You're live.
Good evening. I'm going to call this
order call to order the July 28th, 2026
Planning and Zoning Commission at 6:00
p.m. I am Chair Crystal Downs. First on
the agenda is the conflict of interest.
Does any member of the commission or any
member of the city staff have any known
conflict with any item on the agenda?
Seeing none, we're going to move on to
public participation. At this time, I
would invite anyone from the public to
come up and speak on anything that is
not on the agenda under new business. If
you would like to speak on any item on
the consent agenda, please do so now.
You will have 3 minutes and please state
your name for the record.
Does anyone have anything they'd like to
share?
Okay. Seeing none.
Um next we have the acceptance of the
agenda. By voting to approve the
acceptance of the agenda as presented,
we will be approving the minutes from
our last meeting meeting and the items
on the consent agenda unless a
commissioner wishes wishes to remove a
case from the consent agenda and then we
can a vote on that amended agenda.
Madam Chair.
Commissioner Acosta.
I'd like to make a motion to proceed
forward, please. Thank you.
I'll second.
Thank you.
Okay, this is on the
This is on the motion to accept the
agenda.
Commissioner Smith.
Yes.
Commissioner Kaiser.
Yes.
Commissioner Acosta.
Yes.
And Chair.
Yes.
Thank you.
All right.
Um moving on to new business. Item 7.1.
Can I have a motion to approve item 7.1,
please?
I make a motion to approve item 7.1.
I second.
Thank you.
Staff.
Good evening, Commission. John Castillo
for the record.
Today we have a Lomita subdivision a
preliminary plat.
Uh so today uh we're going to review um,
the review is limited to the Lomita
subdivision preliminary plat. Uh, the
Planning and Zoning Commission's role is
to act upon to either approve or
disapprove the preliminary plat.
And discussions need to focus on
subdivision compliance, layout, access,
utility extensions, and connectivity.
The current conditions of the property,
it's located approximately 855 ft uh,
from the intersection of Solano Peak
Boulevard and Stern Drive. Uh, the lot
itself encompasses approximately 2.
2.324 acres. It's, uh, currently vacant
and undeveloped tract of land, and the
current zoning designation is NH1S,
which is our neighborhood one suburban.
Here highlighted, um, with the blue is
going to be
the subject property.
Here's an aerial view of the subject
property.
So, the proposal is to subdivide the one
existing tract into nine residential
lots. Um, the lots range in size from
0.138 to 0.201 acres.
Um, the minimum lot frontage, uh,
is 27.26 ft, which still meets, uh, the
NH1 zoning designation.
Um, water, sewer, and gas will be
extended to the properties.
Um, there will also be one tract of land
that is approximately 0.24 or 254 acres,
which will be maintained and owned by
the developer to be utilized as
drainage.
Here's an image of the preliminary plat.
This is tract A, which will be the the
drainage tract.
So, there was no public safety, um,
health, or welfare issues identified.
Um, it aligns with the suburban
neighborhood place type as called out by
Elevate Las Cruces Comprehensive Plan,
and it will provide additional housing
opportunities.
Uh, this did go before the Development
Review Committee or DR- DRC
um who looks at subdivisions from an
infrastructure utilities and improvement
standpoint.
On July 1st, after minor discussions, it
discussed uh neighborhood connectivity,
uh right-of-way design for Salopek
Boulevard,
um and the applicant's um
park parkland dedication fee in lieu of
of 3,718
dollars and 56 cents for
each lot of parkland.
Um they recommended approval of the
preliminary plat.
Today staff recommended uh staff's
recommendation uh is based on the
following findings. It complies with the
requirements and standards of the city
of Las Cruces subdivision code.
Uh the lot widths comply with the
requirements of the 2025 development
code.
Uh the proposed preliminary plat is
consistent with existing development
found in the surrounding area.
Uh it meets the intent and purpose of
Elevate Las Cruces comprehensive plan.
