 58.98 feet to an angle point of this tract marked by a set one half inch iron rod and cap 8081; Thence South 89 degrees 47 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 627.75 feet to the Northeast corner of this tract marked by a set one half inch iron rod and cap 8081; Thence South 02 degrees 15 minutes 43 seconds East a distance of 195.60 feet to an angle point of this tract marked by a set one half inch iron rod and cap 8081; Thence South 00 degrees 08 minutes 03 seconds East a distance of 1125.03 feet to the Southeast corner of this tract marked by a found one half inch iron rod and cap 8334; Thence North 89 degrees 47 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 634.86 feet to the point of beginning. CURRENT ZONE: District "A" (Single Family Dwelling).

Ms. Few reported that Sedona Development, Inc. owns approximately 19 acres in Section 6, T17S, R10E, NMPM. Approval of the preliminary plat of the subdivision master plan to divide the property into forty-nine (49) lots within the City of Alamogordo has been requested. This item was continued from the February 6th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to allow time for the numerous plat deficiencies and development issues to be fully addressed. The property is zoned "A" (Single Family Dwelling) District. The 1971 Master Plan designates this property to be developed as low density residential. The preliminary plat includes signature blocks for final plat approval. These signature blocks are not appropriate and must be removed from the preliminary plat. No ties are shown on the preliminary plat to Cap 8081. The plat must be amended to show the bearings and distances that tie Cap 8081 to the point of beginning of the subdivision. The point of beginning (POB) of the subdivision must be noted. The plat must be corrected to show the POB. The metes and bounds description of the property on the preliminary plans appears to contain discrepancies from the plat. The legal description of the property is to be corrected, as needed to include the full right of way for S. Florida Avenue. Data was not provided for referenced curves (C) and bearings (L). The complete tables for both referenced curves and bearing have been provided on the plat as previously requested. The name of the subdivision must be the same on all documents. The plat and all accompanying exhibits still must be corrected to show the name "Sedona Ridge Estates Subdivision", as noted on the developer's application. The plat dedication includes several incorrect references to "Cottonwood Heights Unit 4 Replat C". These references must be eliminated from the plat and corrected with the correct subdivision name of Sedona Ridge Estates Subdivision. The "General Notes" on the plat must be amended regarding setbacks. The plat is to be corrected to note the following: "Front = 25', Side = 5' single story, 7' two story, and 15 ' corner". Streets on and adjacent to the tract are required on the plat, together with the right-of-way widths, names, etc. The preliminary plat must still be corrected to provide the required information on all streets (on and adjacent to the tract) to show the right-of-way width including Florida Avenue (eighty foot (80') right-of-way), Oakmont Drive (fifty foot (50') right-of-way), and Birdie Loop Drive (fifty foot (50') right-of-way). Utilities on and adjacent to the tract are required on the plat, together with the location, size and invert elevation of sanitary, storm and combined sewers, location and size of water mains, location of gas lines, fire hydrants, electric and telephone poles, and street lights. The preliminary plat has been corrected to show all of the required utility information. Other conditions on the tract, to include water, course rock out-cop, etc. are required on the plat. Notation and representation of such conditions (arroyos, etc.) must be shown on the plat. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract is required to be on the plat. The preliminary plat must be corrected to provide the correct information on all zoning. The properties located southwest, south and east of Sedona Ridge Estates Subdivision are outside the City of Alamogordo and not zoned. Reference to "Zoned M" must be removed from the plat. Profiles showing existing ground surface and proposed street grades, including extension beyond the limits of the subdivision, typical cross sections of the proposed grading roadway and sidewalk, and preliminary plan of proposed sanitary and storm water sewers, sewers with grades and sizes indicated are required to accompany the preliminary plat. No profiles were provided with for the Master Plan of Sedona Ridge Estates Subdivision. The comment for the plans and profiles for Phase 1 of the subdivision are provided separately. Minimum building setback lines (front and street side yard) are required to be shown on the plat. The standard setbacks need to be shown on the plat. The City Commission (February 26, 2002) approved a partial front setback variance. The arrangement of streets shall conform to the master plan. Florida Avenue is a recognized arterial. It requires an eighty-foot (80') right-of-way. The full width of the street must be shown on the plat and dedication of that width will be required at the time that the first phase of this subdivision is filed, from the southern boundary of Sedona Ridge Estates Subdivision north to connect with Desert Hills East Subdivision. A schedule for development of the full width and length of the right-of-way will be established prior to approval of any final plat for any phase of this subdivision. No street names shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of existing streets. