thank you
[Music]
thank you
foreign
[Music]
all right well good evening everyone
it's a rainy been a beautiful past few
rainy days in Las Cruces
um
just so you all know I found out like
five minutes ago I'm supposed to run
this meeting so hopefully we go without
hiccups but I think we'll be fine uh
first uh order of business is is there
any conflict of interest with any of the
agenda items tonight
no does not seem then I think we're good
why don't we move on to the approval of
minutes could I get a motion to approve
the the minutes uh I make a motion to
approve the minutes
oh second alrighty
board member Vega
yes board member Smith yes board member
Kaiser I abstain I was absent last
meeting thank you board member Bennett
yes board member Acosta
yes
yes thank you all right excellent well
the meetings pass uh we are going to be
doing an election of officers uh as
mentioned the former chair Mr Harvey
Gordon resigned and we need to decide if
I'm a new chair if somebody else wants
to do it totally fine but uh yeah
um how do we I don't know how we do this
part
Mr chair and Nicholas for the record uh
you'll ask the commission to make
nominations and we in a second and then
we go to vote but
as the nominee if they're willing to
accept the nomination and go to vote
perfect alrighty well does every anybody
want to make a nomination for chair
I nominate Luis as chair
okay
and then I second alrighty perfect
and then do we still vote or yeah
oh yes yes I do
yeah so take a vote please
board member Vega
we have too many microphones on we need
to turn them off please thank you board
member Vega yes thank you board member
Smith yes thank you board member Kaiser
yes thank you board member Bennett yes
thank you board member Acosta yes
yes thank you all right perfect well
that's always one of the seats now we
need to nominate someone for vice chair
would anybody like to make a nomination
for a vice chair
I nominate Scott
a second
all right perfect
I'm willing
perfect then we gotta vote and
remember Vega yes board member Smith yes
board member geyser yes board member
Bennett yes board member Acosta yes
chair gurado yes
alrighty awesome well that was quick uh
now uh do we have we don't have any
postponing so we're gonna uh skip that
Mr chair one point of order because uh
chair uh commissioner Kaiser was
secretary now that oh okay well now we
get now we gotta okay never mind scratch
that we need to nominate a secretary uh
when I any of the Commissioners want to
nominate someone as a secretary
I'll return the favor and nominee
commissioner Vega that sounds great
I accept all right perfect then let's
vote
remember Vega yes remember Smith
yes remember Kaiser yes former Bennett
yes
yes chair good Adam yes thank you all
right perfect I think is that is that it
we got all of it perfect all right
excellent then uh up next we have a
public participation this is if anybody
has anything they would like to uh share
um that is not in the agenda that we
have anybody in the public that would
like to come up and speak on something
that is not in the agenda
no all right then then that's fine now
um is there uh we don't have anything on
the consent agenda today either
um there is a request though and I'll
need a vote from uh my colleagues uh to
move item number 10 uh before we do old
business
um would anybody like to make a motion
for that
I make a motion to move item number 10.
okay can I get a second
second all right perfect do we need a
vote for that board member Vega yes
board member Smith yes board member
Kaiser yes board member Bennett yes
former Acosta yes chair yes thank you
perfect then in that case we're going to
move on to item number 10 which is uh
the real realize Las Cruces development
uh code update do we have uh anybody uh
from either the city city staff or one
of the presenters
yes chair this is the Nicholas for the
record um
Catherine we'll do an introduction and
then we'll have our consultant from
Theresa Nicholas do our presentation
thing excellent thank you
good evening members of the pnz this is
something that I think we're all really
familiar with we're working on the code
rewrite for realize Las Cruces those are
all of our development codes zoning
subdivision signs development standards
things of that nature and we're just
doing one of our regular updates to let
you know where we are in the process
where we're going
and we have our Consultants from freeze
and Nichols here to give you a small
presentation and with that I will go
ahead and open that
foreign and I will turn it over to Erica
Craycraft
good evening members of the commission
again my name is Erica Craycraft with
Frieza Nichols joining you today with a
brief update on the development code
revision
joining me today is Dawn Warwick and
Karen Perez also with free sin Nichols
and other members of our team who you
may see at a different meeting are Fred
Lopez from Quantum engineering and local
attorney Dana Kyle
today I would like to share with you a
reminder of our process and give you an
update on our current status and also
preview our upcoming next steps and
plans for Community engagement and
lastly I'd be happy to take any
questions or comments that you may have
first looking at our processed
and generally our scope the items that
you see here are the current sections of
your development code that we are
reviewing in this process on the left
side you see the items that are major
reviews those are your zoning your
zoning map subdivision regulations
design standards which are things like
landscaping and parking requirements
drainage and flood control and signs
we have about a two-year process that is
structured into three phases
and our first phase was what we call the
diagnostic evaluation this was a period
of about six months that started last
spring
during that time we reviewed your
existing plans that you had in place
like the Elevate Las Cruces
comprehensive plan the active
Transportation plan Parks master plan
and others we also took that time to
review your existing codes that you have
in place today
we had a virtual open house where we
invited open-ended Community input
through a website that is actually still
available if anyone would like to
participate at realizedlascruces.com
and also during that time we conducted a
series of interviews with folks who we
considered to be frequent code users so
that included members of the city
council and pnz who were seated at that
time
members of the local development
Community several Community
organizations and others during that
time to get an understanding of what
works well what maybe doesn't work well
what we should be considering through
this update
that informed us as we have moved into
our current phase phase two which is
actually drafting the code content we're
working very closely with your city
staff through this phase and we are
about two-thirds of the way through
phase two
looking ahead to phase three which we
envision being early next year that will
be several months dedicated to refining
the final document once we have a
complete draft that's ready for public
review that will go through a refinement
process at that time
as I mentioned we are currently in phase
two you can see on the right side the
new primary sections that the code will
be organized by
for each of those sections we prepare a
draft we being the consultant team we
share that with your city staff they
review it they share their comments with
us and we make revisions to that section
we repeat that process until the draft
is ready to move forward
we're currently focusing on the design
standards and also on the zoning the
first two sections that you see here
General provisions and subdivision
regulations we have an initial draft of
those that is actually available on the
website realize lascruces.com on the
documents page if anyone would like to
view those initial drafts they are
available
also there's a brief video about five
minutes long with each of those sections
that gives you an overview about what
the purpose of this section is and also
some key key things to note about that
section
these are posted on the website mainly
for a transparency
purpose we aren't necessarily asking for
any public input on these drafts at this
time but they are available if anyone
would like to look at them
as we're drafting these sections we're
looking frequently back to your existing
plans especially the Elevate plan
when the city prepared that plan there
was a very robust Community engagement
process with a lot of different
different local groups and stakeholders
involved in that process that help to
establish that Vision in the plan
the plant has about 500 different
recommendations that relate to partially
the development code but also Capital
Improvements other studies that may be
required or general policies so we have
been looking especially at the items
related to the development code
we took those items about 200 of them
and categorized them in this table that
you see here just a snippet of but this
is our working list as we're working
through the development code where we
can keep track of all of the items that
elevates policy framework recommended so
we can be sure that we are addressing
the plans recommendations
in terms of the plan's physical
framework we're also incorporating that
into the code update by looking
especially at the place types and
overlay Place types you'll see that
those relate to the zoning districts
and also to some of the design standards
like the roadway design or the
Landscaping those frequently refer back
to the place types that came out of the
plan
in addition to plan implementation we're
also looking at ways that we can
simplify and streamline the document so
it's easier to understand it is a very
technical document so we are trying to
use tables and flow charts as much as
possible to make sure that everyone can
understand the requirements
looking ahead at our next steps and
plans for Community engagement you may
be aware that there's a technical
advisory committee that has started
meeting they were appointed by the mayor
and the council and there are 15 members
who are representatives of the local
development Community various Community
organizations also several professors
and other academics who are involved in
that committee
it is the city staff flood initiative
your assistant city manager Eric
Enriquez is the primary staff point of
contact for that committee
the committee is reviewing draft
sections for preliminary feedback at
this time the sections that they're
reviewing are also available on the
website at the location I mentioned
earlier in case anyone would like to
review that content is available for
everyone
but again we're not necessarily asking
for community-wide input until we have
that more polished complete draft at the
beginning of the year
so our next steps we will continue to
work with City staff as we have been
doing to refine the draft code and get a
complete draft ready City staff will
continue working with that technical
advisory committee to get any
preliminary feedback to help us be
informed as we're preparing this initial
draft
once we have that polished draft ready
we'll bring it back to the Planning and
Zoning commission and to city council
for your review and to let us know if
you see any issues or anything else that
you would like to be addressed before we
go out for the formal public involvement
and input process
once we have that green light from you
all
we'll start an open house event for
additional Community feedback on that
complete draft
that open house event we envision
occurring probably in early spring of
next year and we envision that as being
a two evening event where it would be
the the same event either evening just
to allow more opportunities for folks to
attend that in person if they would like
and all of our public engagement
activities we like to start with an
educational component at the beginning
so everyone has a background and
understanding of what the purpose of the
code is and how it would apply to them
so they have the background that they
need to be able to provide meaningful
input
at that meeting we'll also share
highlights of the draft once it is
completed that would be something like a
top 20 things to know about the draft
code
at the meeting we'll have opportunities
for feedback from the community and then
that feedback period will also extend
for a time after the open house event so
if someone came to that event and that
was their first time learning anything
about the development code they would
have the the background knowledge
presented to them at that meeting they
could have some time to go home and
review the draft and share their
comments with us later they don't have
to necessarily have it that evening
and we would also like to host some
one-on-one discussions
that can either be at the event or could
be held separately but we envision those
being a sit-down conversation with
anyone who is a property owner or a
business owner someone who is interested
or concerned about how the code might
apply to them so we could sit down with
them look up their individual address
and be able to talk with them about how
the existing code applies and how the
new one will be different
and then also in addition to the
in-person event we would like to have a
virtual alternative that's available for
a period of time as well if somebody
prefers to participate online rather
than in person
I mentioned during phase one that we had
a virtual open house that is the
screenshot that you see here it is still
available at this time if anyone wanted
to go share any open-ended comments they
can feel free to do so
next also during that public engagement
period all of the code users that I
mentioned that we interviewed during
phase one we would like to Circle back
with them again at this point and make
sure that we kind of close that feedback
loop that we incorporated their comments
and their concerns were addressed this
is just a reminder of who those code
users were that we interviewed back
during phase one so we will invite all
of these folks to join us again once we
have a complete draft and review any of
their additional comments or questions
once we have that input through the open
house and also for the code user
interviews
we'll bring that input back to you all
at the the pnz and to city council and
in addition to presenting the input
we'll also be presenting proposed
revisions that we would recommend based
on what we heard at the community input
so we'll present that for your feedback
and direction
once we have Incorporated that public
input into our drafts then at that time
we would move forward with the official
formal adoption meetings and public
hearings that would go along with that
so that concludes my presentation I
would be happy to take any questions or
comments that you may have thank you
thank you so much for that presentation
do we have any questions from the
commission
seeing none why don't we move to a
public comment or I think I think we
yeah does anybody from the public have
any uh questions that they would like to
ask
Mr chair yes
nickels for the record
um I would just make a brief comment to
decommission
there's a very important study we kept
hearing the word on your presentation a
very informative presentation thank you
for that
but you kept hearing the word code and
so this is a uh this will be a code this
will be part of the laws that we use to
to gauge our our zoning and and our Land
Development it is in concert with the
Elevate Las Cruces comprehensive plan
uh that this particular code had not
been
updated or revised for a number of years
but once we had adopted the Elevate
comprehensive plan
we recognized the necessity to update
the Land Development or the zoning code
to a work in concert with that so it'll
be brought to you we're about halfway
through are we with a consultancy and
developing this
but it's going to be very well vetted to
both
Council the planning zoning commission
and to the public and we'll look forward
to new developments thank you yeah
absolutely and thank you so much you
know I remember hearing that the code
has not been updated since I believe
2001. I may or may not be correct but
it's been a number of years and as we
all know the city has grown and a lot
has changed and of course now we have
the new comprehensive plan so I'm I'm
excited to see how this is going to fit
well with the city just one comment real
quick I did notice in your presentation
there was something for uh like virtual
alternative for two weeks could you
maybe explain a little bit more what
that would look like
sure sure
um it it could take a variety of forms
we use one of the tools was the
screenshot that I showed with the
colorful boxes that's more the
open-ended input
for a community engagement at a later
point it would likely take the form of a
series of informational videos so
everyone can have the the background
knowledge and the highlights of the
draft as well and also a some type of a
more interactive survey
all right thank you thank you very much
I think that's that's a great idea if we
learned anything from the pandemic is
that you know people people want to
participate they may not always be able
to be in person so thank you for doing
that um does anybody else have any any
other comments before we move on
no I've been thank you so much for thank
you so much for your time thank you oh
sorry there was a somebody had raised
their hand I'm sorry I did not see you
yeah would you like to come up and make
a comment
all right perfect my first swearing
it'll be before uh before you uh make
your comments I do need to swear you in
uh uh first of all could we get your
name Gary Gurley alrighty and do you
swear and affirm that the testimony
you're about to give is the truth in
nothing but the truth under penalty of
luck well it's a question more than a
testimony oh okay that's well that's
that's okay uh we'll give you three
minutes
and go ahead okay
okay oh you might need to speak a little
bit closer to the mic
I wanted to know uh what the bearing was
on all of these changes you're going to
make
to the various uh cases that you have
for zoning changes
as applies to the much larger change
that is going to take place in May of
next year and why have all of these
minor changes on a periodic basis and
why not wait for the larger change to
take place in May and base your
decisions on zooming changes on the uh
adjustments that you make the final
adjustments that that you make in May
that is a great question somebody from
City staff want to take that
sir my name is Catherine I'm senior
planner with the Department
so there was no type of moratorium that
was placed on the ability for people to
proceed with zone changes until this
code was adopted so that allows people