And
uh
DRC gave it a recommendal recommendation
of approval on July 1st, 2026.
Uh notice was sent to all relevant
agencies and departments. Notice was
sent to all surrounding properties
within 500 feet.
Um staff did receive several phone calls
with general questions about the
subdivision. Um some of them were
seeking more um
seeking to view the layout of the
subdivision.
Um others were inquiring about what was
to be developed on the property.
Today your options are to vote yes to
approve, vote no to deny, vote to amend,
or vote to table.
Thank you.
Any discussion?
Yeah, I have a question concerning uh
the fee um
in lieu of um
the what was it, $3,700
for a park? Uh could you give a little
more detail as far as like what that fee
is and and why they would pay the fee
instead of uh
helping develop a a park?
So, um the applicant is willing to pay
the fee um because
through the uh calculation of parkland
dedication, um the city with our parks
and recreation master plan accept parks
that are 3 acres or larger. Uh this one
falls short of that. Um so, they could
either pay the fee
um or still create the park, but keep it
more as a privatized park.
Um so, it would fall under an HOA or be
maintained by the developer as well by
the tract of land. In addition to that,
there is a Salida Park located
um less than a quarter mile from the
area.
So,
um they'll pay the fee and then will the
city eventually
build some small park nearby or there
just won't be a park there at all?
So, there uh during the DRC discussion
um regarding parkland dedication,
um it was made known
that parks and recreation is looking at
improving Salida Park in the near
future. So, if anything, those fees
would go towards that or towards
building a new park.
All right. Thank you.
Um I have some questions about the um
I guess
accessibility, the circulation component
of this. Can you talk a little bit more
about um why a cul-de-sac was
um
ultimately proposed versus some other
configuration that would
have more connectivity?
Madam Chair, uh Commissioner Kaiser. So,
the cul-de-sac was um proposed versus
having a connection into
um the properties to the north.
Um first of all, it lies outside of the
city's jurisdiction.
Um so, a majority of that roadway would
have to come into conformance with
county's regulations.
Um and then a small portion would then
be dedicated to the city to make that
50-ft wide cross-section.
Um
discussions with the applicant as well
um prior to the meeting.
Um the cost of building out the road
from their small section of Piro all the
way up to the nearest paved
cross-section would far outweigh out the
benefits of building the subdivision.
There's also
on the aerial image, this property right
here just to the north
uh eastish is a cemetery as well. So,
there would also be some conflict with
expanding
on Tepeyac Street.
Okay, I guess I'm not quite following.
So, the the street just to the north
comes in and takes a 90° turn.
You're saying that
that's not feasible because the
developer would have to build out that
street
to somewhere else? Why Why Why couldn't
you connect it or at least have the
option in the future should the county
want to make improvements to have a
connection? Maybe it's not connected
right this second, but giving the option
for future development that may may or
may not occur.
So, I'll defer that and let the um
developer speak to that as they had
discussions with the county.
Hi, uh everybody. Steve Green for the
record.
One of the biggest reasons
I'm sorry. Yep.
Do you have to swear me in or anything?
Sorry.
That's okay.
Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give is the
truth and nothing but the truth under
penalty of law?
I do.
Thank you.
So, one of the reason Commissioner
Kaiser is we would have to be
responsible for also widening the
roadway, which would be pretty hard to
do considering the adjacent properties.
I don't know if we could actually obtain
the ability to widen the roadway. It
would be one of the biggest problems cuz
that being a cemetery, I don't know if
they'd allow us to actually widen it.
So, that was one of the things that was
considered
at one point. The other other issue is
the cost cuz you'd have to go all the
way up to where the paving begins, which
is quite a big stretch of roadway. Also
have to bring it up to the current
standards of the county requirements is
really where it was kind of coming into
a problem. So, that's why we elected to
go with the cul-de-sac bubble head,
and that's why we did. We did originally
think oh, two points of access would be
nice, but that's where it that's where
the stick came in.