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the planning commission. Staff noted problems with some of the proposed street names, as follows: Sedona Drive -- continuation of Birdie Loop. The name Sedona Drive is not approved. The street name of "Birdie Loop" must be continued through the subdivision and the plat is to be corrected to show this street name. The street names of Desert Breeze Court and Desert Bloom Court are approved for the two cul-de-sacs. Through alleys having a width of at least twenty feet (20') are required. A variance to the requirement for alleys has been requested and the City on recent subdivisions has approved similar variances. Easements required for utilities must be shown on the plat. The plat must be correct to show all easements (front, side, etc.) on the plat. This requirement includes but is not limited to the sewer easement between Birdie Loop and S. Florida Avenue. Block length shall not exceed one thousand eight hundred feet in length. Dedication of a street to the south is required on Birdie Loop. A right-of-way forty feet (40') wide is required. It is recommended that the twenty-five foot (25') "drainage easement" be expanded to proved the required street dedication. The plat must be corrected to include this street right-of-way. Development of such right-of-way will be deferred at this time. Double frontage lots should be avoided except where essential to overcome specific disadvantages of orientation. A variance from the prohibition of double frontage lots was requested. As access onto Florida Avenue from driveways is not allowed, approval of the variance is supported for the lot at the northwest corner of Oakmont Drive and Florida Avenue, Lots 10 through 15 of Block B and Lots 6 through 10 of Block C. Disclosure of this restriction will be required on all plats (amend plats to include on the "general notes") and deed restrictions issued on those lots. Public land, at a maximum of five percent (5%) of the total area of the subdivision, exclusive of streets and alleys, is required to be dedicated to the City of Alamogordo. No land is included on the plat for public land dedication to the City of Alamogordo. Approximately 0.80 acre will be due the City for dedication. A variance to the public land dedication requirement has been requested on the application. It is recommended that a variance not be granted. Staff has meet with the developer and several options have been identified (from possible land exchanges to off-site dedication). The City is carefully examining this issue. In the opinion of the Engineering Department, retaining walls will be required on the south property line, between the subdivision and BLM. Construction should be done by the subdivision developer rather than by individual homebuilders. The "General Notes" must be amended to reflect this requirement. All water and sewer lines and service line connections need to comply with the City's Technical Standards. The sanitary sewer should be stubbed to east (e.g. between Lots 11 and 12 or Lots 12 and 13 to Florida Avenue) and an easement dedicated. The plat and the plans and profiles must be corrected to show this easement, as noted on item #20. The preliminary plans must be amended to show proposed development phasing and that it is referenced uniformly on all accessory documents. The plat must be amended to show the phasing. No sign-off sheet was provided to indicate that the proposed utility locations, easement widths, etc. are satisfactory to the various utility companies providing service within the City of Alamogordo. A signed utility plan is to be required. When alleys are not provided within subdivision, utility easements are to be provided at the front of a lot, adjacent to the public right-of-way to assure that there is sufficient room for all of the utility companies to serve the subdivision. Five-foot (5') utility easements adjacent to the right-of-way at the front lot line are required on the plat, which must be amended to show the additional front easement. The property is located within the jurisdiction of the Alamogordo Municipal Airport Hazards Zoning Ordinance. An Avigation Easement limiting vertical development was executed with the variance. A drainage report is required. The proposed plan does not appear to provide for the historical storm water flows that run across the property. It is recommended that the lot layout be revised to reflect the existing drainage channels. No revised master drainage plan was provided. The developer requested ornamental streetlights within the subdivision. The City of Alamogordo will not allow ornamental lights and all lighting must comply with the City's Lighting Ordinance. It is required that the lots within the subdivision be continuously numbered from 1 though 49 and that reference to block numbers be eliminated. The plat must be amended and all supporting document to reflect the new numbering. The correction/revision date must be shown on all plans. The plats must be corrected to include the revision date. Additional technical/engineering comments have been provided under separate cover. As the amount of work needed on the subdivision and the number of issues unresolved between the City and the developer is so extensive, continuation of consideration of the preliminary plat of SEDONA RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION is recommended.