who perhaps want to develop or who have
a property perhaps that's not in
conformance and they want to get a zone
change so that they can do maybe a
little bit more with their property they
can do that so they're allowed to go
through the process under our current
codes so they can utilize their property
or or make plans to move forward in the
future but at this point in time the
city elected to to not halt development
or zone changes moving forward until
that code was adopted and that's pretty
typical that the city would continue to
allow people to proceed with their
development plans does that answer your
question
well how do you know that you're not
going to run into a conflict where you
make a decision now which will be in
conflict with your final changes so
that's a that's also a really good
question so when we
um make recommendations involving zone
changes we're basing it on our current
comprehensive plan and some of the
guidance that that particular plan
provides us
that plan was adopted approximately two
years ago and of course the code that
we're working on now is also intended to
implement that plan so they should be in
a light in alignment however there are
instances where maybe there's some
things that that don't quite Jive or
something may be considered
non-conforming moving forward there are
Provisions in the code that protect
those uses that were made legal under
one code but may have some illegality in
in a new code we call it non-conforming
and they're allowed to continue that
they won't be penalized for that
that was my main question all righty
well thank you very much and thank you
very much Catherine for answering that
and thank you so much to the
representative for uh we look forward to
keep working with you all right well
we're going to move on to uh new
business so first of all uh could I get
a motion to hear a case or uh sorry item
9.1
uh make a motion to hear item 9.1
all right second
all right
remember Smith
yes former Vega
yes former Kaiser yes board member
Bennett yes remember Acosta yes chair
good at him yes
all right thank you go ahead
Mr chairman members of the commission
Vincent banega Center on planner for the
record uh presenting the case before you
case
22050073 it is a rezoning proposal for a
property that's located at 5056 Carter
Drive
currently zoned Ur which is an 81
designation called Urban Ranch and
they're seeking to rezone the property
to residential estates Mobile that
designation is a legitimate zoning
District in the 2001 zoning code just to
give you a little background on some of
those those zoning districts that Maine
no longer be in the current code
when the U.S 70
annexation took in most of the Eastern
uh portion of the city there were a lot
of properties out there that had uses
that were not very typical elsewhere in
the city and the city decided to create
some additional zoning districts at that
time under the 81 zoning code in order
to accommodate the uses the UR Zone was
one of them but through the rewrite of
the 2000 or rewrite of the zoning code
resulting in the 2001 code it no longer
exists
the property is roughly
1.163 acres in size the UR designation
under that previous code allowed for
minimum lot size of one acre and one of
the unique characteristics it also
allowed the keeping of small and large
animals in a semi-rural atmosphere that
was the purpose and intent of that zone
so at the present time it is a defunct
zoning designation it is not considered
non-conforming very much like what was
just mentioned for that gentleman's
question and so in order to allow
future development on the property or
changes to the property that would
require permits things of that nature
they have to be brought into compliance
and that would require what we used to
call conversion zone taking a look at
what's on the property and trying to
match it up as best we can with some of
the existing designations in the 2001
zoning code AS amended the property sits
within the Suburban Neighborhood Place
type pursuant to the Elevate Las Cruces
comprehensive plan and as as mentioned
previously in some of the other cases
that allows for a character land use
character that considers low to moderate
density residential
uses with some areas are intermixed with
some areas of commercial use
the property at the present time is is
vacant predominantly vacant there has
been some
development in context to some fencing
that was placed on the property the
property
does show at present time some fencing
that is located along at least one side
of the property line the back and then a
portion of the other side and there is
some fenced in storage that that has
taken place there
um the applicant in preparation of this
case it was brought to our staff's
attention that this had occurred and we
started receiving quite a bit of phone
calls on the matter and I've been in
contact with the applicant's
representative to discuss that and and
certainly if they're utilizing some of
the equipment and the structures in
there to store equipment for the
construction of a home that they have
applied for it is under review it's gone
through the review process and it's
pending the outcome of its own change to
to bring about compliance with with
zoning designations so if they do that
then it's okay if it's being used for
some other purpose
for property you know storage material
that that is used for property Beyond
this subject parcel then there's some
issues and and other considerations that
have to be made so the applicant's
representative is aware of that
[Music]
um
the Zoning for the area is identified as
follows you have the subject property
outlined in red and adjacent to that you
still have several properties that are
in the non-conforming you are designated
zoning district and the reason that that
could have occurred is first and
foremost the city did take on take upon
itself the
process of conversion of zoning
districts of four properties throughout
the city but we also encourage Property
Owners to come forward and help us out
help identify the properties that no
longer had a designation that was
subject to the 2001 code and in certain
instances obviously we had some gaps and
we didn't cover the entire city but also
as part of our process staff process
when whenever we engage Property Owners
to take on that conversion process if
they didn't want to participate they
opted out and so I'm not quite sure what
the scenario is here with several of the
properties being you are but basically
all those Ur properties will at some
point in time need to be brought into
compliance the one in question this
evening is this one outlined in red
identified as the subject property so
you do have some REM zoning which is
what is being proposed this evening
directly south you certainly have a
substantial amount on the west of the
subject property but you have Carter
Drive which provides the immediate
access to the subject property and some
of the other roadways are somewhat
improved and some are partially improved
I know Cortez has some right-of-way
issues and some improvement issues
that are still pending in terms of
meeting current code but nonetheless
this is the zoning that you see in the
immediate area the ee zoning designation
is an equestrian Estates zoning District
it too allows the keeping a small and
large animals it has a one acre minimum
lot size and the only difference between
EE and the REM
designation is that the REM and for that
matter I should say that you are
designation the REM allows for mobile
homes but in this case the building
permit that are referenced already is
seeking to do a site built home not a
mobile home
so this is the aerial map for the
subject property you can see as of when
this was taken the property was
undeveloped there were no fences fenced
in storage identified
surrounding it you do have several
properties that have site Built
construction and a few that still have
mobile home placement upon them but a
clear majority of the properties are
fairly large lot and some although not
all some do have the keeping of small
animals and large animals to this date
so once again the proposal is to change
the zoning from your to REM and this
facilitates the construction of a
site-built home not a mobile home on the
subject property and I want to clarify
that because one of the
citizens the property owners out in that
area called and was rather concerned
that it would allow mobile homes
this is a the site plan that was
submitted for the residential
construction permit I used it just to
show you the expanse of the property
itself it's fairly large Carter Drive is
along and this edge of the site plan so
they will be taking immediate access off
Carter Drive the building itself will
sit behind the required 25-foot setback
and it's my understanding that the
fenced-in storage areas back in this
area
this is just a couple of photos showing
that again the placement of the fencing
fenced and storage area and some of the
equipment trailers that are placed back
there
a little different angle there will be
hat there will have to be some
modification of the fence seen the first
25 feet is within the required front
yard and unless they receive a variance
for that it'll have to come down to four
feet and hide but that's really a
separate issue as it pertains to the
zone change
so in terms of our analysis from a staff
perspective there was no health safety
or welfare issues that were identified
by reviewing staff
staff did find that the zoning District
that was proposed is compatible with the
proposed use in the surrounding
neighborhood certainly based on what I
showed in terms of zoning and the aerial
the property is within the Suburban
Place type as per Elevate Las Cruces and
is consistent with the character that's
defined they're in
um the u r e m comparison in terms of
zoning development characteristics is
similar the REM allows for a smaller lot
size half acre minimum versus the one
acre for the UR the defunct you are
the REM allows mobile home but again
they're looking to build site built and
the UR a required site built and
manufactured home only all other
standards are the same so the REM was
selected and we feel that it's
compatible with those REM zones in the
immediate area
in terms of public notice and input we
carry that out pursuant to code I think
early this month on the fifth of this
month the letters went out and as
indicated the staff did not receive
calls about the zoning per se we
received calls about the fencing and the
fenced in storage
the one letter or email that I did
receive late which was forwarded to you
for your consideration talked about the
mobile home placement or the possibility
I don't think that's an issue given what
permit has been submitted and gone
through review at this point in time but
certainly if you feel it necessary to
apply a condition you could do so that
would require
a manufactured home site built home only
so
that's what we have in terms of input
so staff recommendation regarding this
this case is approval and it's based on
the following findings for one the
properties existing zoning is
non-conforming it no longer exists in
our 2001 code and certainly prior to any
development we have to bring the zoning
District into compliance
staff has found the REM zoning District
that was requested to be compatible with
the area and it certainly fits the
intentions of the property owner in
terms of future Improvement
uh the property is also within the
Suburban Neighborhood Place type again
characterized by low to moderate
residential density this certainly fits
that bill and several goals policies and
actions that are identified in Elevate
Las Cruces
we find that the request is compatible
with that there's certainly support in
that document for the request and we
also find that it meets the purpose and
intent of the 2001 zoning code and the
criteria for decisions found in the
municipal code so the surrounding area
is also developed as large lot REM
doesn't detract from that and so again
get another finding that supports the
request so your options this evening is
to vote Yes and approve the request you
can vote know and deny it please provide
any findings that staff has not
identified and that we
have provided those in support of the
request you could vote Yes with any
conditions you feel are appropriate or
you can vote to table and that concludes
staff's presentation Mr chairman I
believe we have the representative for
the property owner in attendance and
either he or I can answer any questions
you may have perfect thank you yeah we
could have the representative the
representative is available
oh perfect come forward
oh
all right before we get started I
believe I do need to swear you in uh
what's your name Anton magellanis and do
you swear and affirm that the testimony
you're about to give us the truth but
nothing but the truth under penalty of
law all right perfect go ahead thank you
yeah so my name is Anton montagueanis
I'm with Moy surveying and we are
representing the owner of the property
unfortunately I did recommend that they
come today but they were out of town
celebrating a birthday so he said if
there's any questions of course I needed
to relay to him he'd be happy dancer
we did meet with the pre-op or during
our pre-application process prior to the
zone change we discussed with staff the
opportunity for urban Ranch excuse me ee
versus REM
um after talking with staff and looking
at surrounding properties we did
determine REM was the most applicable
given what their intentions were which
is a site built home as mentioned with
the permit along with just alignment
with what the lot looks like and what
they're wanting to do
um
relative to what also is happening in
the surrounding area
I've been through this process before
where we're taking a debunked Zone
designation and putting it into
conformance and so I do appreciate the
conversion however this property with
the current owner would have never been
able to be allowed to utilize that
conversion given the conversion process
ended prior to them purchasing the lot
so because now any zone change of course
goes through this process we're at the
mercy of just having to get that zone
designation changed so that he can move
forward and of course build his home
they plan to live there when I did
survey the property prior to even
submitting the zone change
I was actually going to just locate the
property Corners because there is an
easement that runs there and so they
wanted to make sure and build and not
obviously encroaching that easement and
it was at that point that they then
applied for the building permit we're
told hey you can't actually build on it
yet because of the Zone designation
at that time there was a chain link
fence already there along with the wire
fence that is on the East boundary of
the property
since then they have in fact erected via
a permit after the fact with the fence
that is in place
and I did talk to the applicant after
addressing concerns that the public had
had as to what the items were that were
on the lot and they have mobilized their
some some of their equipment to start to
erect the house once we get to go ahead
with the zone change they are custom
home builders so their business
personally of course is custom home
building however they've just mobilized
their equipment to in fact be able to
build their house once this designation
if this designation is approved the
storage containers are Conex boxes
because the owner currently is selling
his house and so his personal belongings
are within the storage Conex boxes that
are there
so of course the intent would be in all
the insides of that conics box would be
of course furnished Furnishing the home
and then the there were also concerns
regarding the RV units but those are
just personal fifth wheels that the
owner has they're not used for
construction purposes or anything like
that they're just personal items that
they've placed there for the time being
so you know given the process and what
we have to go through we're just seeking
the REM designation so that we can move
forward and let them have the ability to
get their permit approved and build
their home
all right well thank you very much do we
have any uh questions from the
commission
no seeing none we'll move to public
comment do we have any members and thank
you sorry thank you so much uh do we
have any members from the public that
would like to make a comment on this
doesn't look like we do so in that case
uh let's go ahead and make a vote
I need a motion in a second oh please my
apologies sorry I make a motion
um to approve 9.1
a second all right excellent
board member Vega
I vote to approve based on staff
recommendation and it meets Elevate Las
Cruces
board member Smith
I vote based on staff recommendation and
consistency with purpose intent of the
zoning ordinance
board member Kaiser
yes based on staff recommendation and
consistency with Elevate Las Cruces
board member Bennett I vote to approve
based on staff recommendation this meets
neighborhood character and compatibility
as well as Elevate Las Cruces
I vote Yes based off of Staff
recommendation chair as well vote Yes
based on staff recommendation and
meeting Elevate Las Cruces
all right perfect the motion passes
thank you very much moving on to the
next uh item in our agenda we have 9.2
which is also a zone change could I get
a motion in a second
make a motion to hear item 9.2 thank you
commission Smith a second all righty
thank you
Mr chairman members of the commission
Vincent benegas again presenting case
22zo
zero five zero zero zero eight four it
is a zone change yet another conversion
type zone change from A2 to C3 involving
property located at 3400 baton Memorial
East
current conditions are as follows
the property is approximately
17.07 acres in size as indicated it is a
2 A2 is or was our agricultural District
zoning designation as part of the 81
code again and when the 2001 code came
into effect A2 is was no longer part of
it so
back in the day A2 was applied to
properties that were either agricultural
in nature in terms of land use
but quite often it was used as a
placeholder when annexations occurred
and the property owner did not know
exactly what designation they wished to
proceed with oftentimes the A2 Zone was
utilized for kind of a reservation of
future
considerations for zoning District so
the current zoning of A2 is defunct as
indicated it is non-conforming and we do
need to seek out a conversion to an
appropriate designation
pursuant to 2001 code
in this case the property is located in
a regional commercial Place type that is
identified as part of the Elevate Las
Cruces comprehensive plan and just to
give you a little ideas to the character
of that place type it seeks to allow
large retail and professional office
