july 25, 2005 Minutes

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

SPECIAL MEETING

JULY 25, 2005

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Ginna L. Sanders, Chairman.

Mr. Richard M. McCracken, First Vice-Chairman.

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

Ms. Sharon Gardiner, Member.

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Andrew “JR” Gomolak, Ex-Officio Proxy.

 

STAFF PRESENT:

Ms. Sharon L. Few, City Planner.

Mr. Brian McGuire, Community Development Director.

Mr. Dean Hunt, P.E., Engineer.

Ms. Linda Sanderson, Recording Secretary.

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

Mr. Patrick C. Vandergriff; Mr. Randy Rabon; Ms. Margaret Dubbin, P.E.; Mr. Larry Berry; Mr. Dan Beardan; Mr. John Hakanson; and other unidentified persons.

 

1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Sanders called the July 25, 2005 special meeting to order at approximately 1:30 p.m. Chairman Sanders noted that a total of one (1) item was to be considered. Recommendations to the City Commission are to be made by the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval or denial of the request. The City Commission will consider this request at its regular meeting of July 26, 2005, to render final decisions.

 

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

 

3. MISCELLANEOUS.

CASE: A040060(A). PETITIONER: Mesa Verde Ranch, Jeffrey G Rabon and Judy V. Rabon, Manuel Renteria and Lisa E. Renteria et al (various), owners. REQUEST: Approval of an ordinance consenting to the annexation of a tract of land contiguous to the Northwest boundaries of the City of Alamogordo. TOTAL AREA: ±626.990 acres. LOCATION: Surrounding the intersection of U. S. Highways 54/70/82, the Alamogordo Relief Route, and North White Sands Boulevard, East to include Martin Boulevard and West along Mesa Verde Ranch Road. CURRENT LEGAL: Land in Sections 1, 11, 12, 13 and 14, T16S, R9E, NMPM, and in Section 6, T16S, R10E, NMPM, described by metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at the East one–quarter corner of said Section 12 and going South 00 degrees 06 minutes 49 seconds East along the East line of said Section 12 and the present City limit a distance of 661.69 feet; thence South 89 degrees 45 minutes 07 seconds West a distance of 501.02 feet; thence South 71 degrees 05 minutes 16 seconds West a distance of 200.00 feet; thence South 18 degrees 44 minutes 44 seconds East a distance of 80.46 feet; thence South 01 degrees 04 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 417.40 feet; thence North 18 degrees 55 minutes 09 seconds West a distance of 267.99 feet; thence South 71 degrees 04 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 474.21 feet to the East rightofway of the Union Pacific Railroad; thence South 23 degrees 28 minutes 30 seconds East along said rightofway a distance of 4036.23 feet to the East line of said T16S, R9E; thence South 00 degrees 11 minutes 38 seconds East along said range line a distance of 657.82 feet to the West rightofway of Eddy Drive; thence North 23 degrees 28 minutes 30 seconds West along said rightofway a distance of 2739.41 feet to the South rightofway of Mesa Verde Ranch Road; thence South 89 degrees 36 minutes 54 seconds West along said rightofway a distance of 496.72 feet; thence South 89 degrees 53 minutes 49 seconds West along said rightofway a distance of 129.90 feet; thence South 86 degrees 04 minutes 59 seconds West along said rightofway a distance of 430.25 feet; thence South 63 degrees 45 minutes 03 seconds West along said rightofway a distance of 49.46 feet to the East rightofway of the Alamogordo Relief Route; thence along said rightofway line along the arc of a curve to the right whose central angle is 03 degrees 28 minutes 53 seconds and whose radius is 5829.57 feet and whose chord bears South 12 degrees 09 minutes 42 seconds East an arc distance of 354.21 feet; thence South 79 degrees 34 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 200.00 feet to the West rightofway line of the Alamogordo Relief Route; thence along said rightofway line along the arc of a curve to the left whose central angle is 04 degrees 04 minutes 16 seconds and whose radius is 5629.57 feet and whose chord bears North 12 degrees 27 minutes 23 seconds West an arc distance of 400.00 feet; thence; North 75 degrees 15 minutes 24 seconds West along said rightofway line a distance of 46.17 feet to the South rightofway of Mesa Verde Ranch Road; thence South 89 degrees 52 minutes 49 seconds West along said rightofway a distance of 29.93 feet; thence North 86 degrees 18 minutes 20 seconds West along said rightofway a distance of 173.50 feet; thence South 00 degrees 26 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 1272.80 feet; thence South 89 degrees 47 minutes 48 seconds West a distance of 666.51 feet; thence North 00 degrees 36 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 1293.68 feet; thence North 89 degrees 57 minutes 56 seconds West along said rightofway a distance of 1986.93 feet; thence South 89 degrees 27 minutes 15 seconds West along said rightofway a distance of 2673.54 feet; thence North 00 degrees 09 minutes 36 seconds West a distance of 2694.60 feet; thence North 89 degrees 47 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 2633.83 feet; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 1767.35 feet; thence North 00 degrees 27 minutes 09 seconds West a distance of 1097.22 feet; thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 41 seconds East a distance of 885.80 feet; thence North 85 degrees 04 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 703.13 feet; thence North 16 degrees 01 minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 396.30 feet; thence North 26 degrees 25 minutes 15 seconds East a distance of 300.00 feet; thence North 57 degrees 24 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 376.24 feet to the West rightofway of U.S. Highway 54/70; thence North 29 degrees 36 minutes 23 seconds East a distance of 287.17 feet to the East rightofway of U.S. Highway 54/70; thence South 89 degrees 56 minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 469.92 feet; thence North 13 degrees 14 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 407.92 feet; thence South 89 degrees 56 minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 848.67 feet to the North rightofway of u.s. highway 82; thence North 43 degrees 19 minutes 10 seconds East along said rightofway a distance of 548.87 feet; thence South 46 degrees 40 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 200.00 feet to the South rightofway of U.S. Highway 82; thence South 43 degrees 19 minutes 10 seconds West along said rightofway a distance of 575.62 feet to the East rightofway of Martin Boulevard; thence South 00 degrees 16 minutes 27 seconds East along said rightofway a distance of 1935.43 feet to the South rightofway of Burn Boulevard and the present City limit; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 29 seconds West along said rightofway a distance of 50.02 feet; thence South 00 degrees 06 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 557.71 feet to the said place of beginning. CURRENT ZONE: Various Districts upon annexation.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval of an annexation of land contiguous to the Northwest boundaries of the City.