Mr. Paul Pompeo Jr. with Southwest Engineering was available to speak for the petition. Mr. Pompeo stated that he was hired by Sedona Development to prepare the subdivision plat and master plan plat to get it through the review process of the City of Alamogordo. Mr. Pompeo handed out a list of written responses to some of staff’s comments to help clarify the presentation. Also Mr. Pompeo handed the Commission and Staff a color-coded map. The map and two pages of written response are attached to the end of the minutes. Mr. Pompeo asked if it would be okay to suspend the rules to hear both cases at the same time because they are similar, then vote on the cases individually. Chairman Sanders asked the Planning Commission if all were in agreement to hear both cases at the same time noting the similarity. The Planning Commission were all in agreement for this option.

Mr. Pompeo stated that they had made one submittal of review comments to staff and were prepared to make the second review submittal. Chairman Sanders asked if they had submitted an updated, corrected set of plans with currant corrections on it to Engineering Staff. Mr. Pompeo stated that he had not, but he would be submitted those plans to staff after the meeting. Mr. Pompeo stated that they have met with staff on two occasions and that the majority of the issues that were technical in that they were deletions, remissions, or corrections to the plats. He also stated that they have agreed to do these things and corrections and adjustments have been done accordingly. Only a handful of items were left that needed to be discussed before the Planning Commission. Those items included the two variances, and also some other requests that the Engineering staff has made and that he and the developers were requesting waivers to. He went on to state that rather than go through all the items that have already been agreed to, they would like to only discuss the items that have a disagreement between staff and the developers.

Chairman Sanders asked if it would be acceptable by the City of Alamogordo for the Planning Commission to discuss the remaining unresolved items. Ms. Few stated that discussion of any item is appropriate at any time. She also stated that staff would have no problem with that, however, it is under the understanding that staff has not received any amended plans or reports, and therefore has not had time to review or evaluate any of those. Mr. Pompeo stated that he wanted to point out that there were deficiencies in the plans as they were submitted and make it clear that they have noted those, understand them and have agreed to make modifications and they have agreed to work with staff on all issues. Chairman Sanders stated that the Planning Commission would go forward with the issues that have not been clarified on the plans.

Mr. Pompeo stated that the first two items were variances that they did have staff support on. Mr. Pompeo stated that he was going to be referring to the Sedona Ridge Estates, Phase 1 list of items, because there seemed to be a lot duplications between the two. Mr. Pompeo stated that item number 16 requires that the alleyways be twenty feet (20’) in the City of Alamogordo. By the design, there would not be any alleyways according to the proposed plan and layout. So, the first request would be that the developers not need to include alleyways in the subdivision. Item number 19, which addresses double frontage lots, the City of Alamogordo codes do not allow any of the lots that backup to South Florida Avenue to have direct access. Therefore, they would be left with double frontage lots. They’ve agreed that there would not be any access to Florida from those individual lots, however, it seems that a variance is still required for this. Ms. Few stated that staff does not have a problem with that—as already stated, but they do need to make sure that all developers in the future are aware because it would be stated on all the plats and deed restrictions for every lot that backs to South Florida. Also Mr. Pompeo stated that item number 15, which is the request for the additional dedication of eighty-foot (80’) right-of-way on Florida Avenue. Both the master plan and the Phase 1 plat indicate, as does the color-coded drawing handed to the Commission, that an eighty-foot (80’) right-of-way be dedicated to the City of Alamogordo. He stated that they have made that modification and they will dedicate the full eighty-foot (80’) right-of-way in that area. However, he stated, item number twenty; addresses the five percent land dedication. Because the developers have to purchase the full eighty-foot (80’) right-of-way and then turn around and dedicate it to the City of Alamogordo, they are actually going to dedicate to the City, 1.51 acres of right-of-way for South Florida Avenue—which is the full width. He stated that it was his belief that a subdivision requires 0.80 acres of public land dedication, so the developers would like consideration that since there is no guarantee that the adjacent property to the East will ever develop and therefore ever give up the right-of-way at that point in time, that the 1.5 acres of dedicated right-of-way be sufficient in meeting the five percent land dedication requirement.

