May 5, 2004 Minutes

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

May 5, 2004

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Ginna L. Sanders, Chairman.

Mr. Jack M. Glahn, First Vice-Chairman.

Mr. Richard M. McCracken, Member.

Mr. Mark S. Urey, Ex-Officio Member.

Mr. Michael M. O’Hara, Member.

MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Mark S. Goga, Second Vice-Chairman.

STAFF PRESENT:

Ms. Sharon L. Few, City Planner.

Mr. J. Gregory Garcia, Recording Secretary.

Ms. Connie Hoey, Recording Secretary.

OTHERS PRESENT:

Mr. Klad Zimmerle, PLS; Mr. Douglas Nelson.

1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Sanders called the regularly scheduled May 5, 2004, meeting to order at approximately 1:30 p.m. Chairman Sanders noted that a total of two (2) items were to be considered.. 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 May 25, 2004, to render final decisions.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Commissioner O’Hara made a motion "TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, AS WRITTEN". Seconded by Commissioner Glahn. All voted "AYE", passing the motion by a vote of 4-0-0.

3. MINUTES OF April 7th, 2004 REGULAR MEETING. Commissioner Glahn made a motion "TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, AS WRITTEN". Seconded by Commissioner O’Hara. All voted "AYE", passing the motion by a vote of 4-0-0.

4. SUBDIVISIONS.

A. CASE: S-04-0824(A). PETITIONER: The Motel 6 Subdivision Partnership, owner, by Klad Zimmerle, P.L.S., agent. REQUEST: Approval of the final plat of MOTEL 6 SUBDIVISION, REPLAT H, for two (2) lots; with variances on the construction and installation of alleys, on the dedication of public land, and from Section 22-01-140(b)(1) relating to drainage plans; with all utilities, paved streets and public access; located within the City of Alamogordo. TOTAL AREA: ±2.192 acres. LOCATION: 202 and 212 Panorama Boulevard and part of 201 Kerry Boulevard. CURRENT LEGAL: Lots 1F and 2F, Motel 6 Subdivision, Replat F and part of Lot 3, Rath Tara Estates, Phase 2. CURRENT ZONE: District "D" (Business).

Ms Few reported that Motel 6 Subdivision Partnership owns 2.192 acres in Sections 30 and 31, T16S, R10E, NMPM, within the City of Alamogordo. Approval of the final plat of MOTEL 6 SUBDIVISION, REPLAT H, has been requested for the development of two (2) lots. The property is zoned "D" (Business) District. The 2000 Comprehensive Plan designates this property to be developed as commercial and retail. Through alleys, having a width of twenty feet (20'), are required in each block. Variances to this requirement have been approved by the Alamogordo City Commission for other subdivisions in the area. Addresses for each lot are required on the plat. Addresses for each lot have been provided to the consulting engineer under separate cover and are required on the plat prior to filing. A drainage report sealed by a professional engineer, registered in the State of New Mexico, which shall include calculations for existing (pre-developed) and developed conditions. Drainage facilities shall be designed for the 50 year, 24 hour storm event under developed conditions and evaluated for failure and/or property damage during the 100 year, 24 hour storm event. On-site ponding is permitted on lots over ten thousand square feet (10,000 sf) in size and the drainage area is confined to subject lot. If on-lot ponding is technically infeasible, drainage or ponding in a common retention/detention pond may be permitted. Design calculations shall be in accordance with the appropriate USDA/SCS method. The design, data and calculations certified by a registered engineer are required to be provided and approved by staff prior to a building permit being issues. 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 4,774 square feet would be due the City for dedication. A variance to the public land dedication requirement is supported. Has a lease been executed with the NMDOT for use of White Sands Boulevard (US Hwy 54/70/82) right-of-way for parking purposes? It is recommended that the driveway access onto Panorama Boulevard from Lot 2H be located as far to the east as possible, to avoid conflict with traffic turning east from White Sands Boulevard. Left turn movement from the driveway onto Panorama is not recommended. Staff recommends approval of the final plat of MOTEL 6 SUBDIVISION, REPLAT H, with the requested/required variances (on alleys, on public land dedication, and on a drainage report with the subdivision)

Mr. Klad Zimmerle of Alamotero Land Surveys was available to represent the case. Mr. Zimmerle stated that this lot that is being developed for a new business in the area down there next to the Hampton Inn and the Laser Car Wash. The property is going to be developed with one entrance onto Panorama and is being moved as far as it possibly can to the east to allow for distance towards the light. Mr. Zimmerle also stated that items seven (7) and eight (8) were not pertinent to the subdivision that they are working on, but will be addressed during the building permit stage with staff. There is a lease being negotiated with DOT and he stated that they have moved it as far to the east as they could. As far as the left turn is concerned, Mr. Zimmerle stated that there is still quite a bit of room when you look at the topography. Mr. Zimmerle had an aerial photograph. There is over one hundred sixty feet (160’) of Panorama Boulevard before you approach the holding lanes at the stop light. Panorama is a forty-four foot (44’) street, back-to-back. There is plenty of room for a left turn. There is another driveway to the east of this where there have been no restrictions. Mr. Zimmerle finished by saying that this is an item that will be taken up with the engineers and City Engineer at the site plan stage.