Okay. And so, so if I understand
correctly, the county's requirement
would have been if you were to make a
connection, a physical connection, you
would have to then be responsible for
improvements.
improvements. Okay, I
Yeah, no different than a city road.
We'd have to improve it also.
Got you. Okay.
Um unfortunate, I guess, but not much we
can do about it. Thank you.
Any other questions? I'm happy to
answer.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
All right, any members of the public?
Yes, sir. Please approach podium.
Thank you.
Could you state your name?
My name is Robert Hall, H-U-L-L.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm that
the testimony you're about to give is
the truth and nothing but the truth
under penalty of law?
I do.
Okay.
Um I live in the area. I'm familiar with
this vacant property. I think I even
knew one of the previous owners of that
property who's passed away. Um, that's
not relevant. The only question I really
have is it doesn't show clearly on the
aerial view, but there are high tension
power lines that run adjacent to that
property. I didn't have time to find out
if they're 380 kilovolt or how high uh
power they are. But it's a it's you
know, substantial.
Certainly the electric company has a
right of way, so there's no
encroachment, right? And uh I did a
little bit of
quick analysis, you know, what what are
the hazards of living underneath an
extremely high power um
electrical line like that. Clearly
there's properties on the other side. I
can't tell from the aerial if the if the
housing is is very close. I think that
maybe somebody here would know what the
the
there's any legal requirements, you
know, 1,000 ft, something like that.
Does anybody have any knowledge of that
aspect?
Uh Mr. Hall, this is
public comment, so you're welcome to
spend your 3 minutes talking to us and
then we'll see if we can get some
answers at the end.
Uh I just wanted to I just wanted to add
that to the considerations.
Uh
and perhaps it already was
uh in in the uh
in the people that studied this up to
this point. Maybe they already took that
into account, but I just wanted to make
it uh
make a mention of it. Now it's in the
record. Thank you, that's all I think I
have now.
Great. Thank you so much.
Mhm.
Is there anyone else?
Uh my name is Michael Ford. I live live
at the 354 Salapek Boulevard.
Hi Mr. Ford, do you swear or affirm that
the testimony you're about to give is
the truth and nothing but the truth
under penalty of law?
I do.
Thank you.
Um one of the concerns I have is how
much traffic is going to be dumped onto
that road, especially since there's only
going to be a cul-de-sac.
I do know why they couldn't do the extra
on there cuz that's also the Tortugas
Pueblo. So, you would have made you may
have had a lot of barriers in trying to
open up another access.
But, that was my concern. You're going
to have nine plots
and then they're going to be dumped onto
Salapek and that's extra traffic and
then and that's one of the concerns that
I have.
Okay, thank you so much.
Anyone else?
All right.
Um Steve, would you like to address any
concerns today?
Just just to answer the last man's
questions. I think I
kind of spoke to him a bit. Obviously,
there is a easement granted for the
power lines and then of course, there is
a analysis as part of the construction
drawings for the traffic flow onto there
and so that's already been handled also.
Anything else? That's it.
Great, thank you.
Yeah, excuse me. I'm sorry. The analysis
for the traffic flow has been completed?
In in the construction documents, which
is pending this would be uploaded. So,
yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
Anyone else from the public?
Yes, sir.
Please state your name.
Charlie Trego.
Hello Mr. Trego, do you swear or affirm
that the testimony you're about to give
is the truth and nothing but the truth
under penalty of law?
I do indeed.
Thank you.
So, basically, in
understanding seeing what these
gentlemen brought up behind me, and also
the fact that I agree with this
subdivision, I don't think it's a
problem for the neighborhood.
My only concern is that
and this is before the subdivision has
ever been considered, that Solano Peak
Boulevard is quite a raceway. And
there's no traffic control.