Mr. Randy Rabon, owner was available to answer questions. There were no questions.

Mr. Larry Berry, property owner on the Northwest corner of Highway 82, stated he does not oppose the annexation; but just wants to be “grandfathered” in so he can continue to do business on that corner. A letter has been submitted to the attorneys stating my request.  Ms. Few stated the letter was forwarded to our city attorney and we’re letting attorneys talk to attorneys. There doesn’t appear to be any problem as long as the use currently exists and meets the other basic standards as set out in our ordinances and the use continues uninterrupted without a two year (2) interruption.

John Hakanson, Attorney for Mr. W Fireworks, Inc. stated they only received notice of this meeting at 11:50 AM today. No notice was ever sent to Mr. W Inc. The annexation being proposed was learned about from an operator over the July 4th selling season. There is a lack of substitute due process. Previously, another area; Christ Community Church, exercised their right to “opt out” of an annexation proposal. Mr. W Inc. would have liked the opportunity to do the same. If it is brought into the city, the laws are different than the county laws, county laws are different than the state laws and state laws are different than the federal laws. You cannot promulgate legislation nor do anything that interferes with Interstate Commerce laws. Mr. W Inc. is in compliance with all the county and state laws. You can prohibit the use within the city but you cannot prohibit the sale. We’re not opposed to the annexation, but we are opposed to being annexed when we didn’t even have proper due notice. He is asking that Lot 2 of the Lunt Subdivision to be excluded from the annexation.

Ms. Few clarified that under state statute the city may leverage annexation on property that would make an annexation uniform and contiguous when the owners of over 50% of the properties have signed petitions agreeing to the annexation. In this case we have petitions signed by the owners of over 87% of the property, and it includes the rights-of-way for the state highway department. Also I have a letter dated July 11, 2005 from Mr. Hakanson’s office stating that Mr. W. Inc. was aware of the proposed annexation. The letter also requested a copy of the proposal and the plat of the area thru the city attorney’s office. That request was honored. The issue before the planning and zoning commission today is for the proposed annexation of property to the City of Alamogordo, not interstate commerce. We have learned attorneys on staff, as does Mr. W Inc., who can work out other issues. Christ Community Church withdrew their application when it required leveraging of the property, so there was no property left out of the Christ Community area on any annexation petition. There is one small area across from the hospital that is outside the city and surrounded by city corporate limits and has created numerous problems over the years. Therefore the city does not plan to annex around any other property, and create islands that’s both inefficient and dangerous and does not allow proper delivery of services.