type service uses that require a large
draw or typically have a large draw in
terms of customer base
the property itself is predominantly
vacant there is a single-family dwelling
on site built back in 1949 I don't
believe it's occupied at the present
time it doesn't look like
um it is it looks like there's some
maintenance that is needed so I believe
again most of the clearly the majority
of the acreage is vacant certainly an
underutilized parcel so the highway 70
annexation back in 1967 brought the
parcel in it is outside the northrise
business park development plan I believe
in your packet I may have misspoke it is
literally one parcel outside the
boundary of that business park
development plan I think I said it was
within but I have confirmed it is
outside and it is part of the mbsk
subdivision and there was a replant
that sought to add a little bit of
acreage at the apex of the access point
along northrise drive and that Apex was
widened to approximately 70 feet if
memory serves
that Apex location is right where this
cursor is pointing to that's where the
replay came into play but the property
subject properties outlined in red here
and you can see that there's a few other
A2 properties immediately west of the
subject property and there's some
certainly several others located south
of the property and south of northrise
Drive
you do have other zoning designations in
the immediate vicinity several of which
are commercial in nature you do have
some c3c zoning you do have some C2C
further north across baton Memorial in
the highway and and a lot of these PUD
designated Parcels or Zone Parcels have
an underlining underlying zoning
District of Fort commercial uses so
quite a bit of commercial that certainly
ties in and supports the regional
commercial Place type that's mentioned
in the Elevate
so you do have this aerial showing the
property it is right underneath the word
subject where the single family home
currently sits
otherwise it is vacant you do have an
access point off of baton Memorial and
you will have access point off of
northrise drive
as it relates to any future development
I'm sure from the perspective of baton
Memorial you will have New Mexico
Department of Transportation involved in
the review of any permit as well as City
staff of course but beyond that a lot of
the area surrounding the subject
property at least immediately East and
and the West is is predominantly vacant
as well you do have some I believe it's
dominoes up in this corner baton
Memorial
and Road Runner Parkway you have a large
office complex you do have on the south
side of northrise near the intersection
of North Rising Roadrunner you have some
I believe it's uh the
care residential care facility and
further south you do have some
multi-family Apartments so again uses
that are consistent with with elevate
so the proposal before us is to rezone
the property from A2 to C3 C3 being the
commercial height intensity Zone within
our 2001 code it's certainly a
reasonable request given the Elevate
Lobster's Place type the parcel size and
the physical location of the property
no development proposal was identified
as part of the application packet for
this request so staff is unaware and
what the ultimate intention is in terms
of build out
so from a reviewing perspective staff
didn't find any
considerable issues to be addressed at
this point in time I'm sure we will
Reserve that for an actual application
for development so that we can better
review what is requested with
development code
so here's a couple of photos this is
looking North from northrise Drive
single family home is shown here in the
background up on the hill it is a very
somewhat hilly property
changing elevation from the Baton
Memorial side down to North right side
fairly considerably
this is looking South again the
single-family dwelling here you can see
the access point almost on the far right
of the photo it's a little driveway that
comes from Baton Memorial into the
property
otherwise you have this wall along baton
Memorial that restricts access
so there were no health safety or
welfare issues identified by staff we do
find that the requested Zone zoning of
C3 is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood it's certainly compatible
with the regional commercial Place type
as per Elevate Las Cruces and we find
that several goals policies and actions
support the request it speaks to
developing vacant land creating
employment opportunities job housing
balance and growing businesses etc those
are some of the key themes of policy
that supports the request
so in terms of public notice notice was
made pursuant to current code again
early in the month letters were sent out
on this particular case staff has not
received any input to date and here we
are staff's recommendations approval
based on the following findings
the property has non-conforming zoning
and said zoning needs to be brought into
compliance in order to allow further
development on site
the C3 is considered to be the most
appropriate zoning designation given the
location
surrounding area roadway access and lot
size
okay
the area certainly seems to be geared
towards drawing from a large population
base and so it's consistent with that
place type as mentioned I indicated that
several goals and policies supported the
request it means the purpose and intent
of the 2001 Las Cruces zoning code is
amended and it meets the criteria for
decisions found in the municipal code so
the surrounding area already has a
variety of uses and Zoning districts
that are certainly consistent with that
C3 zoning District
so your options this evening is to vote
Yes and approve the request vote no and
deny you can vote Yes with conditions or
vote to table and I believe Mr chairman
that the property owner and or
representative is in the audience and so
again either the individual or myself
can answer any questions you may have
yeah of course uh yeah do we have the
either owner or representative in the
audience yeah sure if you come up
let's watch your step there
all right perfect first of all can we
get your first and last name John
h-e-c-k all righty thank you and do you
swear and affirm that the testimony
you're about to give is the truth and
nothing but the truth until under
penalty of law absolutely all right yeah
go ahead uh any questions that you would
have about the property you'll be glad
to answer
sure all right well does anybody uh have
any questions from the property
go ahead commissioner
do you have any idea what you're looking
to put there commercially wise or
the existing house has been vacant for
about seven years and been ransacked by
various and assorted different people in
and out of the property it has broken
windows they tore out most of the copper
pipe and electrical I recently replaced
the roof on it which was incredibly
Antiquated with Shake shingles which are
no longer allowed I'm a general
contractor this is basically what I do
is find older properties and fix them up
and turn them somehow
I do have a client out of Washington
state that's very interested in
purchasing this house if I remodel it
bring it up to code and they're going to
use it as an Airbnb
all right thank you property I don't
know what will happen with it
at this point in time
yeah thank you thank you so much does
anybody else have any questions yeah
commissioner Kaiser this is actually a
question for staff I noticed in the
staff report
attachment three the department review
comments it still has under several
departments the status is listed as in
process I just haven't seen that before
so I'm not sure if there's a
significance there
Mr chairman commissioner Kaiser when I
looked at that that was indeed the
status by a few of the reviewing
departments they were having difficulty
locating the property there was a legal
description or meets and balance
description and so I provided on the
specific location cleared it up and they
didn't have any issues beyond that
all righty thank you very much does
anybody else have any any questions or
comments for either staff or the owner
well in that case we're going to move on
to uh comments from the public When
anybody in the public like to uh speak
about this specific case
does not look like it so in that case
could I get a motion uh to approve this
uh case
I'll make a motion to approve item 9.2
a second all right board member Vega
I vote to approve based on site visit
and it um meets the zoning code updates
board member Smith
although yes based on site visit and
staff recommendation
Kaiser yes based on staff recommendation
and consistency with all the Las Cruces
board member Bennett I vote to approve
based on staff recommendation this meets
Elevate Las Cruces and the municipal
code foreign
yeah I vote Yes also based in South
recommendations site visit and
compliance with Elevate Las Cruces
for football we have a motion that
passed thank you very much we are going
to move on to the next item in the
agenda which is item 9.3 which is also a
zone change uh could I get a motion from
the commission
I'll make a motion to hear item 9.3
a second
all right
Vega
yes board member Smith yes board member
Kaiser yes board member Bennett yes
yes
thank you all right perfect go ahead
uh good evening Mr chair um commission
my name is John Castillo I'm with the
city of Las Cruces as a planner today
we're going to be discussing 2505
Missouri Avenue it is a zone change
currently the property is uh 0.264 acres
and it's located at the corner of
Missouri and Don Rock Don Roser the
address is 2505 Missouri
through the mpo and Elevate Las Cruces
future thoroughfare plans it's been
labeled as a major arterial roadway
currently it is a built lot
it has a commercial an existing
commercial building the property is
currently zoned to C1 at this time the
property is considered a non-conforming
use this is because uh with the C1
zoning the maximum building gross floor
area square footage is limited to 2 500
square feet as the building was built in
1977 it was built to three thousand
198 square feet back in the 1981 code
the maximum building gross floor area
for the C1 zoning was 3 000 square feet
So today we're just bringing the
property into compliance and removing
the maximum gross floor
located here is the zoning that shows
that it is C1
here's an aerial image of the existing
property
so today's proposal is going to be to
rezone the subject property from C1 to
C2 which is our commercial medium
intensity
um zoning District it realigns the
existing uses that the current 2001 Las
Cruces zoning code is amended and it is
also compatible for subject property and
neighborhood
this would also eliminate the property's
non-conforming uses in regards to the
maximum building square footage
it has received approval from all
reviewing staff
as you can see here are some images of
the building
and then looking North
or
West and eastbound on misery
so um there are no health safety or
welfare issues identified by staff the
Z2 zoning District provides
compatibility with existing uses and
surrounding neighborhood the property is
located within the urban place type as
per Elevate Las Cruces in addition to
that the support would bring a long
economic growth and it also realigns the
existing zoning districts
at the time
um
notice was sent out to surrounding
properties with earlier in the month
staff did receive one phone call that
was tied to the special use permit that
was also a part of this property there
may have been some confusion at that
time because the notice ledgers tend to
look a little bit similar
so staff has recommended approval based
on the following findings that it's
located along a principal arterial
roadway where mediums at high intensity
zoning such as the proposed C2 is
encouraged
it will allow for an expansion of
existing businesses increase employment
increase the value of the subject
property
based upon staff's analysis the Pro Bowl
the proposal and the proposed zone
change requests meet the intent of
elevate Las Cruces it's also compatible
with the adjacent zoning districts and
uses it also meets the purpose and
intent outlined in section 38-2 of the
zoning code and fulfills the Las Cruces
Municipal Code section 2-382
today your options are to vote Yes for
approval vote no to deny vote Yes with
conditions or vote to table
all right thank you do we do we have
anybody representing the property we do
have the uh representative here today as
well okay and with the representative
like to come up and speak
don't have to but
totally up to you
all right perfect then let's move on do
we have any questions from the
commission yeah commissioner Vega
this is just more of like a clarifying
question from staff so we heard about
this I think it was the last meeting or
one before so
just for my own knowledge why weren't we
able to
why did we have to go through that first
process of getting this um
getting the permitting for the the store
and then now adding the space that
already existed within it
so at the time that the applicant came
in during one of our pre-application
meetings
we did not actually know the square
footage of the building so we were just
under the assumption that it was
compliant it wasn't until later on
through the special use permit process
that we realized the property was
non-conforming
thank you and Vincent has more to add to
that
if if I may uh commissioner Vega Mr
chair commissioner Vega at the time we
did have some questions regarding the
square footage the square footage and
use for the proposed cannabis
retail component was going to meet
the the C1 zoning designation in talking
with the the property owner or the
applicant they wanted to utilize the
whole building so that's when we started
conversations with them to seek a zone
change from C1 to C2 but my
understanding in in communication with
the business owner and the applicant is
at no time did it become an illegal
activity in terms of square footage
all right thank you very much for that
does anybody else have any questions
commissioner Kaiser go ahead
so along those lines if I remember
correctly I believe that previous
item before us it was approved based on
a condition that they would not exceed I
think it was 2500 square feet
how would
this application tonight uh
um
affect that condition if if I am indeed
correct
Mr chair commissioner Kaiser I believe
that um we would have to look into it a
little bit further but I believe it
wouldn't make the condition
um a requirement anymore
so this would negate that condition is
what you're saying correct thank you
all right does anybody else have any
more questions I believe this was this
was the one I missed a couple of months
ago so I don't have any any questions
either do we have any comments from uh
from the public at the moment
oh let's see seeing that there's no
comments uh could I get a motion to uh
approve this uh case
I make a motion to approve 9.3 his
second all right
board member Vega
um I vote to approve based on
um site visit and the zone change
supports economic growth board member
Smith about the approve based on site
visit and staff recommendation
advisor yes based on staff
recommendation and consistency with
Elevate Las Cruces board member Bennett
I vote to approve based on site survey
staff recommendation as well as meeting
the purpose and intent of the code board
member Acosta
I vote uh yes to approve based on staff
recommendation chair Guerrero well yes
it's well based in staff recommendation
and being compliant with Loa Las Cruces
we have a motion that passed moving on
to the next agenda item we have
9.4 which is a special use permit uh
could I get a motion to hear this case
from the commission make a motion to
approve 9.4
my second all right excellent let's take
it to a boat
remember Vega
former Smith
yes board member Kaiser yes former
Bennett yes
chair Guerrero yes thank you all right
excellent go ahead Mr chairman
Commissioners Vincent vanaga Center and
planner for the record uh presenting
this evening's case regarding
2201000071 it is a special use permit
request involving a group child care
home
for property located at 1534 Santa Tomas
Street
so the current conditions are as follows
the property and property immediately
surrounding the subject location is all
zoned r1a that's our medium
density a single family density
residential district in our 2001 zoning
code the property is located within
Legends West North to be a subdivision
again all the property is r1a within
that subdivision the property is
0.144 acres in size and it is currently
operating a family child care home not a
group a child care home on the site and
they've been doing so for approximately
two years
elsewhere they've been operating it as
well for a little longer than that but
at present they are they have five
children they're authorized to have six
and it's the husband and wife who serve
as the employees for the operation
the property itself has direct access
off of Santa Tomas Street the zoning map
is shown here Santa Tomas is located
along this side property is outlined in
red and r1a makes up
all of the Lots within that subdivision
primarily at least this phase of the
subdivision is shown across the street
on the West Side you have a road across
the property on the West Side you have
Road Runner Lane the city limit boundary
I don't know if you can tell but it
there's a dash line that delineates the
city limit boundary and so anything
further west a roadrunner Lane is in the
county it's outside the city but the
zoning designation is identified as D1
and D2 you and those are
residential uses the D2 I believe allows
mobile home to be used as the dwelling
D2 allows a broader variety of
residential uses anything from site
built manufactured and mobile and me in
this small corner you have a mobile home
park type zoning
so rather Antiquated aerial map I
apologize for that because there is
quite a bit of development that has
taken place
but nonetheless showing the property in
question two Parcels down you have a
linkage if you will to a linear Park
system and so this property is only
developed in accordance with that
linkage beyond that it's residential
uses and again some of the residential
uses over here with the mobile homes
identified throughout
and then in terms of History the house
where the proposed use is to be located
was built very recently in 2019 it meets
all the code requirements both in the
zoning code and building code it has
received its certificate of occupancy
and the applicants have operated as
indicated previously of family child
care home since 2017 two years at the
present location and they are licensed
by the state state licensure is is
required for that use and just so that
you're aware a family child care home
has a minimum of five children a maximum
of six a group child care has Beyond six
up to 12.