Commissioner Martin asked if this area in question is the highlighted area where South Florida make a little "jog". Mr. Pompeo answered yes. Commissioner Martin asked if the developer purchased or agreed to purchase the entire right-of-way. Mr. Pompeo stated that the developer of Sedona Ridge subdivision has development rights to the East, but does not own it. Therefore, he has to purchase that entire eighty-foot (80’) strip to include it within the boundaries of the Sedona Ridge subdivision, and then dedicate it to the City of Alamogordo for the future eighty-foot (80’) right-of-way on Florida Avenue.

Commissioner Martin asked if normally the subdivider is required to pay for half to one side and another subdivider would pay for the other half. Ms. Few clarified that normally the developer would be required to provide a full right-of-way width. For example, if it was included within the boundaries of the subdivision for a fifty foot (50’) right-of-way on the Eastern side of his property the requirement would be that the additional right-of-way would come from the adjacent property owner. However, in this case, the developer has also asked that the roadway be put off to the East and therefore, he would be enjoying the use of what would have been right-of-way as developed lots. The developer would be maximizing the usage of his property and reducing the area that would have been required to be put in as street on his property. Ms. Few went on to state that because she nor any other Engineering staff has not had the chance to review the proposals, she is not prepared to make a recommendation for the request of this magnitude.

Chairman Sanders asked what the rest of Florida if dedicated at the gravel pit area. Ms Few stated that sixty feet (60’) is dedicated at this time with an additional twenty feet (20’) identified as being needed on the East side at Desert Hills East. Chairman Sanders asked if the requirement for the subdivision is being changed to have eighty-feet (80’) instead of sixty feet (60’) further South. Ms. Few answered no, the requirement is not changing, it is required due to being identified in a transportation study which is part of the master plan. This has been identified for eighty-feet (80’) of development and staff is requiring that we obtain the full right-of-way needed. In consideration for the street not staying on their property and going straight; with them putting it off to the East is fine, however the full right-of-way is required. Otherwise no right-of-way width would be left and there would be a dead-end street. Ms. Few went on to say that this is the main connector to the Scenic South Loop—which, the status of Florida and Scenic South Loop, may be better explained by the City Engineer.

Commissioner Martin stated that he felt uncomfortable about hearing and/or voting on something that the City Engineering Department has not had a chance to review. Ms. Few stated that she felt the same as Commissioner Martin, in that Engineering, Public Works, Parks, etc. have not seen the new revisions. Mr. Pompeo asked Ms. Few about the recommendation for this item on their previous meeting was that they had to give up the right-of-way and still give the five- percent land dedication. Understanding that this was staff’s recommendation, they are coming forward to ask that the land dedication be offset by the purchase of the additional right-of-way. Ms Few stated that there was a meeting prior to the February Planning Commission meeting that included Mr. Pompeo, the developers and some members of staff—such as Mr. Heberle and Mr. Hunt, and possibly Mr. Miramontes. However, she stated, they had no written request presented and nothing has been presented to any of the staff as a formal request. So, this is coming back to us as an issue they thought was resolved. Ms. Few went on to say that Mr. McNeile, from the Parks Department, nor Public Safety people. There has evidently been a subsequent meeting with Public Safety and the developers, however, she was not in attendance at that meeting, nor was any of the Planning or Engineering Staff advised of it until after the fact. Ms. Few also stated that she did not know what was represented on any side. She has not received any change in comment from anybody else and all staff was made aware that this was still an issue with the developer. Mr. Pompeo agreed that they have not make a formal written request but it was discussed in the meeting.

Commissioner, Jaramillo, stated that he did not think a fair determination could be made at that point in time. Also, he stated that the issues need to be resolved before they come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Pompeo stated that on this particular issue, Engineering Staff was not in support of this issue after the meeting with the developers, so to go back to staff for review on this matter would not change staff’s position. This is why they have come before the Planning Commission with this issue and one other issue that needs to be discussed in the meeting. Chairman Sanders stated that the last Commission meeting was continued in order to give the developers enough time to resolve some of the issues from the first plat. After hearing some of the comments on this case, it seems that there has been some delay because of Engineering problems and as of this day, City Staff has not received the corrected plat. Mr. Pompeo stated that he did not meet with City Staff until he met with Mr. Dean Hunt on February 28th.