Pat Vandergriff, Vandergriff Code consulting, representing Mesa Verde expressed the need to keep the annexation lines as simple as possible for emergency services and enforcement of regulations. He also requested the City Planner contact the City Attorney and ask him to research Interstate Trade issues.

Dan Beardon, property owner, stated that he has not received anything in writing to advise him about this matter. He was shown a copy of this map last Friday, by someone not associated with the city. Ms. Few interjected that on two (2) different occasions, members of his staff has sat in her office for a lengthy period of time looking over the maps, getting copies of the proposed annexation area, and discussing the ramifications for annexation of your business. These persons stated they were representing you and would be going back and reporting to you. Mr. Beardon stated that Lynn came back with a little tiny small map that you could neither read nor understand. Other than one phone call, a few weeks ago and not from the city, he had no knowledge of anything pertaining to this annexation. Ms. Few stated that her card was provided to his staff members and since there had been no further contact with him regarding this issue it was unknown that a problem existed until he spoke with Matt Anderson, city GIS personnel. All legal requirements have been met for any notification to any property owner. Chairman Sanders asked what specifically his objection was to being annexed into the city. He stated he had been in that location for over 25 years, don’t need city services, don’t want city services, and don’t agree with the zoning for single-family dwelling that will be applied. Ms. Few clarified that by ordinance annexations come in as single family. Any use in place at the time of annexation is “grandfathered” pre-existing non-conforming. The city is spearheading the rezoning of this area for commercial purposes as it will conform to our comprehensive plan and also reflect the uses that are out there now. This will be at the city’s expense. Mr. Brian McGuire, Community Development Director, stated that in fact we do already provide police and fire services for that area. We jointly respond with the Sheriff’s Department for accidents in that area and also fire services. Also, commercial zoning is much more advantageous to the city from the point of view of annexations as opposed to residential. Mr. Beardon disagreed with that statement. General discussion followed concerning the numerous accidents at the Highway 82/54/70 intersection. It was stated that simplicity of boundary lines were recommended by emergency services to keep the jurisdiction clear. Mr. Hakanson again stated that you cannot use annexation to control interstate commerce. It seems like this is an indirect way to try to put Mr. Beardon and/or Mr. W Inc. out of business.

Mr. Goga asked Mr. Berry what his time frame was for cleaning the remainder of his property on the corner of Highway 54/70/82. We wouldn’t want it to become a burden for the city to keep coming to you to try to get it cleaned up. Mr. Berry stated the old shop is being relocated to the back and hopefully within 30 days it will be gone. The caboose will still be there. There should not be anything on the highway frontage from the corner of Highway 54/82 to the north end of the property. There will be a small amount of storage from that corner back down the bypass road. The rest of the scrap from the property is being relocated to beyond the ditch, outside of the area being annexed. There is also an agreement with Mr. John Lattuzio that scrap metal will no longer be permitted on the front half of the property, but the remaining normal daily business can still be conducted, i.e., welding, dealer’s license, etc.

Commissioner Goga made a motion “TO APPROVE” CASE A-04-0060(A)Approval of an annexation of all land contiguous to the Northwest boundaries of the City. Commissioner McCracken seconded. All voted, passing the motion by a vote of 4-0-0. This case will be heard at the City Commission meeting on July 26, 2005.

4. REPORTS.

A. City Planner.

B. City Attorney.

C. Chairman.

D. Commissioners.

(1) Representative from HAFB.

(2) Representative to County Planning Commission.

(3) General.

 

5. PERSONS TO BE HEARD.

 

6. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Commission, Commissioner Goga made a motion "TO ADJOURN". Seconded by Commissioner McCracken. All voted "AYE", passing the motion by a vote of 400. The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:10 p.m.

Approved: August 3, 2005

 

/s/ Ginna L. Sanders

Ginna L. Sanders, Chairman

ATTEST:

/s/ Linda Sanderson

Linda Sanderson, Recording Secretary