and that is exactly what they were
proposing to do is convert that family
child care to a group child care home
they will require of course the
licensure not only with the city but
also the state the state has several
requirements that need to be adhered to
and they will be conducting their review
much like we are this evening
ultimately the youth will have to follow
all applicable regulations
so a couple of photos this is the front
of the property from Santa Tomas Street
it is looking West and this is the
property in question you can see the
gates on either side of the house at
least on this side of the house this
other one's kind of hidden from view a
site plan of the property which was
submitted at a time of building permit
consideration shows that the gates are
located or at least they are located
more or less in in the vicinity here as
well as there the entire rear yard has a
wall of varying Heights that's placed on
the property line and that is a good
thing because for the safety of the
children that will be at this facility
there will be outdoor recreation from
time to time and and that wall and the
gates will help with with that security
the applicant has submitted this aerial
photo you can see this aerial photo much
more recent showing many homes in the
surrounding properties but this is the
property in question this was that
linkage to a linear Park system our path
in the area but they have identified the
two-car driveway here as a primary
drop-off and pickup location for the
children they also have three on Street
the auto stalls for drop off and pickup
and then two across the street
staff when we reviewed that we're hoping
that those two are are used the least
just from a safety perspective we don't
want kids running across or getting away
from the parents if they're old enough
and so we feel that those along this
side of Santa Tomas would be most
beneficial for the use under
consideration this evening
um something further about those parking
stalls than drop off pickup and the
applicant has indicated that there will
be a three-hour window for drop off and
a three-hour window for pickup and
they're looking to stagger
those instances in 30 minute intervals
trying to reduce traffic in the
surrounding Pro development and to
increase safety at least from the
context of vehicles and and children and
parents Etc so staff looked at that as a
very good idea to help maintain
compatibility with the neighborhood so
public notice for this was sent to
surrounding properties again early this
month no specific input was received I
did receive a call but they just
indicated that they would be in
attendance so I'm not quite sure what
the the issue is regarding that call
but staff has a recommendation and
findings a fact for you to consider we
are recommending conditional approval
we'd like for you to consider the
condition that reads the special use
permit or SCP approval be contingent
upon the group Child Care Home licensure
by the state of New Mexico at the
subject location and that's because both
entities have to approve this request in
order for it to be a green light a go
and so it just kind of made sense to me
to apply that condition the findings of
fact are as follows the applicant they
have operated a family a child care home
since
2017 more or less and approximately two
years at the present location so they're
familiar with the process and they have
been in good standing to the best of
staff's knowledge in terms of this this
use they're familiar with the state
requirements and the operational plans
that they've submitted to help ensure
neighborhood compatibility
the operational plans also help ensure
child safety the state of New Mexico
Early Childhood Education and Care
department
requires the licensure so that's another
step for consideration for this matter
so there's two sets of eyes if you will
that will look at this and child care
has been determined to be a much needed
use in and around our neighborhoods it's
in rather short supply if you talk to
those who are are in need of that type
of care
so the subject property is also located
in Suburban Place type again pursuant to
elevate Las Cruces so it's consistent
with that it
elevates supports the requests it
encourages for instance the creation of
small local businesses it provides
economic opportunities for underserved
populations it provides complete
neighborhoods by incorporating a wide
range of uses in those neighborhoods it
supports home employment opportunities
and increases access which is
specifically identified and Elevate to
child care for single-parent households
so for sure from the Elevate Las Cruces
perspective there's quite a bit of
support for the request it also meets
the purpose of intent purpose and intent
of the 2001 Las Cruces zoning code as a
man ended and the criteria for decisions
found within our municipal code
your options this evening to vote Yes
and approve the request as stated by
staff you can vote no and deny it come
up with findings of fact to the contrary
of those provided this evening by staff
you can vote Yes with the condition as
stipulated or vote to table
and that concludes staff's presentation
I Believe Miss Roxanna Sanchez the
applicant is in attendance or has a
representative and attendance that can
help answer any questions you may have
and that concludes Steph's presentation
thank you so much yeah do we have the
either applicant or representative that
would like to speak
oh yeah would you like to to speak or do
you want all right no problem uh do we
have any questions from the commission
yes commissioner Smith yes I just have
one question
um
you're going with this floor plan the
current footprint of the home
um you're going from you know five to
six children to 12. so that's a you know
you're doubling the number of children
that are going to be in this residence
uh are there any plans to somehow expand
that space whether it's convert the
garage or
um you know to build anything addition
in the future because that seems like
a huge increase in number of kids in the
current size of this home
[Music]
Mr chairman commissioner Smith at least
from the perspective of data that was
submitted as part of the application it
does not appear as if there was any
intention to expand the envelope of the
home
they are aware that there are certain
space requirements for each kid pursuant
to state law in terms of the process
that will be examined but there was
nothing indicative of the need to expand
at this point in time
okay that was more my question whether
there's some type of State requirement
far as space for each child
thank you
thank you commissioner Kaiser you had a
question or a comment yeah an
observation followed by a question so in
both the staff report and then in your
presentation this evening
um you made the the comments about some
safety concerns about children Crossing
St Thomas Street from one side to the
other
um
it seems to me that that is the city's
position that this road is inherently
unsafe for pedestrian Crossings and when
looking at uh this image right here it
seems like there's a number of
opportunities to address pedestrian
safety concerns
um just simply adding some crosswalks
maybe some curb extensions or other
traffic calming measures to really
benefit this type of business which is
sorely needed and it seems that
by making just small improvements like
that would
go a long way in encouraging people to
perhaps walk their children around the
corner down the street to this business
and eliminate the need to be driving in
an automobile to begin with so I guess
my question is is the city considering
any of that to to support a business
like this that's sorely needed in in our
neighborhoods to allow for alternative
modes of transportation
Mr chairman commissioner Kaiser staff is
not aware of in in order to accomplish
some of those things first off
such as a crosswalk Etc
the applicant would have to meet with
with staff and traffic engineering as an
example to see if it would be a prudent
measure to apply crosswalk markings in
this vicinity
but staff did not imply or tried it
wasn't the intent of staff to imply that
Santa Tomas was a dangerous roadway it's
just a local roadway much like any other
local roadway in elsewhere in the city
and in residential neighborhood it's
just that from the perspective of where
those two stalls are
the parent child would have to cross and
it's it's a little deceiving I think
that's a 50 roadway
at least right away rather and so you do
have 19 foot wide stalls that are marked
out there
so so the idea was just to limit the use
of those two stalls so that it increases
safety I think with the interval for
pickup and drop off that was being
proposed by the applicant and the use of
stalls one through five much of any
safety concern that staff had regarding
the use of the two stalls six and seven
would greatly be reduced and uh
again in terms of any other
treatments Street treatments that kind
of thing to help facilitate the use no
discussions have been
made at this point in time with the
applicable departments
thank you for that and and I'll just say
I I myself live on a street very similar
to this and and people fly absolutely
fly through the neighborhood because
there's no reason for them not to slow
down
so I guess my ask would be of Staff
should the applicant and other neighbors
raise this as a potential safety concern
that you work with them in the
appropriate departments to find some
reasonable accommodations to to slow
traffic
thank you yeah does anybody else have
any questions or comments
I have a I have just a question this is
just a general question it's not at all
the the individual uh applicants but
um so if we do approve it with you know
the condition of uh them getting the
different licensure from the state
um what is the what is the follow-up
process with with that the city does to
do do you guys actually go and make sure
that they got that before they they move
on to their operation do they have to
come back to City to the city or how
does that usually work so Mr chairman
members of the commission the the
process is to come here first for a
special use permit uh approval if they
get that they'll be working with the
state to get their approval but there's
an added step from the city's
perspective they'll have to get a home
occupation permit to actually conduct
the business
as uh indicated in this packet and so
there's an added measure that needs to
take place and it'll be at that time
that
staff will do the necessary inspections
to make sure the Ingress egress to the
the home and and all other measures are
in place in accordance to City rules and
regulations in the state I'm sure will
do the same from their perspective
all right thank you yeah and Mr chairman
if I may yes go ahead uh Nichols for the
record just as Vince has mentioned about
the home occupation but this business
once it's converted from family to group
will require a business registration
when a business
application is put in for that then the
building department inspector and the
fire department inspects these
facilities
uh to enable them to issue that business
registration so there will be a review
of the premises and the facility at the
time of business registration issuance
excellent thank you yeah and I mean I'm
sure sure the owners are going to make
sure that everything gets done
appropriately but yeah I was just you
know I've always been curious about that
uh well we will move on to uh questions
from the public or comments from the
public do we have anybody that would
like to uh speak on the specific case
foreign
seeing none can I get a motion uh to
approve this case I make a motion to
approve 9.4 with conditions stipulated
in the report a second all right thank
you
board member Vega
um I vote to approve with conditions
outlined by staff including obtaining
the state licensure and also based on
staff recommendation board member Smith
I vote Yes to approve with conditions
based on staff recommendation
board member Kaiser
yes with conditions based on SAS
recommendation and consistency with
Elevate Las Cruces but
I vote to approve based on staff
recommendation Elevate Las Cruces and
the need in the community
board member Acosta
a vote to approve based on staff
recommendation
chair Guerrero I as well vote to approve
with the commissions by staff based on
staff recommendation and of course the
need for for more services like this in
the community
and the motion passes thank you very
much so we're moving on to the next one
we have a case 9.5 which is a variance
could I get a motion to hear this case
I make a motion to approve 9.5
second all right perfect
she made a motion to approve this case
are you just making a motion to hear
this sorry yes yeah it would be to hear
this case
just need to repeat it or sorry about
that I'll make a motion to hear Keys 9.5
thank you just in case keep us safe and
legal uh board member Vega
yes board member Smith yes board member
Kaiser yes board member Bennett yes
former Acosta yes chair Guerrero yes
thank you thank you go ahead
Mr chairman members of the commission
um my final case anyway Vincent vanaga's
interim planner for the record my final
case involves
a couple of variances for property
located at 801 East Farney Lane it is
case 22vo zero five zero zero zero eight
nine
current conditions regarding the
property the property is 3.98 Acres it
is property you have seen there was a
rezoning request that came forward
oh gosh I want to say a couple of months
ago it all blurs together
but at that time the property size was
listed a little greater than the 3.98 I
did mention that there was some effort
to clarify that and we have and it is
shown correctly on this slide at 3.9
Acres it is an underlies under utilized
parcel that is present the pancake Zone
it has R3 and C3
conditional zoning on it R3 being our
multi-dwelling medium density
designation
nrc3 has is a commercial high intensity
zoning District the conditions that were
attached to it at the time of zoning
back in the day
talked to residential caps
talk to restrictions on commercial uses
and hours of operation for those
commercial uses and liquor sales so when
the applicant came forward
those few months ago with a zone change
request they were sinking seeking to
rezone from the R3 c3c designation to
straight R3 and it is the straight R3
zoning designation to which these
variances will speak
the conditions that I identified or
found in ordinance 2767
and I just wanted to let you know that
the case was originally intended to go
before city council at an earlier day
but there was a a provision I believe in
the purchase agreement that
required the consideration by Council to
be moved back and so it is anticipated
that October 3rd first meeting in
October would be the designated date for
hopefully approval of of that zoning or
zone change request but this evening as
part of the next step for development
processes regarding this property the
variances are under consideration and
the property if you recall was
identified as part of the urban
Neighborhood Place type and urban
neighborhood kind of elevates the
residential component from low to
moderate to moderate to high residential
densities again with intermixed
commercial uses within that place type
it's also subject to the El Paseo
Corridor blueprint Community blueprint
as was stated previously for the earlier
case and the applicant's request
facilitates development of a proposed
senior apartment complex the existing
again looking at it from the R3 lens the
existing R3 zoning allows the property
to be developed with a density of 20
dwell units per acre if you do the math
using that 3.98 acreage it comes to just
under 80 and so 79 dwelling units would
be
authorized it also restricts the height
the maximum height to 35 feet and it was
the developers
applicants intention to have 80 units
total and up to 42 feet in Building
height
so this is the zoning map of the subject
property it's outlined in red it's still
showing that pancake designation which
again of council approves the request as
recommended by this body to them it'll
receive an R3 designation you do have R3
immediately East and further north of
the subject property C3 is directly
north of the subject property that's
where a church is located and I believe
they have daycare facilities as well you
have commercial zoning C2 designated
further east of the R3 the R3 is a park
and then you get into your r1as your R3
underlying PUD zoning sits here that is
a residential development
uh south of Farney lane and then further
west along El Paseo you have a
residential development falling darwini
standards in Las Cruces High School
above that
again the an area is showing the
property outlined you do see a
single-family home more or less at the
South or I should say the northeast
corner of the intersection El Paseo Road
and Farney Lane that is proposed for
demolition
when development ultimately Begins for
the subject property pending approval of
course
so the proposal this evening again I
mentioned involves two variances one is
a seven foot height seven foot variance
to the maximum 35 foot height allowed to
pursuant to the R3 District 42 feet is
the ultimate build out that they're
looking at and a one dwelling unit
variance to the maximum
79 dwelling units allowed in the R3
zoning district for this property again
they want to go to 80. so the variances
if approved facilitate the development
of a senior apartment complex and
[Music]
it is it is stated in the proposal that
the layout the design of the facility
Etc has taken into consideration the
ability to go to 80 units and 42 feet
ultimate height so in terms of the
height
not all of the building that is being
proposed
at least the main building being
proposed would take advantage of the
full seven foot exceedance there will be
at least I'll be showing you a an elev
or site plan that shows
a wing-shaped building and it is the
wings that will go beyond the 35 foot by
three feet
only eight per 8.5 percent of the
building in its entirety which consists
of the common area will extend four feet
further up to seven feet exceeds
so adding the height it was identified
by the applicant will help conceal some
of the rooftop building equipment which
we always try to do we've got that
written into our Urban Design section of
the current zoning code so that's a good
thing
the app can also conduct it some site I
called it height studies but they're
sight line studies
to consider minimizing the intrusive
views that may be realized from one
development onto another and they've
taken the time to look at that and I
think
the applicant's representative can speak
to that when appropriate but they've
they've taken the measure to try to
mitigate any concerns regarding the
height and I think they found some
substantial support for what they
originally requested
so there was there was some property
right away takes for adjacent roadway
improvements I think some of the
sidewalks that were improved and the
road widths that were widened on some of
the roadways uh Farney and the West Park
Drive for instance
there there was a need for right-of-way
and so right away takes did a curve and