And it would probably be a good thing
city to consider traffic flow and some
kind of traffic control through speed
bumps of some sort or manner in that
area. And given that, you know, another
nine lots are going to be added with the
potential for
at least twice as many cars if not more
coming off of there, that would be a
consideration I'd like the city to
bring into its
thoughts. So, and that's it.
Other than that, I'm for it.
Thank you.
All right.
Anyone else from the public?
Anything else from the developer?
Commissioners?
Um just to follow on the the comment
about uh traffic volume. So, Solano Peak
I believe has a planted median
where this um
egress would be built.
Is the plan to change that
to allow for a left turn out of the
subdivision?
Madam Chair, Commissioner Kaiser, yes,
that would be correct.
Okay. And is there any plan for
four-ways or I guess a three-way stop at
the intersection to
accommodate
um
some traffic calming?
Madam Chair, uh Commissioner Kaiser, it
would be dependent upon the um
the ITE trip generation that's being
done once the construction drawings are
submitted. If needed, um
and that trip generation uh warrants a
more impactful study to traffic, then
yes, there could be further mitigation
that would be needed.
But
I guess what I don't understand is what
what's the analysis? I mean, a safer
intersection versus not a safer
intersection. I mean, this is presumably
a relatively low-volume
street in the grand scheme of things. It
seems like traffic delay shouldn't
really factor into a three-way stop at
this intersection if it,
you know, provides some additional
traffic calming.
Madam Chair, Commissioner Kaiser, that
is correct. Um so, it it should be and
like I said, at this point, we don't
have the construction drawings as of yet
to review, but we will review them for
every measure that we can and most
likely it will have just a three-way or
three or four-way stop.
Thank you.
That answers my question.
Thank you, staff. Okay, I think we're
ready for our vote.
This is on the motion to approve item
7.1. Commissioner Smith?
Yes.
Commissioner Kaiser?
Yes.
Commissioner Acosta?
Yes.
And Chair?
Yes.
Motion passes. Thank you.
Thank you.
All right. That concludes our agenda. Do
we have a motion to adjourn?
I've just got one comment I want to
throw out to staff. Um
seeing that we're, I guess, coming into
the second half of the year and I
believe the official one-year
anniversary of Elevate um or or Realize,
rather, has
come and gone and I think the I guess
maybe unofficial being
um the end of this year. But I guess my
ask would be if we could get some sort
of analysis about how it's played out so
far as far as types of building permits,
um ADUs,
uh duplexes, triplexes. I think that'd
be I'd be really interested in those
numbers if and how that trend may or may
not have changed since uh realize um was
put in place.
Commissioners, yeah, we can take a look
and see um what's available. I do do a
presentation to CIAC, which is a Capital
Improvements Advisory Committee. We do
include some of that information. I
would
recommend doing that presentation or
some of that data at the end of this
year so we can have a little bit more to
pull from. Right now,
very minimal data available, but I do
think um
those are questions a lot of people have
to see how the new code is impacting
development so we can we can look to
pull that together and maybe look to do
something like that at at the end of
every year just to see year over year
how things are changing, certainly.
Yeah, I think that would be great. I
just wanted to throw it out there since
time time goes fast, so but yeah, that'd
be great.
Are there any staff announcements?
Uh chair, just want to let everybody
know uh we're we're down a couple
commissioners. Hopefully we'll be
getting them in sooner than later. That
being said though, we are ramping up
from a subdivision standpoint. Seems
like everybody wants to subdivide into
summer.
So uh
well, next month we will probably have a
a decent agenda coming before you. Uh
couple preliminary plats, special use
permits,
uh and it's probably getting heavier
with the bigger ones coming in as well,
so this is definitely a small compared
to some of the big ones that we have
coming down the pipeline, so we
appreciate y'all's time to be here, so
we just we'd appreciate y'all
continuing Your your attendance here.
Thank you. Do I have a motion to
adjourn?
Make a motion to adjourn.
Second. Thank you. All those in favor?
I.
Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned.
Thank you, everyone.