Commissioner O’Hara asked who designed this lot. Mr. Zimmerle stated the highway department and the City, designed the lot with the acquisition of Panorama . It was just a lot of left over stuff between the Highway right-of-way. Mr. Zimmerle approached the Commission to explain what he was wanting to do with this petition and the replat of the two lots. Mr. Zimmerle discussed the topography and size of the area briefly with the Commission.

Ms. Few stated that the comment regarding the left turn lane came from the City Traffic Engineer. This information is not pertinent to the subdivision and will not affect the outcome.

Commissioner O’Hara made a motion ‘TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CASE S-04-0824(A) PROVIDED THAT THE DRIVEWAY BE LOCATED AS FAR EAST ON THE LOT AS POSSIBLE." Commissioner Glahn seconded the motion. All voted "AYE", passing the motion by a vote of 4-0-0.

B. CASE: S-04-0825(A). PETITIONER: Tool Box, Inc. owner, by Klad Zimmerle, P.L.S., agent. REQUEST: Approval of the preliminary and final plat of LOMA VISTA SUBDIVISION REPLAT C, for one lot; with the vacation and abandonment of an adjacent to and abutting alley on the north side of the property; with variances on the dedication of public land, and from Section 22-01-140(b)(1) relating to drainage plans; with all utilities, paved streets and public access; located within the City of Alamogordo. TOTAL AREA: ±1.616 acres. LOCATION: 1603 Loma Vista (previously 1603 through 1668 Loma Vista). CURRENT LEGAL: Lot 1B, Block 6, Loma Vista Subdivision Replat B (previously Lots 1 through 9, Block 6, Loma Vista Subdivision). CURRENT ZONE: District "D-2" (Neighborhood Business).

Ms. Few reported that Tool Box, Inc., owns Lot 1B, Loma Vista, Replat B, within the City of Alamogordo. Approval of the final plat of LOMA VISTA SUBDIVISION, REPLAT C, for 1.626 acres has been requested for vacation of an alley and the development of one (1) lot. The property, 1603 Loma Vista, is zoned "D-2" (Neighborhood Business) District. The 2000 Comprehensive Plan designates this property to be developed as commercial and retail. Through alleys, having a width of twenty feet (20'), are required in each block. The proposed subdivision will vacate the southern of two parallel alleys (each twenty feet in width). All utilities are located in the remaining northern alley. Addresses for each lot are required on the plat. Addresses for each lot have been provided to the consulting engineer under separate cover and are required on the plat prior to filing. A drainage report sealed by a professional engineer, registered in the State of New Mexico, which shall include calculations for existing (pre-developed) and developed conditions. Drainage facilities shall be designed for the 50 year, 24 hour storm event under developed conditions and evaluated for failure and/or property damage during the 100 year, 24 hour storm event. On-site ponding is permitted on lots over ten thousand square feet (10,000 sf) in size and the drainage area is confined to subject lot. If on-lot ponding is technically infeasible, drainage or ponding in a common retention/detention pond may be permitted. Design calculations shall be in accordance with the appropriate USDA/SCS method. The design, data and calculations certified by a registered engineer are required to be provided and approved by staff prior to a building permit being issued. 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. A total of only 3,541.42 square feet would be due for dedication. A variance to the public land dedication requirement is requirement. The installation of street improvements, in accordance with the "Technical Standards" is required. Should no improvement to Loma Vista be planned by the developer a Waiver of Protest Agreement will be required. Staff recommends approval of the final plat of LOMA VISTA SUBDIVISION, REPLAT C, with the requested variance (on public land dedication, and on drainage plans) is supported by staff.

Mr. Klad Zimmerle was available to represent this petition. Mr. Zimmerle stated that Ms. Few had accurately explained this request. He said that the sole purpose of this subdivision is to eliminate a double alley that was created when the First Street Subdivision was platted, sometime in the late ‘70’s. All of the utilities that have been installed there, have been installed in the north alley. The Loma Vista alley was left there as just a piece of land. Mr. Zimmerle stated that the storage units that were being planned will have entrances on the east end and on the west end at Canyon Road and Sierra Blanca. There will be no access to the road in Loma Vista that parallels to the south boundary This area has already undergone an assessment district and improvement district back in 1980 where utilities were installed-water and sewer, and there was no road work done at that time. What we are asking for improving the alley to the north that was discussed with staff, gravel surface, graded, keep it clean. Also the entrance off of Canyon Road is going to be improved. There will be no use for anything on Loma Vista. Mr. Zimmerle felt that a waiver of protest on Loma Vista is not pertinent at this time, as this development is solely coming off of Canyon Road and off of the east side.

Commissioner O’Hara asked about the issue of waiver of protest. Ms. Few stated that in the event the Loma Vista were not being improved, a waiver of protest would be required. If the improvements are not put in a wavier of protest agreement is put in. But the final decision on that will be with the City Commission, as Mr. Zimmerle stated that they do not want to do a waiver of protest agreement.