so from a physical hardship
that decrease in acreage certainly had
an impact on the 80 unit count that they
would otherwise want to do and so that
was one of the considerations for the
proposal at least from the staff's
perspective
the applicant also held a early
notification meeting with the
surrounding properties back in January
of this year actually and they've been
in contact with them since and and I
believe the support is still
unwavering there's still a lot of
support for the proposal and part of the
reason is is some of the other zoning
considerations in terms of existing
zoning were not considered very
favorable by The Neighborhood
so this is uh it's it's a site plan that
staff is kind of
worked with the applicanton if if you
recall
the area along here was garage line
buildings I'm sure the applicant's
representative can speak to some of the
options they've considered based on
staff meeting and discussion but they
are now locating the duplex units closer
to to El Paseo Road and having them
front
at least that roadway and bringing the
development closer to said roadway the
garage units or structures are being
dispersed throughout the the site and
this is that winged main building that I
I mentioned and of course Landscaping
this is is still what I would consider
conceptual there's been no building
permit submitted and so it's subject to
some tweaks so we'll have to wait and
see what ultimately comes forward for
staff consideration
so this is that Wing building three
floor structure looking at the top floor
you have the three foot bust in terms of
maximum height located along each wing
and then this common area is where the
seven foot bust would take place so
again a small percentage of the hole
exceeding the 35 foot Mark by seven feet
just a little elevation
so part of the applicant's justification
in in their letter they talked about
economic financial hardship
and the the variance is obviously they
pointed out helped them achieve the
ultimate build out that they've been
looking at and they feel that it remains
sensitive to the surrounding
neighborhood it remains sensitive to the
blueprint in the comprehensive plan
the applicant has indicated held those
early notification meetings with the
surrounding property owners and when
they did so it was with the full intent
of going 80 units and 42 feet in height
so it's not been a recent change this
has been an issue that they've carried
forward all along
couple of photos showing the property
house is subject to demolition this is
kind of at the intersection El Paseo and
Farney Lane
this shot is taken looking kind of West
Northwest
this is the West Park Drive and Farney
Lane is right in there
and again a different angle looking
North Northwest I believe that's Las
Cruces public schools at least part of
it back in here
our Las Cruces High School rather
so in our analysis we found no health
safety or welfare issues identified
within the proposal and the proposed
variances we felt do indeed allow the
development it has originally proposed
it is within the urban place type and is
is consistent with that place type and
the El Paseo corridor from a use
perspective
and and so we feel that the calm plan
does encourage and support the request
it does provide for mixed use medium and
high density residential densities along
that Corridor it seeks to achieve
attainable housing it certainly provides
an added element of variety in terms of
housing Styles and in terms of the
blueprint again higher density is
encouraged along the court or
Etc there is some streetscape design
that they try to improve upon
with the change out of some of the
structures on site so generally speaking
from a use perspective at minimum we
feel that it's complying with with those
planning documents
the case was noticed as per code earlier
in the month and that early notification
took place on Jan in January staff has
not received any recent input from the
neighborhood regarding this issue so
staff has the following recommendation
and findings we're asking for
conditional approval consideration and
the condition would read that approval
of the variances shall be contingent
upon the approval of pending zone change
to R3
and that again is set before City
Council in the coming month
months
so the issue there is basically if that
R3 doesn't get approved then the
variance is a moot point and so that's
why we're asking for them to be tied
together in context to a condition so
the findings are that the property is
under utilized in this 3.98 acres in
size
currently has that pancake zoning but a
rezoning request has been proposed
uh the variances do speak to the R3
standards as indicated all along the
applicant has considered 80 units in the
42 foot height design there's been no
consideration of or concern cited during
any discussions regarding height and
density
the applicants desire to proceed with
their proposal requires the variances as
identified in this presentation it all
the property falls within the infill
area in that it's under utilized there
is always policy to seek the conversion
of property that is inactive to active
status
and the subject Parcels is subject to
when staff feels compliant with the bulk
of El Paseo Corridor Community blueprint
the property is also with in an urban
Neighborhood Place type and there's
consistency with that characterization
for that place type
so all three criteria of the variances
in some form or fashion are met staff
feels they're met the ACT acreage
reduction for instance speaks to a
physical hardship
with that acreage in place that they
wouldn't have had to ask for the one
dwelling unit variants it also speaks to
the project
spurring considerable Economic
Development both at the neighborhood and
Citywide level for the project
certainly shorter term and longer term
it's it's a benefit to the neighborhood
and some of the commercial
uses within that area and of course
monetary considerations can't be
specifically looked at but if it
drastically impacts the project we can
consider those and I think the applicant
has discussed that in their
justification they need these
considerations to move forward with
their project
several goals policies and actions
within the comprehensive plan support
the request as does the purpose and
intent of the zoning code and the
criteria for decisions of the municipal
code
so your options this evening is vote Yes
and approve the request you can deny it
and provide findings to the contrary or
what staff presented you can vote Yes
with the conditions staff has proposed
or any additional that you may feel
prudent to apply and you can also vote
to table the request and this concludes
staff's presentation I know Mr Ron
Bohannon is in the audience from tier
West a representative for this case and
between us we can answer any question we
have perfect thank you very much
would you like to come up and speak
all right before I have you speak I
would need to swear you in uh could we
have your first and last name please uh
Ronald Bohannon and
thank you for the clarification and do
you swear and affirm that the testimony
you're about to give us the truth and
nothing but the truth under penalty of
law I do all right perfect it looks like
you have a presentation so looking
forward to it um thank you I'm actually
going to abbreviate this uh quite a bit
Vincent did a fantastic job we've been
very pleased first of all I want to say
that Tom manchek was going to be here he
he appeared before you guys on the
zoning case he had a family issue and so
he could not get here from Boise Idaho
and just to remind you that
this individual has been doing
affordable housing for decades retains
his ownership and and this is going to
be a very good asset for the for the
city of Las Cruces
um and just just to give you some
numbers a one bedroom
unit to qualify it'll be as low as
twelve thousand eight hundred dollars of
income per year and a two bedroom will
go to fourteen thousand six hundred so
very low thresholds so it really
represents affordable housing for
seniors which is in dire need for for
the for the city
um
the the uh I think the primary one uh
the the the one unit is a pretty easy
one to do I mean we we looked really
hard to try to find two hundredths of a
square foot so we wouldn't have to come
in and ask for the one unit uh variants
but we just couldn't get there so we're
asking for the one unit and and there
was several right-of-way takes as as
Vincent has pointed out the height
variance um that's that's a little one
for for people to understand is when you
go from floor to floor on a multi-story
building what you have is you have a lot
of different mechanical equipment and
other other areas and and you want to
have adequate Heights inside your units
and so what that does is it builds up
that need and so what we've done is
we've actually set that to the bare
minimum that we've gotten which is at 42
feet for predominantly the most of the
of the building and then in the middle
of the corridor is where our elevator
shafts are are and so what we need there
is to bump it up for two reasons one is
nice to have a little bit of
architectural articulation and relief on
that area but also to hide those
elevator shafts as well so we worked
with the fire department we're going to
have two full service elevator shafts in
there as well through that I'll be happy
to go through the site plan with the
commission I know there was a lot of
questions at the zoning we've made quite
a bit and and I I think let me just do
one real quick
um
and I can oops I need to go back
how do I go back
thank you
so what we did along uh El Paseo was in
the site plan we reoriented the site and
and we we really worked at it really
hard we pulled a lot of different
elements on it and so what we wanted to
do was create that streetscape that
engaged El Paseo and we actually looked
at the school which is north of there
and we looked at how their
walkway was in front of it and so we we
rarely actually have memory mimicked
that area and so what we did is we took
the three units and we built those we
pulled those up against El Paseo and
then what we did is we created an
entrance off of El Paseo so that the the
residents once you have Transit on El
Paseo can use utilize that that area
uh
so what you're looking at is you have
these three buildings here and then
we've really articulated this entrance
right through here and we plan on
bringing that articulated entrance all
the way to the front as well as
enhancing this as a as a tenant only
entrances and through this area
with that we'll be happy to go through
if there's any questions from the
commission on all of the site variances
on site orientations but we tried to
really look at how to to take this and
engage the street we think we've been
done that if we looked at other options
what that ended up doing was it put our
units looking down into the neighbor's
backyards and so we really felt this was
the best best use and best orientation
for that project so with that Mr chair
I'll be happy to answer any questions
that the commission might have
absolutely thank you do we have any
questions from the commission
I I don't have a question but I just
want to
um uh give my appreciation for this uh
project I think it's great and I'm glad
that you um uh tried to reduce the
amount of added height in the project so
so thank you for that
thank you anybody else commissioner
Smith I just have a question for staff
uh this is more of a a zoning change
education for me initially back in April
when we uh we approved this project to
move forward it was owned
um R3 and then commercial
so it's they're still going forward as
as a residential so why was the need to
to eliminate the commercial aspect of it
so Mr chairman commissioner Smith so the
applicant keep in mind that with the
existing zoning that's still in play
the packet that is seeking to change it
from R3 c3c to R3 only
is is still going to be forward it just
looked at the zoning aspect there was no
variance consideration as part of that
so the the primary reason the applicant
requested that zoning designation was a
couple of things with R3 zoning they
could accomplish what they wanted to do
and another thing with those conditions
that were in place with the R3 c3c
designation there was substantial
restrictions on the density
yeah 60 units if I recall correctly
that's correct so so basically that
allowed them to increase the number of
units yeah if they go via the zone
change and get rid of those conditions
they can go with what their R3 allows
and they're just shy when units so that
that's the variance all right thanks for
that clarification appreciate it
yeah absolutely um I don't have any
questions but you know just want to Echo
you know it's it's very needed to have
this kind of uh property and housing in
Las Cruces so thank you very much do we
have any uh questions or comments from
the public
it looks like none so oh oh my God I'm
so sorry yes
are you both coming up at the same time
or one oh okay perfect yeah come on up
then
just watch watch your step there
yeah
all righty well
um I need to swear you in could I get
your first and your last name please
yeah my name is Joel Jake was okay and
uh do you swear and affirm that the
testimony you're about to give us the
truth and nothing but the truth under
penalty of law yes all righty go ahead
you have uh three minutes I believe all
right my name is Joel Jacques and I'm a
resident of the subdivision directly
south of the subject property the
Heritage Farm subdivision
and my main concern is they added
traffic I know that I've been to almost
every meeting that our that we've been
invited to and the developer assures us
that the type of resident in this
building they're not big drivers he said
there there won't be a problem with
traffic but uh
it's hard for me to believe with the
density that they're wanting that's
going to be a lot of people but we can't
control the draft well anyways my my
main concern is
sometimes we leave my house at about
nine o'clock in the morning and go down
West Park because I work not too far
away but anyways traffic is a mess there
is kids all over the place
of course in the summer when there's or
when there's not school it's not bad but
it's pretty bad when at nine o'clock
when they're
uh going to to and from class
um
and as far as
the building height I I used to be a
framer a framer and we built a garage
for a client and it was well we started
building your garage and it was one foot
taller than the 35 foot maximum we had
to change the whole roof to get it to
work so I understand that the
codes are there for a reason that
variances the heights protecting
people's views
making the city
consistent
uniform and and I just I just have a
problem with the density and
blocking the view of the people that
live across the street
all right well thank you thank you so
much
well before we oh sorry oh sorry I
didn't you also had a comment
all right yes I would need to swear you
in first if you wouldn't mind uh your
first and last name please
thank you and uh do you swear in affirm
that the testimony you're about to give
us the truth and nothing but the truth
under penalty of law yes yes all right
go ahead you have three minutes
um I you know
could you please closer to the mic
rophone thank you you're welcome but
also on Farney itself a lot of the
parents are coming from El Paseo on to
Farney or even from the other direction
and then going down West Park to drop
off so and and you also get the same
thing in the afternoons and then
um so I know on the other side of El
Paseo on Farney they have some speed
below they have two of them and they
also have the little thing that flashes
at you if you are driving faster than 25
and because that is a really fat people
get on there and they go much more
quickly than 25.
so um that is a a big concern and even
four months ago our our neighbor George
who's right up there his that part of
his fence was ran into by a car from a
high school student that came off of
West Park had been stopped lost control
and broke down his block wall
so it's something that I really I'm
hoping the city will look into to make
sure that that's really going to be safe
and then during soccer season
West Park you have all the the parents
and the kids parking there to watch the
soccer and all that stuff so parking and
just
car traffic it's something I'm hoping
that they look at seriously
okay yeah thank you thank you so much I
really really appreciate those comments
yeah thank you and be careful walking
back up uh do we have any any uh I guess
anybody else yes please come up front
I don't know why I'm doing this
no problem if I could get your uh first
and last name please my name
all right and do you store and affirm
that the testimony you're about to give
us the truth and nothing but the truth
under penalty of law yeah
all right perfect you have a three
minutes as well thank you okay I live on
Crescent Drive
Right In The Curve
so this whole thing is going to block my
whole
vision of the mountains and I'm
concerned about what that's going to do
to my property
um
the amount you know my property is worth
and everything
and I it just seems to have gotten
bigger
and I'm just scared
I don't know what this is going to do to
my life you know and I just wanted
everyone to know I haven't been able to
get to any of the meetings because
I have a hard time getting around
sometimes but um
I don't know it's it's right in my line
of vision right up to the mountains
from my backyard and as the height of
this thing if it was two stories maybe
it could have gotten by but three
stories it's gonna be crazy and
I'm not so worried about the traffic as
much but I am worried about you know
what's going to do to my property
um
what is to anyway
my two cents oh thank you thank you
thank you very much and we're glad you
could make it I think we had one more
person wanting to speak
just uh just please watch your step
Mr chair I do want to point out that
there is a ramp for those people that
are more comfortable traveling down
around and um stairs just for the future
yeah
thank you yeah I'm just always concerned
I hope nobody Falls and hurts themselves
all right thank you for coming up could
we get your uh first and last name
please
I'm sorry could we get your first and
your last name my first name is George
and my last name is pintar spell
p-i-n-t-a-r okay and do you swear in
affirm with the testimony you're about
to give us the truth and nothing but the
truth under penalty of law yes I do all
right go ahead you have three minutes as
well I'm not so concerned about that
traffic
I'm not concerned about the height of
the building but I am concerned about
the definition
of the senior complex I would like to
have a definition of what's meant by the
senior complex
okay thank you yeah um do we have maybe
uh the applicant I'd like to answer
maybe what the age range or you know
definition of the residents would be
is there an age limit
yeah uh yes what what would the age
limit be
so Mr chair
and age limit I believe it's over 55 so
you anybody under 55 can't live at that
it's age restricted okay perfect so over
over 55 years old
over 55 over 55.