Chairman Sanders asked if the delay was because of the City or the subdivision engineer. Mr. Pompeo stated that he would take some of the blame, but he had trouble making any appointments with Engineering Staff. In meeting with Mr. Hunt, he couldn’t set up a meeting for four days because of either he or Mr. Hunt being out of town. Finally, when they were able to get together, the issues discussed were not anything to do with street alignment or lots—all Mr. Hunt wanted was additional information concerning drainage and information for specification of utilities on the roadway.

Mr. Pompeo wanted to also note that the other item that needs to be addressed because staff and the developers have not agreed on is on item number eighteen. Staff had made a recommendation that the twenty-five foot (25’) drainage way on the Southwest corner of the subdivision be expanded to a forty-foot (40’) street right-of-way. There were several reasons given and all of the safety issues have been addressed, as far as the fire department is concerned. Some of the reasons that they don’t want to make this into another roadway out of the subdivision, is that first, it will increase traffic into the subdivision, and two, because of the two arterial roadway in close proximity to the subdivision, the inner connection is not needed. Another issue is that it is the low point of the subdivision and will be discharging storm water out of the subdivision to another arroyo that is immediately South of the Subdivision—which means that they would be placing streets where several drainage flows and converge together. With these reasons the developers want to leave the subdivision as it is and keep the drainage easement in place. Ms. Few stated that there is a requirement within the City of Alamogordo that limits the length of city blocks to a maximum of 1800 feet. This block of Birdie Loop on the South side, from Eagle Drive wrapping all the way back up to Oakmont on the far North side of the master plan would be about three or at least double the allowed by ordinance. Staff has been directed to obtain this right-of-way to the South. BLM land is typically and easily transferred to other uses and is potential for development is extensive. Ms. Few stated that we have gone from requiring a 50’ residential street down to a marginal access 40’ right-of-way. Our Engineering staff feels that the property could serve the dual purpose of drainage easement and right-of-way, which is why it is being required. Ms. Few also stated that Mr. Dean Hunt is still awaiting the revised plans. His approval of those plans, will have a marked impact of the overall staff recommendation. Mr. Pompeo stated that he talked to Mr. Hunt on the drainage issue very extensively. There was some additional information he requested be put on the drainage report and the subdivision construction plans, but its nothing that would change the methodology of the layout of the subdivision. Chairman Sanders and Commissioner Martin commented that the information before the Commission is very technical and there are extensive issues that need to be addressed. Commissioner Glahn asked how the water that would come with the "hundred year flood" be diverted. Mr. Pompeo stated that as part of their proposed development, they would bring that stretch of Florida to grade and construct an interceptor channel that will catch the channel run-off to the South, and then run across the South side of the subdivision exiting off of the Southwest corner of the subdivision.

Ms. Few asked if BLM has signed-off on this plan. Mr. Pompeo stated no, and this is why they are working with BLM. However, the construction plans and drainage report, as they sit now take care of all the drainage requirements within the boundaries of the subdivision. There is a note that states that at a future date, if there is an agreement with BLM, that they will be modifying the drainage plan. This is something that was worked out with Mr. Hunt so it would not be left outstanding.

Chairman Sanders stated that she can understand the dilemma at hand for the developers, however, the revised plans still need to be submitted to staff for review. Chairman Sanders asked how long it would take the Engineering Staff to review the revised plans. Ms. Few stated that it would take several hours at a minimum, just for her review—not taking into account other work requirements before other staff members. Ms. Few stated that in reading the last half of page three, Sedona Development was wanting to continue. At the timetable currently in effect—with the City Commission meeting being March 12th and completed and signed reports needing to be filed with the City Clerk by noon on March 7th, Ms. Few did not see a way to responsibly put it on the March 12th City Commission agenda.

Chairman Sanders asked what the deadline would be for the March 26th agenda. Ms. Few stated that it would be more feasible, however it would be the Planning Commission acting without benefit of staff review or input. Chairman Sanders stated that what she is trying to do is set-up a special meeting for the Planning Commission to meet to review the revised plans that they would submit today and not delay the developers in going forward with the subdivision because of their money being tied up in the issues at hand. Perhaps with the new set of plans, the Planning Commission could make a recommendation knowing that staff has had a chance to review the revised set of plans. Ms. Few stated that if the Planning Commission would like to recommend this motion, staff would work toward meeting this effort, however, a brief recess would be needed to check the availability of the Commission Chambers. Chairman Sanders asked the developers if the special meeting to be in two weeks would be acceptable to get some of the items resolved between City Staff and themselves. The developers agreed that the special meeting would be acceptable. The Planning and Zoning Commission took a brief recess.