Doug Nelson of Tool Box stated that he just wanted the right to protest. When the original assessment district was done, Mike Drunzer owned the property. Mr. Drunzer was not notified that there were sewer and water lines placed on property. They didn’t have any intentions of needing water and sewer lines and he wanted to make sure that they don’t waive their voice in how the area is developed. Mr. Nelson also stated that they are not using Loma Vista right now, coming off Canyon Road. Mr. Nelson also stated that Mr. Drunzer also owns the property on the other side of Loma Vista, which if everything goes fine here, Mr. Nelson will be acquiring that property and at that point will be making the improvements to Loma Vista because there would be access to it. But, if it stays as it is now there would be no point in making improvements as it is an unused road and goes to vacant property. If the City decides to pave that road, Mr. Nelson stated, he would like to reserve the right to voice his opinion. Mr. Nelson also asked Ms. Few that if he signs a wavier of protest, then would he be giving up his right to protest the actions on that road. Ms. Few stated that Mr. Nelson could always voice his opinion, whether or not of protest. The waiver of protest is in relation to a protest of an assessment district.

Mr. Nelson stated that he is unsure if there is already a wavier of protest signed in the past when the property was originally subdivided. Ms. Few stated that when the property was originally subdivided in the 1950’s, with the original subdivision, they were not doing waivers of protest.

Ms. Sanders asked if Mr. Nelson was correct that if he does do a waiver of protest, that he has legally signed away his right to protest at a later point then or to disagree. Ms. Few answered with a formal protest to the assessment district, he reserves the right to protest the amount of the assessment. Just because there is no right for a formal protest, the City Commission and the City have never said "we’re not going to listen to you." Mr. Nelson stated that he was aware of that, but just wanted a legal right to put up a protest. Mr. Nelson went on to explain that this is already divided into the nine lots and they are just doing a correction because sometime in the fifties the City had a forty foot (40’) alley. He stated that he could have left everything alone and walked away from it, but felt it was in his best interest with his discussions with McGuire, Mr. Trujillo, Mr. Bailey, that the City only has a twenty foot (20’) alley , that they don’t need to maintain a forty foot (40’) alley. Mr. Nelson stated again that he did not want to give up his right to protest.

Commissioner Glahn made a motion "TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CASE S-04-0825(A) WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS". Commissioner O’Hara seconded the motion. All voted "AYE", passing the motion by a vote of 4-0-0.

6. REPORTS.

A. City Planner.

(1) June Agenda. Ms. Few stated that there were no cases for June, however, the Commissioner does want to meet to discuss the new subdivision ordinances.

(2) Election of Officers.

(a) Commissioner Glahn made a motion "TO ELECT GINNA SANDERS AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION". Commissioner McCracken seconded the motion. All voted "AYE", passing the motion by a vote of 4-0-0.

(b) Commissioner O’Hara made a motion "TO ELECT JACK GLAHN AS 1ST VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. Commissioner McCracken seconded the motion. All voted "AYE", passing the motion by a vote of 4-0-0.

(c) Commissioner Sanders made a motion "TO ELECT RICHARD McCRACKEN AS SECOND VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. Commissioner O’Hara seconded the motion. All voted "AYE", passing the motion by a vote of 4-0-0.

(1) HAFB Representation.—Ms. Few reported that the resolution on the Holloman will be on the City Commission agenda on May 25th.

(2) Junk Yards.—Ms. Few stated that she still has not received a report on the status of the junk yards.

(3) Electronic packets—Ms. Few asked the Commission how they liked the electronic packets. The Commission stated that they were pleased with the packets being sent electronically.

(4) Plats for cases—Ms. Few stated that she has been coming up short with plats after Planning and Zoning meetings, and asked the Commission to make sure that the plats are returned after the meetings.

B. Chairman – Chairman Sanders asked for clarification on the City Commission meeting of April 27th. She stated that they considered the final plat of Alamo Canyon, however the recommendation was for denial of the final plat. Chairman Sanders asked how the recommendation changed from an approval to a denial.

Ms. Few stated that staff must follow the comp plan, as it is a force of law. In addition, when a subdivision is presented to the City Commission, there is a 35-day grace period for action by the City Commission; or it’s automatically approved. Staff originally had made one recommendation to the Planning Commission and was advised to continue that recommendation to the City Commission for protection of the 35-day automatic approval. Therefore the recommendation was amended to denial of the case. Ms. Few continued her explanation by stating that at any time there are two recommendations that go up. One is staff recommendation, and one is Planning Commission recommendation. The Planning Commissioner and recommendation is also included in all the packets. Staff recommendation is also separate.

C. Commission - None.

7. PERSONS TO BE HEARD - None.

8. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to come before the Commission, Commissioner McCracken 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 2:02 p.m.

Approved: July 7, 2004

Ginna L. Sanders, Chairman

ATTEST:

J. Gregory Garcia, Recording Secretary