[Music]
will there be a sliding scale in regard
to Financial
uh Mr chair yes I believe there is um I
gave you the very lowest limits but
there is a sliding scale based on income
okay
in early discussions with the people who
live in Heritage Farms it was our
understanding that they
price was going to be about 1260 per
unit
Mr chair right now we're looking at a
one bedroom unit of between 343 dollars
to 649 dollars per unit and a two
bedroom unit from 411 to 823 dollars per
unit
that's with all of the price increases
that we've had because of the pandemic
and supply chain but that's where we're
at right now yeah thank you very very
important yeah no absolutely thank you
yeah thank you did you have any more
questions sir
not yet
are you concerned though is in
relationship to
be not only the age limit Financial
limit but also how long will that all of
these items be in place is there going
to be any kind of time limit
Mr chair uh Thomas development has and I
don't know exactly how many they have
but they keep these for over 15 years
it's part of the conditions of approval
for affordability that they have to
commit and I want to say it's at least a
15-year time frame
I would need to verify that but I'm
pretty sure it's a 15-year time frame
all right thank you
oh
may I have one more minute yes go ahead
okay we had some people come through our
subdivision
uh concerned about our property value
and is there any kind of History
research and so forth that shows that
the property values surrounding one of
these senior complex is deteriorated or
lessened
Mr chair is going to address this anyway
property values are set by like
properties if I've been in doing
development engineering development and
management for well over four decades
so what you don't have is you can't have
a change in value because of a project
it can affect it but it doesn't usually
affect it negatively
so you when you have an appraisal done
on a property they won't look at it and
say oh because you're living next to
this property it's it's it's decreased
then we'll look at like properties
around that area to Value those areas so
they look at the areas through that area
and that's a very common question the
Thomas development like I said they've
keep these properties well over 15 years
they're professionally managed
Tom manchak comes with his wife
many many times through the year and
they they really are engaged aged in
their properties and so this is a going
to be a very good piece of property that
I don't see that affecting land values
and I just might as well finish from a
traffic standpoint
we have offset we offset these entrances
to the subdivision to the south at the
time Hector Terrazas was the traffic
engineer with the city of Las Cruces we
set this at this area these are gated
there is a parking problem along the
park that's created by the high school
I I don't know how to get around that
it's not nothing that we're going to be
creating
the the residents over time really stop
driving and so really they do not uh
have a need for doing a lot of trips
through this area so they're going to be
off peak hours as well and so the
traffic on this area is as diminished
versus a regular for Market rent or
definitely for a commercial area that
the traffic is substantially reduced I'm
a registered professional engineer we do
traffic studies we do that for a living
and so that that's my testimony as a
professional engineer as well from The
View Heights we're also we've got about
a three to four foot drop from El Paseo
down
the height on this is 35 feet anyway so
even if we weren't there 35 feet up
going to be up there and
that it is what it is so yeah thank you
yeah and I mean I completely agree
there's little you can do as far as like
the high school anyway she was right
around the corner
um I mean it is it is a high trafficked
area
um you know we can just hope that this
doesn't make it too much more trafficy
uh it is gated as well so oh that's that
that's good uh do we have any more
comments of the commission before we go
into a vote uh commissioner Smith or
whoever wants to go first okay
commissioner Kaiser go first
um yeah a couple of questions
um one I think would address some of the
traffic concerns that were raised a
little bit earlier the city recently
passed a complete streets ordinance
which is designed to improve traffic
safety for all roadway users reduce
speeds through traffic design so my
question to staff is any Street
improvements how would that ordinance
affect this project
we're not anticipating any changes
in in term Mr chairman commissioner
Kaiser in terms of uh specific Street
improvements for this project regarding
this variance there's no anticipated
change and that has been identified at
this point in time again they have not
submitted for any building permit for
the project yet
they're getting not only the zoning but
the variance issue resolved
so staff does not anticipate any any
change to the the right-of-way
as part of this development project
um
so that's that's what I have for you
okay I appreciate that because you
mentioned earlier that there were some
right-of-way easements that were
in your words take that would
accommodate uh you know improvements
that this development would require so
would it would they not then be required
to follow that complete streets
ordinance in this scenario well in this
Mr chairman commissioner Kaiser in
reference to the right-of-way takes that
that took place in in the past those
were for some of the improvements along
Farney Lane that have been made and any
improvements primarily for sidewalk that
kind of thing along West Park Drive as
well so you'll notice in some of those
photos the roadways look in pretty good
shape and that's because this there was
an effort to improve those roadways and
they needed some of that right-of-way
or land for right-of-way acquisition in
order to accommodate those changes but
nothing is being set in Motion in terms
of that specific ordinance okay I
understand so the improvements were are
have already been installed correct
gotcha my other question is
um
about the the streetscape particularly
along El Paseo Road I'm not sure I agree
with the notion that El Paseo Road has
been activated from a streetscape
perspective given the fact that you're
basically would be walking right up
against a compound wall you have no
building facades on El Paseo
so in my opinion that that's not you're
not activating anything I do appreciate
the location
or the revised location of the the
garages to more interior part and having
the duplex there but at the end of the
day this thing is is an enclosed
compound so I'm not sure I agree with
that sentiment and then I also noticed
or it appears that the Landscaping along
El Paseo would be almost entirely
inside the compound wall and so my
question would be if that's true why
wouldn't we want to accommodate some of
that Landscaping either between the
sidewalk and this wall or El Paseo the
sidewalk and the wall I think if you
were able to do that you could probably
make a slightly better argument that
you're uh
activating that streetscape but I think
right now it I just don't see how you
can say that
to that sure
Mr chair commissioner Kaiser we actually
did two things one is we mimicked
exactly what was happening at the Las
Cruces High School there are no
Landscaping it's all Hardscape it is
that that's in front of their buildings
it's all walled off you can't get it
there's no pedestrian connectivity at
all between the school and the sidewalk
is just a conveyance so what we are
doing is we're balancing that and we
definitely can add more Landscaping
outside of the compound to to balance
all those areas out but we are actually
creating that engagement up into the
street you also have speeds of upwards
of 45 posted people are driving 55 and
60 miles an hour along that street so
when you actually do get to a point
where you want to engage El Paseo you
really need to look at slowing down
traffic on El Paseo this is one step
towards that it does create that area we
do know that eventually maybe you will
have a trolley going down El Paseo so
we've made as many amenities and
connections that we can to do that but
we're also trying to keep our residents
safe through that area so we'd be happy
to work with staff when we're at
building permit to do that to do those
type of elements
yeah I appreciate that and I would
encourage you to continue to work with
staff to to make those improvements and
I would just say
using what you just described at the
high school it would not be a great
example to go by in my opinion we should
be doing the complete opposite of that
thank you thank you very much
commissioner Kaiser commissioner Smith
you had a comment
um yes I I too share some concerns with
traffic
um that the uh the Jake couple that came
up
um I'm very familiar with this area when
I first moved here 24 years ago for a
year I lived on Farney between El Paseo
and North Maine and I know that over the
years they've put in some some traffic
mitigation and calming measures
um you know the uh the applicant said
that you know the drivers
um well the the minimum wage is gonna be
55 you know for residents I'm 61. I plan
on driving for a while
um so I I think that you know a 55 year
old uh up and above will continue to
drive for for quite a long time if
they're you know in good health so the
traffic that's gonna it will be an
increase in traffic and and you know I
know this area that Park that they talk
about whether the soccer games we're
coming into the fall season
um soccer league is going to be in in
place there's another field additional
feel to the east of that where soccer is
played from NMSU students there's a
child care center there that gets heavy
traffic in the morning and not to
mention
um the increase the traffic from the
high school I'm not sure what's changed
over the generations but it seems like
most high school kids either get taken
to school by their parents or or they're
driving their own cars I think school
buses are not too not cool to ride on
anymore so the number the amount of
traffic around Las Cruces High because I
lived there there every day is just
incredible and also there are very few
drop-off points for the students so in
the mornings throughout the school year
there will be
um there will always be you know a high
level of traffic and having this
facility here this this complex here
um
the traffic will not be reduced it will
continue to be high and it actually will
increase so I notice this is more of a
an issue for the city as far as what
they can do at Las Cruces High to help
you know manage the traffic there but
just looking at this area and just my my
experience and familiarity with it
um the traffic will actually continue to
increase and I I'm not sure as you said
you're not sure how that could be
addressed but uh I just want to just put
on a record I think this is a concern
that that's going to factor in as this
project goes forward thank you
yeah thank you so much do we have any
more comments from many other members of
the commission
you know in that case uh could we get a
motion to uh uh vote on this uh I make a
motion to approve 9.5
um with the conditions outlined in the
staff report
all right
board member Vega
I vote Yes to approve with the
conditions
um pending the R3 approval also look
forward to seeing more affordable
housing in our city
for member Smith
I vote Yes for approval with conditions
based on staff recommendation and I just
hope that the traffic issue will be
addressed at some point in the future
board member Kaiser
yes with conditions based on staff
recommendation consistency with Elevate
plus Cruces and this definitely fills a
need
in our community
board member Bennett I vote to approve
based on staff recommendation site
survey there's all this also meets the
thoroughfare plan along with the El
Paseo Corridor blueprint board member
Costa
I vote Yes to approve based on staff
recommendation
um and with just mild concern over
security because I know we didn't really
hear that word too much tonight but I
think everything looks good as well
thank you chair Guerrero yes as well
based on staff recommendation uh fitting
with the Elevate Las Cruces in the
episode Corridor plans and as well the
the conditions proposed by staff
Mr chairman if I may I would like to
have the conditions that the motion was
made with conditions but I would like to
have the conditions specifically read
for the record so we know what that
condition was
absolutely yeah
Mr chairman members of the commission Mr
Nichols the condition
that staff put forward is as follows
that approval of the variances shall be
contingent upon approval of the pending
zone change to our R3
multi-dwelling medium density
thank you thank you Mr chairman that
condition will be as the vote was as a
motion was made in the seconds thank you
perfect so we don't we don't need to
vote for it again right I think we're
good
all right perfect well thank you very
much appreciate you being here uh we
still have three cases to go so hope
everybody's ready uh up next we have uh
case number 9.6 uh could I get a motion
to hear this uh case
I make a motion to hear 9.6
a second yep
remember back
board member Kaiser yes well member
Bennett yes former MiraCosta yes chair
Guerrero yes thank you all right perfect
go ahead
uh good evening once again Mr chair
members of the commission uh today uh
we're gonna be talking about 5332 Melody
Lane uh it is going to be a subdivision
Road waiver request
Uh current conditions of the property uh
the property is located at 5332 Melody
Lane it is a single family residence on
approximately 1.81 Acres it's currently
zoned REM which is our single family
residential estate mobile zoning
District
as I said before it's located on Melody
Lane which has been classified as a
local roadway right now Melody Lane
currently consists of a 50-foot roadway
easement 25 feet between different
properties and it also currently has a
20 foot wide paved roadway
um it's located in a low density
single-family residential area
as you can see here from the zoning map
this is the subject property
here's an aerial image of the property
on this aerial image the part that we're
going to be talking about is going to be
this section right here
just a little bit north of the property
line
so the proposal today is to waive the
road Improvement requirements associated
with the subdivision the associated
subdivision is a two lot single-family
subdivision
um as part of this they're required to
construct a full cross section including
pavement sidewalk curve and gutter and
lighting they've also dedicated a
25-foot roadway easement
as part of the um
subdivision
as you can see here this is the proposed
subdivision this is the 25 foot
roadway easement that was on the
property before that's going to be
dedicated to the city
as we can see here from the images this
is an eastbound or I'm sorry westbound
view of Melody Lane as it currently sits
this is an eastbound view of Melody Lane
as we can see it today
the required cross-sections are both a
minor local one or a minor local two
they require like I said a sidewalk
driving aisles
curb and gutter
public notice was sent to All relevant
or input and public notice were sent out
all relevant agencies and departments
reviewed all of them provided a
a recommendation
um
of denial under the first review all
except for utilities utilities didn't
provide any recommendation for denial as
it didn't
currently impacted them I noticed was
also sent out to the surrounding
properties
there was minor feedback although I put
on here there was no feedback there was
minor feedback in regards to um
what exactly the notice was it regarding
for the property
staff recommended denial based on the
following findings construction of all
subdivision
within the corporate limits of the city
shall conform to the applicable sections
of the city design standards access to
Lots within a residential subdivision
shall be from a dedicated and accepted
improved public right-of-way the
subdivider is responsible for providing
Road improvements for one half of a
I apologize for that it's supposed to be
for a full section of
local roadway which includes sidewalk
curb and gutter
as per the design standards in section
32-36 the applicant has not demonstrated
the need for the waiver due to
substantial hardship
such as exceptional topographic soil or
other surface or subsurface conditions
the DRC has also recommended that um
that the roadway recommended approval of
the roadway improvements along Melody
Lane as the project is going to be part
of a capital Improvement project
which at this moment has not been
determined when the roadways would be
improved through city funding but they
are slated to be a part of the projects
so today's options are going to be to
vote Yes for approval vote no to deny
and vote Yes with conditions or vote to
table
thank you thank you very much uh do we
have any uh comments from the commission
so I just wanted clarification so
earlier you said they recommended denial
and then it's it says in here that it's
uh they recommended approval the DRC I
guess I'm just confused so staff
provides a recommendation to DRC which
is our development Review Committee
um from there so the way the road waiver
request works is that it has to go
before our development Review Committee
for a recommendation to Planning and
Zoning commission where the Planning and
Zoning commission will provide a
recommendation to city council
once it goes to city council it will get
a
adopted as a resolution based on their
determination
so just for clarification they did they
recommended approval of the waiver or
correct okay the development Review
Committee recommended approval of the
waiver
uh based on
um comments made by an associate or
deputy director from Public Works saying