Chairman Sanders stated that the Commissioner could vote on either of three choices. First, the case could be voted on as a postponement for next month—which was not requested; second, it can be voted for a special meeting on the 18th of March, or third, it can be voted upon as is. Mr. Gary Lane stated that they would like to have the special meeting by the Planning Commission on March 18th , 2002.

Commissioner Dardin made a motion "TO POSTPONE CASE S-02-0731(A) UNTIL THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 18TH 2002 AT 1:30PM, SO THAT STAFF MAY HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS." Seconded by Commissioner Glahn. All voted "AYE", passing the motion by a vote of 4-0-0.

B. CASE: S-02-0732(A) - Continued from February 6, 2002. PETITIONER: Sedona Development, Inc., owner, by Gary L. Lane, Secretary-Treasurer, agent. REQUEST: Approval of the final plat of SEDONA RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION, PHASE 1, for seventeen (17) lots; with variances on the construction and installation of alleys, on the construction and installation of South Florida Avenue, on the development of double frontage lots, on the length of a block, and on the dedication of public land, and; with all utilities, paved streets and public access; located within the City of Alamogordo. TOTAL AREA: ±6.01 acres. LOCATION: Birdie Loop (extended east). CURRENT LEGAL: A tract of land in the North one half of Section 6, T17S, R10E, N.M.P.M. of the U.S.G.L.O. surveys, Otero County, New Mexico, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a set one half inch iron rod and cap 8081 for the Southwest corner of this tract also being the center quarter corner of said Section 6, whence a found 3/4" iron pipe, for the East quarter corner of said Section 6 bears South 89 degrees 47 minutes 11 seconds East a distance of 2655.39 feet and a found chiseled stone for the South quarter corner bears South 00 degrees 08 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 2635.77 feet; Thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 290.00 feet to an angle point of this tract marked by a set one half inch iron rod and cap 8081; Thence South 89 degrees 47 minutes 11 seconds East a distance of 255.74 feet to an angle point of this tract marked by a set one half inch iron rod and cap 8081; Thence North 33 degrees 42 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 128.51 feet to an angle point of this tract marked by a set one half inch iron rod and cap 8081; Thence North 55 degrees 34 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 100.00 feet to an angle point of this tract marked by a found one half inch iron rod and cap 8334; Thence North 34 degrees 25 minutes 05 seconds West a distance of 29.48 feet to an angle point of this tract marked by a set one half inch iron rod and cap 8081; Thence North 55 degrees 34 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 292.33 feet to the Northeast corner of this tract marked by a set one half inch iron rod and cap 8081; Thence South 00 degrees 08 minutes 03 seconds East a distance of 644.38 feet to the Southeast corner of this tract marked by a found one half inch iron rod and cap 8334; Thence North 89 degrees 47 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 634.86 feet to the point of beginning. CURRENT ZONE: District "A" (Single Family Dwelling).