that it was going to be a part of a
capital Improvement project
so just to clarify at that point so
staff's recommendation to us tonight is
to approve the waiver
correct
okay
I have a question so the capital
Improvement project is going through I
mean that's going to happen
so from my understanding the capital
Improvement project is slated to happen
I just don't know exactly when
he has been part of some extensive
studies in terms of improvement both
from a drainage standpoint and which
roadways might be ripe for full
improvements Melody Lane is the first
one in line on that list of roads to be
improved in this particular area so it
will be sooner than later I'm not quite
certain as John had indicated if it's
going to be next year but it is on the
list and it's the first one in this
particular area
okay uh commissioner Kaiser to have
another comment or question yeah I yeah
I think our confusion is the staff
report has two things it has denial it
has denial and then also approval so
we're approving the waiver for status
recommendation tonight
yes so um
yes staff recommended denial however the
development Review Committee recommended
approval
okay thank you
no further questions I think my other
questions are relevant
yeah this this one's a little confusing
as well uh but thank you very much for
clarifying that do we have any members
from the public that would like to uh
make a comment
seeing none
um well can I get a motion for
just whatever we're doing
oh sorry oh I'm so sorry I did not see
you please come up for it
alrighty I'll need to swear you in if I
could get your uh first and last name
please uh Aaron with the others all
right Mr Gutierrez and do you swear and
affirm that the testimony you're about
to give is the truth and nothing but the
truth under penalty of law yes all right
go ahead you have uh three minutes I am
a property owner on that Melody Lane and
uh
I know there is a lot of running water
to go through and destroys the end of
the property point where he is
mentioning because I'm right on the
corner of masagarande and Melody Lane uh
is this going to be all the way the
whole street completely with Kevin
Gutter and and new uh asphalt and stuff
like that on that is that including
sewer and electric or I mean sewer and
gas or just an upgrade on the road
and we have a staff answering I believe
it was just a a portion of that right
it's not the full Street
uh Mr chair got commission
um so the property owner would be
required to do a
full cross-section for his property and
then
um asphalt for the remainder up to the
nearest paved or areas improved roadway
it does not include any type of
utilities
okay I hope that answers your question
all right thank you so much do we have
any other member from the public that
would like to uh make a comment or ask a
question
seeing none uh could I get a motion from
the commission
so I think I'm going to do this right so
I'm uh we'll motion to up approve agenda
item 9.6 which is waiving
the road improvements associated with
this subdivision is that correct
a second
and if we need to clarify that please
let us know yeah do we do we have the
the correct motion made
so Mr chair members of the commission
the the motion should always be made in
the affirmative okay always okay
I believe we're good to go
board member Vega
I vote to approve the waiver based on
staff recommendation
board member Smith
um
I I've known to deny based on
um
this request not meeting three of the
four zoning decision criteria and and
policies
so point of order
um commissioner Smith your vote is it to
approve the waiver or is it to deny the
waiver
to deny the waiver
board member Kaiser
yes to approve the waiver based on
staff's recommendation and the fact that
there's a capital Improvement planning
project ongoing that will address these
concerns
board member Bennett I vote to approve
based on DRC recommendations discussion
tonight neighborhood character and the
CIP that will be happening
board member Acosta
I vote to approve
based off of the recommendation of
approval and Elevate Las Cruces
chair Guerrero I as well vote Yes to
approve based on the DRC recommendation
and uh
yeah I just vote Yes approval five to
one thank you all right thank you very
much this this one passed this we're
moving on to the next one which is uh
item number 9.7 could I get a motion to
hear the uh the case
I make a motion to hear item 9.7
okay a second all right
board member Vega
yes board member Smith
yes board member Kaiser yes board member
Bennett yes
chair Guerrero yes thank you
uh good evening once again um today we
are bringing forth another subdivision
Road waiver request this one is going to
be located at 1086 Kennedy Road
the current conditions for the property
it's a single family residence on 2.27
Acres it's currently zoned to REM once
again it's our single family residential
estate mobile
Kennedy Road is a proposed principal
arterial currently it has a 20 foot wide
paved road and it is a low density
single-family residential area
here's a zoning map showing the area
here's an aerial of the area
so the proposal is to waive the roadway
Improvement requirements Associated once
again with the subdivision process
um they are going through the alternate
summary subdivision process where it
takes one lot and they're going to turn
it into two single-family subdivision
lines
um
currently right now Kennedy Road sits as
a 45 as a 40-foot right-of-way they are
also going to dedicate an additional 40
feet
and they are required to construct half
a road cross-section which includes
pavement sidewalk curb and gutter and
Lighting
as we can see here from the proposed
subdivision this portion right here is
going to be what they dedicate to the
city of Las Cruces for the roadway
improvements
as we can see here looking eastbound on
Kennedy Road we can see the asphalt
that is currently sits there
and this is what it looks like going
westbound
the required cross-sections whichever
they choose are here
and as we can see being a major arterial
it is going to require 120 foot
right-of-way
and as it currently sits they are not
going to meet the entire cross-section
so they would only provide half of their
cross-section
public notice and input reviewers were
sent to All relevant agencies and
departments all except for utilities
recommended than the denial of the
review I notice was also sent out to
surrounding properties once again we did
receive phone calls on this regarding
how it would impact surrounding
properties
on July 13 2022 this did go before our
development review committee staff did
have a discussion they recognized as the
existing improvements
um
were needed however they did recommend a
fee in lieu of the required improvements
for the preferred construction
based on that the development Review
Committee recommended denial based on
strict interpretation of the code
the denial based on findings from staff
as well as stated before were based on
construction of all subdivisions access
to Lots within a residential subdivision
shall be from a dedicated and accepted
right-of-way the subdivider is
responsible for Pride writing Road
improvements for one half of an adjacent
minor arterial roadway
and the applicant has not demonstrated
the need for the waiver due to
substantial hardship
due to exceptional topographic soil or
other surface or subsurface conditions
or that such conditions would result in
inhibiting the objectives of the code
today your options are to vote Yes for
approval vote no to deny vote Yes with
conditions or vote to table
all right thank you very much for that
presentation
do we still have a representative from
Moy serving on did you want to come up
and say a few things
foreign
and I won't need to swear you in because
you've already been sworn in so go ahead
sounds good thank you very much
um I I have a question that maybe staff
can help answer for me first it's kind
of related to a dedication take but what
a building permit without any replant
require a dedication or a trigger a
dedication as well
so the the confirmation or the answer
I'm getting is that a replant or a
building permit by itself wouldn't
trigger a dedication which I think is
really interesting always because as
we've heard other presentations tonight
that are multi-million dollar
presentations I'm almost certain that El
Paseo has to grow in its right away with
because I'm doing a replay there which
is requiring it but it's only because we
are vacating property lines at the city
now has the opportunity to take a
dedication and then potentially require
improvements on it because we're
removing lot lines versus a
multi-million dollar building project
may not require additional right-of-way
dedication which then wouldn't trigger
improvements potentially on that
we also just saw with our last case that
I also don't believe this is cited for a
CIP and I don't know if staff can answer
that question very quickly but I don't
believe this portion of Kennedy is
within the capital Improvement plan or
project
so therefore we have a case where
where
required to give a right-of-way
dedication to provide
a payment in lieu of in addition to that
for a portion of roadway that more than
likely won't get built out I don't even
think in my lifetime to be quite Frank
only because this property although it
does connect from angler would have to
have really large city dedication and
City takes through private property to
connect down to Armstrong so that's what
the major thorough for a plan is I don't
know if I could possibly bring that up
in that amount of time but the bigger
picture of this is that there is
connectivity from where angler and this
road would be all the way down to where
Armstrong is according to the mpo I
agree with all of that however I feel
like at some point I totally recognize
the importance of complete streets but I
also feel like it's a challenge to
burden the property owners to provide
dedication on a portion of a road well
to provide right-of-way Improvement on
the portion of a road that more than
likely will not get built again anytime
soon with that said my other question to
staff is are the funds for a payment in
lieu earmarked for this road
do we know that answer let's anyone be
able to
Catherine Harrison Catherine Harrison
Rogers for the record
um so at this point in time we have not
earmarked fees and lose particular
roadways however
in conversations with our finance
director it is possible to do that but
historically the answer is no yeah and
and again I recognize the importance of
that but I think when we look at that
whole picture in its entirety it's a
really interesting story because we have
property owners who are
quote I mean very factually developing
if we will because they are increasing
the number of lots but are now required
to give a payment in lieu for a road
that may not even be the road that they
are in fact living in front of
so yes this road does need some
improvement we've seen that it is a city
maintained road that has not been very
well maintained from the city in its
previous years but my concern is also
that
the payment in lieu won't even help to
satisfy what is required of this road
the denial from DRC stated
and I think that's a very interesting
thing to consider as we continue to
think about this because again if I
think if this was in the CIP then we
might be looking at a different
recommendation however because it's not
the homeowner is then required to
provide payments in lieu of for a road
that won't get built but the payment
won't even be applied towards this
portion of a road more than likely as
it's probably not high on the list
because that road dead ends about a
thousand feet down the road before it'll
ever become the minor material that it
has to be to connect to it so I think
it's again just important to think of
that whole narrative but I just wanted
to make sure that the commission is
aware of that yeah thank you thank you
very much for that thank you do we have
any comments from the commission
yeah go ahead commissioner Kaiser
this one's also a little bit of a head
scratcher for me so
um
I I think the the first place that I
immediately went to
um when reading through this application
is really the existing conditions as it
compares to what supposedly the future
conditions should be at some
undetermined time in the future
um and I'm having trouble sort of making
the connection there I intellectually
understand the need to plan and to
identify a minor arterial road but when
you look at the existing conditions of
the site and the neighborhood and I
think it's even stated in the DRC
comments that
more than likely the city is going to
need to execute imminent domain to be
able to fully build out the road as it's
as it's being planned for in the
thoroughfare plan
[Music]
um
so the fact that it's this and in Loop
fee is not earmarked
um is a little bit worrisome
um in that regard and that we have no
idea if and when the city can even fully
build out this road and here we are
asking somebody to pay a significant
amount of money for just subdividing a
single residential lot
to go into the general fund that may not
even ultimately end up contributing to
the funding of the road if and when it
does in fact get built
um
so that that's kind of what I'm
struggling with I guess is is how to
kind of reconcile that I could certainly
see a need for something smaller
um you know that would match more
appropriately the existing conditions
and the site maybe some modified
improvements but if you go back to that
road section the road cross sections
that you showed
that's a heck of a lot of money that
they're going to have to put up and then
if you compare that with the existing
conditions
I I it just it doesn't
it's not adding up to me
um and then I guess well my ultimate
question for clarification is we're
talking a total of 80 foot right away
designation
on both both those Parcels right
so for this one it would be um each well
the parcel as a whole would give it's
dedicating right now another 40 feet
through a prior subdivision it had
already dedicated five feet
um and then through this one so in total
it's gonna it has it'll dedicate a total
of 45 feet
towards the development of Kennedy Road
okay so the current right-of-way as it
stands now is how large
it's the 20 foot wide paved roadway okay
and then what in order to accommodate
this
future road condition how much
right-of-way total would you need to uh
would the city need to acquire
so the city would need to acquire right
away from each of the
adjoining properties that run along
Kennedy
I understand that so I guess looking at
the cross section it would be 120 feet
total the city currently only has
um you said 25 feet it's a 20-foot uh
asphalt as we can see from the image
and that
and that's the current right away at 25
feet
yes because from
um so from this portion we can see that
some properties have dedicated
right-of-way but they haven't
um
as their past subdivisions I can't speak
to how they provided their improvements
um if they were waived or
if they were having to be built upon and
other properties haven't created those
improvements so at the time we don't
have the full right-of-way
that we would need to acquire
understood and then looking across the
street directly across the street that
house would almost entirely have to be
raised in order to acquire or did or to
even build the road right I mean
correct that there are some properties
that would have to be
um adjusted in order to build the road
away to its full potential
but as
this occurs it may not reach that full
potential the applicant is also allowed
to propose an alternate cross-section
reducing the amount of right-of-way that
they would have to build out
okay thank you
thank you does anyone anybody else have
any other comments
I I had a similar concern as
commissioner Kaiser and as a
representative of made
um and I think you know it's just just
something to consider as we move forward
with co-teachers and and comprehensive
plans you know because if we are asking
people to pay a significant fee and then
they don't actually see you know see the
Improvement of the area they're they're
applying for I think I don't know that's
that's a little a little concerning so
just you know just wanted to share that
um well with that could I make a motion
or sorry somebody want to make a motion
for
I guess I'll make a motion to vote on
item 9.7
a second
all right perfect
Vega
correct me if I'm wrong
if we vote to table so that we can get
more answers to some of the questions
that we've proposed today was that an
option like specifically
would this be included in the CIP or
what does happen to the funding if
um
the property owner has to set aside
funds for the street
so this is Catherine Harrison Rogers for
the record so there's a motion on the
table to move forward with a vote to
approve if that's in the affirmative and
so that that motion there was a second
correct was there a second on that yes
so that motion's on the table and so
vote will have to be taken so if you had
wanted if you had wanted to table it
that would have been the motion that
would have been required at the time
um Okay so
my vote and then is to deny based on
staff approval or staff recommendation
board member Smith I vote to deny based
on Doc and staff recommendation
board member Kaiser
I'm voting to approve the waiver uh
based on
existing conditions and the uncertainty
around if and when
and how the the full Road cross section
would be developed in the future as well
as the lack of
earmarks for the end Luffy
board member Bennett
I vote to deny based on staff
recommendation
Acosta
I vote to approve based off of
commissioner Kaiser's response as well
and also just kind of with noticing a
precedence that was kind of noted down
here earlier as well and just finding it
a little bit difficult to pass on fees
that no one knows where they're going to
get spent yet so