Ms. Few reported that Sedona Development, Inc. owns approximately 19 acres in Section 6, T17S, R10E, NMPM. Approval of the final plat of the first phase of development for six (6) acres to divide the property into seventeen (17) single family residential lots within the City of Alamogordo has been requested. Consideration of this subdivision was continued from the February 6th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to allow time for the numerous plat deficiencies and development issues to be fully addressed. The property is zoned "A" (Single Family Dwelling) District. The 1971 Master Plan designates this property to be developed as low density residential. No ties are shown on the plat to Cap 8081. The plat must be amended to show the bearings and distances that tie Cap 8081 to the point of beginning of the subdivision. The point of beginning (POB) of the subdivision must be noted. The plat must be corrected to show the POB. The metes and bounds description of the property on the preliminary plans appears to contain discrepancies from the plat. The legal description of the property is to be corrected as needed to include the full right of way for S. Florida Avenue. Data was not provided for referenced curves (C) and bearings (L). The complete tables for both referenced curves and bearing are required on the plat. The name of the subdivision must be the same on all documents. The plat and all accompanying exhibits must be corrected to show the name "Sedona Ridge Estates Subdivision, Phase 1", as noted on the developer's application. The plat dedication includes several incorrect references to "Cottonwood Heights Unit 4 Replat C". These references must be eliminated from the plat and corrected with the correct subdivision name of Sedona Ridge Estates Subdivision. The "General Notes" on the plat must be amended regarding setbacks. The plat is to be corrected to note the following: "Front = 25'. Side = 5' single story, 7' two story, and 15 ' corner". The names of record owners of adjoining unplatted land are required to be shown. The names of record of owners of adjoining unplatted are shown on the plat. Reference to recorded subdivision plats of adjoining platted land by record name, date and number is required. The plat has been corrected to show the required information. Addresses for each lot are required on the plat. Addresses for each lot will be provided to the consulting engineer under separate cover after a correct corrected plat is provided to the City and such addresses will be required on the plat prior to filing. Streets on and adjacent to the tract are required on the plat, together with the right-of-way widths, names, etc. The plat must be corrected to provide the required information on all streets including Florida Avenue (eighty-foot (80') right-of-way width), Birdie Loop and Oakmont Drive (fifty-foot (50') right-of-way widths). Minimum building setback lines (front and street side yard) are required to be shown on the plat. The standard setbacks need to be shown on the plat. The City Commission (February 26, 2002) approved a partial front setback variance. The arrangement of streets shall conform to the master plan. Florida Avenue is a recognized arterial, which requires an eighty-foot (80') right-of-way. The full width of Florida Avenue must be shown on the plat and dedication of that width will be required at the time that the first phase of this subdivision is filed, from the southern boundary of Sedona Ridge Estates Subdivision north to connect with Desert Hills East Subdivision. The plat must be corrected to include the area of Florida Avenue within the legal description of the subdivision and on the drawing. A schedule for development of the full width and length of the right-of-way will be established prior to approval of any final plat for this subdivision. Through alleys having a width of at least twenty feet (20') are required. A variance to the requirement for alleys has been requested and the City on recent subdivisions has approved similar variances. Easements required for utilities must be shown on the plat. The plat must be correct to show all easements (front, side, etc.) on the plat. This requirement includes but is not limited to the sewer easement between Birdie Loop and S. Florida Avenue. Block length shall not exceed one thousand eight hundred feet in length. Dedication of a street to the south is required on Birdie Loop. A right-of-way forty feet (40') wide is required. It is recommended that the twenty-five foot (25') "drainage easement" be expanded to proved the required street dedication. The plat must be corrected to include this street right-of-way. Development of such right-of-way will be deferred at this time. Double frontage lots should be avoided except where essential to overcome specific disadvantages of orientation. A variance from the prohibition on double frontage lots was requested. As access onto Florida Avenue from driveways is not allowed, approval of the variance is supported for Lots 10 through 15 of Block B. Disclosure of this restriction will be required on all plats and deed restrictions issued on those lots. Public land, at a maximum of five percent (5%) of the total area of the subdivision, exclusive of streets and alleys, is required to be dedicated to the City of Alamogordo. No land is included on the plat for public land dedication to the City of Alamogordo. Approximately 0.25 acre will be due the City for dedication with this unit. A variance to the public land dedication requirement has been requested on the application. It is recommended that a variance not be granted. Staff has meet with the developer and several options have been identified (from possible land exchanges to off-site dedication). The City is carefully examining this issue. All water service line connections need to comply with the City's Technical Standards. When alleys are not provided within subdivision, utility easements are to be provided at the front of a lot, adjacent to the public right-of-way to assure that there is sufficient room for all of the utility companies to serve the subdivision. Five-foot (5') utility easements adjacent to the right-of-way at the front lot line are required on the plat, which must be amended to show the additional front easement. The property is located within the jurisdiction of the Alamogordo Municipal Airport Hazards Zoning Ordinance. An Avigation Easement limiting vertical development was executed with the setback variance. A drainage report is required. The proposed plan does not appear to provide for the historical storm water flows that run across the property. It is recommended that the lot layout be revised to reflect the existing drainage channels. The developer requested ornamental street lights within the subdivision. The City of Alamogordo will not allow ornamental lights and all lighting must comply with the City's Lighting Ordinance. All rough grading and shaping of lots to be in compliance with the adopted Building Code. In the opinion of the Engineering Department, retaining walls will be required on the south property line, between the subdivision and BLM. Construction should be done by the subdivision developer rather than by individual homebuilders. The "General Notes" must be amended to reflect this requirement. A temporary traffic barricade, built to Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards, will be required at the north end of Birdie Loop. The installation of street improvements, in accordance with the "Technical Standards" is required. Comments have been provided to Southwest Engineering under separate cover. Corrected plans must be submitted to the City and approved prior to presentation of the plat for final approval. The installation of utility lines (water and sewer) in accordance with the "Technical Standards" is required. Comments have been provided to Southwest Engineering under separate cover. Corrected plans must be submitted to the City and approved prior to presentation of the plat for final approval. The sanitary sewer should be stubbed to east (e.g. between Lots 11 and 12 or Lots 12 and 13 to Florida Avenue) and an easement dedicated. The plat and the plans and profiles must be corrected to show this easement, as noted on item #17. The subdivider shall be required to enter into a contract with the City, agreeing to abide by and to comply with his layout and drawings, as finally approved, and also, all plans and specifications as approved. A contract has been drafted for the completion of improvements. It is required that the lots within the subdivision be continuously numbered from 1 though 49 and that reference to block numbers be eliminated. The plat must be amended and all supporting document to reflect the new numbering. The correction/revision date must be shown on all plans. The plats must be corrected to include the revision date. Additional technical/engineering comments have been provided under separate cover. The utility plan was not signed to show that the proposed utility locations, easement widths, etc. are satisfactory to the various utility companies providing service within the City of Alamogordo. A signed utility plan is required to be provided prior to the final plat being approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff noted problems with one of the proposed street names, as follows: Sedona Drive -- continuation of Birdie Loop. The name Sedona Drive is not approved. The street name of "Birdie Loop" must be continued through the subdivision and the plat is to be corrected to show this street name. The preliminary plat must be corrected to provide the correct information on all zoning. The properties located southwest, south and east of Sedona Ridge Estates Subdivision are outside the City of Alamogordo and not zoned. Reference to "Zoned M" must be removed from the plat. As the amount of work needed on the subdivision and the number of issues unresolved between the City and the developer is so extensive, continuation of consideration of the final plat of SEDONA RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION, PHASE 1, is recommended.

Both cases for the Sedona Ridge subdivision were heard simultaneously. Chairman Sanders stated that the Commissioner could vote on either of three choices. First, the case could be voted on as a postponement for next month—which was not requested; second, it can be voted for a special meeting on the 18th of March, or third, it can be voted upon as is. Mr. Gary Lane stated that they would like to have the special meeting by the Planning Commission on March 18th, 2002.

Commissioner Dardin made a motion "TO POSTPONE CASE S-02-0732(A) UNTIL THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 18TH 2002 AT 1:30PM, SO THAT STAFF MAY HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS." Seconded by Commissioner Glahn. All voted "AYE", passing the motion by a vote of 4-0-0.

7. REPORTS.

A. City Planner.

(1) April Agenda – Ms Few reported that the April agenda has several cases already.

(2) Membership Roster. A new membership has been prepared and provided to the Commission. Ms. Few asked that if there were any changes or corrections to be made, to notify her as soon as possible.

(3) Other. The possibility of limiting the number of items on an agenda has been reviewed by the City Attorney. The City Attorney stated that the Planning Commission probably could limit the number of items on an agenda, however, it would be a question of which items would be limited. Due to time constraints and legal requirement of subdivisions, it would have to be to the effect of taking any subdivisions. Then if it went over the limit, Public Hearings items would have to be put off. There was also an issue brought up because of recent developer action regarding ex-parte communication, the City Attorney is in the process of developing a written comment for the Planning Commission to use and will be provided as soon as it’s available.

B. Chairman.—None

C. Commissioners.—None

(1) Representative from HAFB.

(2) Representative to County Planning Commission.

(3) General.

8. PERSONS TO BE HEARD - None.

9. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to come before the Commission, Commissioner Dardin made a motion "TO ADJOURN". Seconded by Commissioner Glahn. All voted "AYE", passing the motion by a vote of 4-0-0. The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:30 p.m.

Approved: April 3, 2002

/s/ Ginna L. Sanders, Chairman

ATTEST:

/s/ J. Gregory Garcia, Recording Secretary