all right
um I will I will vote to deny this but I
definitely wanted to you know just be
known that when we we need more
transparency as far as like fees and and
where it's going I think I think we owe
that to to the public
the vote was for to deny and two to
approve thank you thank you thank you
very much and we're moving into the the
final item of the ninth or the final
case of the ninth which is 9.8 uh can I
get a motion to hear this from the
commission
uh Mr chair if I may yes uh we've been
going at this nearly three hours I was
wondering if we might consider a
five-minute recess then come back to
consider the last item
uh I'm okay with that how does everybody
feel does everybody agree please all
right let's take a quick five minute
break it is 8 51. come back at 8 56 ish
and we only have one one last uh case uh
which is uh 9.8 uh can I get a motion
from the commission please
I make a motion to hear item 9.8
a second
all right
boy member Vega
yes board member Kaiser yes board member
Bennett yes board member Acosta yes
chair yes
okay go ahead good evening Catherine
Harrison Rogers for the record
um tonight we're bringing to you a
couple of recommended code modifications
related to recreational cannabis
um so just a little a little history on
this for those of you that may or may
not have been here
um April of last well actually April of
2021 excuse me
um New Mexico adopted the Cannabis
regulation act that was the the house
bill that put into motion recreational
Cannabis as an allowed use all over the
state of New Mexico by September 2021
the Cannabis uses were added to the
zoning code many of you were here when
when those were recommended for approval
to city council and then ultimately in
April of 2022 recreational sales were
initiated in the city of Las Cruces and
across the state
the regulation act allows jurisdictions
to control the time place and manner
including density so we can't restrict
Transportation or operation or signage
things of that nature
so again just to sort of recap what was
approved and what's allowed in our code
cannabis retail and Commercial micro
businesses are allowed in all of the
commercial zones C1 C2 C3
cannabis industry of course is allowed
in our industrial zones the research
labs are also allowed in our industrial
zones including the industrial
technology and then the residential
micro businesses are allowed in EE and
REM with a special use permit there are
some several conditions that do apply to
these all of these cannabis uses have to
be 300 feet from schools and daycares
there are some exceptions to that those
would be those types of schools that
teach adults such as the University or
commercial trade schools
those cannabis retailers and Commercial
micro businesses also need to be 300
feet from single-family residential
zones and also 300 feet between 1 and
another
at this point in time the code allows
that they can be closer if a special use
permit is obtained and there is no
consumption allowed in C1
cannabis Industries also have some
conditions that do allow some accessory
retail uses and then those residential
micro businesses that require a special
use permit have some additional
conditions that they have to be
accessory to a primary residence they
have to be limited to no more than 200
mature plants products for sale have to
be grown on site and they have to be
located in a fully enclosed accessory
building and 100 feet from other
residences
there are some issues that we've
encountered over the past year related
to some of the buffers
um
one such issue is that like uses such as
pharmacies or bars or taverns do not
have buffers
that have been applied to cannabis
a couple of other things to note is that
staff is not identified any unique or
additional impacts that would otherwise
be found with other retailers
so for example during my research I did
a contact code enforcement to see if
there had been any
code enforcement issues related specific
to cannabis retail and the answer was no
they really haven't encountered any of
that
uh one of the most common complaints
from the industry we have a regular
weekly meeting and of course we as staff
are here to answer questions via email
and phone as well is that that those
that are trying to enter the industry uh
specific to retail or micro businesses
have had a really hard time finding a
location
that is outside of this 300 foot buffer
it's it's a real challenge for people
um you all this thus far this year I've
heard five special use permits to reduce
that 300 foot buffer from those types of
uses to single-family residences
specifically there are also several in
the queue
um one non-cannabis issue that was
discovered
um after the adoption of the of the
repeal and replace having to do with
these sections of code is there was one
table that was in an inadvertently
omitted from the code that actually has
to do with some of the design standards
related to commercial uses such as
setbacks and height we would like to add
that back to the code for obvious
reasons
uh I had GIS do a an analysis of
commercial properties that are within
the 300 foot buffer to single-family
residential zones there are over a
thousand commercial properties in the
city of Las Cruces that fall within that
300 foot buffer it's a little hard to
see with this blue line but you can see
that a lot of the big commercial
corridors in town so this one would be
Telshor
we have El Paseo over here and a number
of others there's Valley you can see
that there are significant areas that
are really impacted by this buffer and
it's all over the city
so what staff is recommending based on
some of these issues that have come up
is that we restore the design standards
table to section 38-32
that we eliminate the 300 foot buffer
from these canvas retailers and
Commercial micro businesses to the
single-family residential Zone and also
eliminate the 300 foot buffer between
cannabis retailers and micro businesses
to other like cannabis retailers and
micro businesses
those are outlined in conditional uses
which is section 3853 of the code and
then also to eliminate that special use
permit requirement because it would no
longer be needed in this case from 3854.
staff has outlined the findings of
course here as well as in the staff
report and with that I am open to
questions your options tonight of course
are to approve to deny to vote Yes with
conditions if you see fit that there be
any changes or vote to table and I do
believe we have some members of the
public here in support of some of these
amendments absolutely thank you very
much for that presentation before we
move on to the public do we have any
comments or questions from the
commission
we can always do it afterwards too
because I know they've been waiting for
a while so yeah we we're going to have
members from the public come up
I'm sure I'm if I may yes
a member of the commission but a member
of staff I do have a couple of comments
that that impact this uh this proposal
that's before you or this uh
uh this this item this evening
right now we have about 37 applications
that have been filled out for cannabis
businesses of various types retail
storage growth some of those
of those 37 17 have been issued
what we're finding and and I don't know
that it was anticipated necessarily but
what we're finding is that most of the
businesses are not building new
facilities they're trying to find an
existing office existing building or
structure to to locate in
and that's what brings the problem of
this distance seeing them buffering
because those those available as
uh Miss Harrison Rogers mentioned
they don't always have that distancing
what's available to them it doesn't have
that distancing so that is really kind
of what's impacting a lot of this
proposal but I thought maybe it would be
informational to you to realize how many
are already in business how many are
pending approval from the state or other
recommendations
than to what is being considered here
today
yeah thank you very much for sharing
that uh please come up
can I get your first and last name sir
Scott krailing all right and do you
swear and affirm that the testimony
you're about to give is the truth and
nothing but the truth under penalty of
law I do all right go ahead you have
three minutes thank you very much Mr
chair and uh Commissioners we appreciate
the opportunity to talk my name is Scott
grailing I'm the director of public
Outreach or public engagement for high
horse cannabis company we we actually
don't have the stores here in Las Cruces
right now because of some of these
buffers I can tell you that we would
have stores open and running
um and and we're not necessarily in the
list yet because we're kind of waiting
to see what happens to make good
business decisions
um I think that the the one thing that I
want to say is that it's important as we
move forward in this new industry that
we treat cannabis the same way that we
treat other businesses
um they're I I don't think that any of
us are going to pretend like it wasn't
illegal in the recent past
um but it's no longer illegal and and so
with prohibition over it's important for
us to move into a new world where we're
talking about cannabis not in terms of
being bad but in terms of being good
because there's a lot of value that it
offers to a lot of people including
myself
and so we wanted to be here to thank the
staff for their approach to cannabis to
cannabis zoning and all the all the all
the way the ways that the city staff has
approached this industry I think is a
model for other communities to follow
and so thank you for that and please
know that there are people in the
industry who will positively benefit
from this obviously right you're you're
opening up a lot more opportunities and
one thing that I noticed when I
considered what that map looked like and
where what types of areas that the
current restrictions are eliminating and
they're they're you know Solano
you know North Maine communities are
neighborhoods not neighborhoods
commercial districts that could use some
revitalization and so I think opening it
up is going to contribute to social
equity and I think that it's going to be
a good thing for the city of Las Cruces
and so thanks for bringing this forward
I certainly hope that we can count on
your support thanks thank you very much
is there any other member of the public
that would like to speak
yeah come ahead
if I could get your first and last name
please
I am Derek Pacheco for the record all
right and do you swear in affirm that
the testimony you're about to give is
the truth and nothing but the truth
under penalty of law I do all right go
ahead you have three minutes as well
thank you Mr chair and Commissioners
excellent job tonight I know you've had
a a long night I'll make a brief I think
just real quick if you could speak a
little closer to the mic so that she can
hear you
my apologies I'll make a brief I have a
commercial building within the zoning
buffers that are allowed for cannabis
retail and other
verticals and
to give a brief Viewpoint of a similar
business and a similar setup that is
being proposed I fully support
neighboring businesses within the
buffers and to disable the buffer zones
I think will be a good thing for the
city a good thing for a free enterprise
and I think the market will dictate who
stays and who goes and I think that this
is a good move for Enterprise thank you
thank you thank you very much do we have
any other member from the public that
would like to speak
I think seeing none uh let's move on to
uh our committee does anybody in the
committee have any comments or questions
for staff
oh uh let's see okay go ahead
commissioner Costa
so just to be clear here
um any other additional recommendations
and conditions are still being accepted
right now is that correct or
[Music]
buffer that would remain of course is
the distancing between the schools and
the daycares and that is that's not one
that that we've explored we're moving
and it's is pretty standard across the
state
um sure I guess my clarification on that
specific one would just be the
definition of a school I do see Higher
Learning serving those 18 and older and
so I guess the definition of Higher
Learning and stuff like that and kind of
how those may be interpreted in 18 years
and older as that is a big exception to
particular schools in this town as well
so
so we have had early in the process
actually the legal department did
provide us some guidance in terms of how
schools were defined there still were
several State statutes that actually
outlined the definition of a school and
we would be happy to provide you some of
that documentation if need be I don't
have that with me currently I apologize
that no I mean just clarification on
that in terms of you know before being
completely I guess satisfied on that on
my end that's all thanks sure
thank you very much uh commissioner Vega
that you have a comment
it's a quick comment I think if this is
approved it'll save a lot of time for
the commission and for staff as well
just to put on the record I think the
growth opportunities for Las Cruces are
great I'd like to see more
um actually homegrown uh you know we
have a lot of businesses coming in from
out of state and it'd be really
wonderful to see some startups here in
Las Cruces so that's all
yeah thank you uh commissioner and I
have one quick comment I just want to
come in staff for just reviewing the you
know the various categories as far as
bars and pharmacies and and enjoying
that comparison and the impact they
would have
um you know as as commissioner Vega
stated you know um
the industry is growing and to be able
to have you know local homegrown
businesses
establish here and have an opportunity
to to use existing buildings uh I think
it's it's very important
um you know we've had you know companies
outside of you know New Mexico that
Express
very extreme interest in establishing
businesses here so I think having the
opportunity for local business people to
kind of have first crack uh some of
these buildings that are available is
good for just I think our local economy
yeah thank you Mr chairman if I may of
course uh I just went for a point of
clarification uh the code amendment that
is before the commission this evening is
specific to 300 foot buffer between
retailers
and single-family residential Zone not
to do with schools so those are the two
items that that you're considering this
evening uh just those two
thank you very much uh just a point of
order in addition to that of course then
there's also the the land use the design
standards table that was omitted and
advertently well thank you very much for
clarifying uh commissioner Kaiser yeah I
just want to Echo my fellow
Commissioners common source staff uh I
definitely appreciate
um you guys uh seeing an opportunity to
improve the process
um you know obviously it will save time
on your end as well as ours but I think
this is a good example of recognizing
something that might not be working out
well and being Nimble enough to
accommodate it and and adjust and it's
appreciated
absolutely thank you
I I also have a comment as well just
expressing things to the staff too we
have heard so many cases in the last I
mean just year really uh you know for
variance requests and I know this is not
going to fix it's not going to fix all
of it but it's definitely going to make
it a big difference I was actually kind
of surprised when I saw the map of the
like eligible business areas uh because
it you know as as it stands right now it
seems very uh limited as one of the
speakers said as well even I mean this
opens up salon on North Main you know
areas where there is higher amount of
population that can have access to to
these businesses so I just want to thank
you all
um well in that case uh can we get a
motion from the commission or is there
any any other questions
you know then perfect could we get a
motion from the commission um
a mission to vote on item 9.8 a second
all right
board member Vega
uh yes basically a point of order again
uh we need to clearly State what the
what the vote is to be about which is
the amendment to the buffering 300 foot
buffer between retailers and from
single-family dwelling residential zones
we need to redo the motion then
I would recommend that specifically you
could refer to this life so I'll start
over Okay uh I make a motion to vote on
item 9.8 with the recommended amendments
which include sections 3.832
to restore the design standards
sections
38-53 unconditional uses which eliminate
the 300 foot buffer from Cannabis
retailers micro businesses to the as of
our Zone and eliminate the 300 foot uh
buffer between cannabis retailers micro
businesses as well as eliminate the SCP
requirements to reduce cannabis buffer
please let me know if I missed anything
I'll second and Mr chairman if I may
again please
um
it's been brought to my attention that
there may be a Nichols for the record
it's been brought to my attention there
may be Commissioners that want to vote
on one and not the other
so rather than to combine them under one
something we probably should say first
consider the
the separation eliminating the
separation of 300 foot buffer between
retailers
and then in a separate motion to
consider for separation from
single-family residential zones
that would enable you to vote
one way or the other on each of these
specifics okay so we'll start with the
motion to approve a vote on 9.8 to
restore the design standards table
I'll second all right
four member Faygo uh yes based on staff
recommendation
board member Smith uh yes based on staff
recommendation enemies character and
compatibility board member Kaiser yes
based on staff recommendation board
member Bennett yes based on staff
recommendation board member Acosta yes
based on staff recommendation
well
sorry chairman Guerrero yes based on
staff recommendation as well
perfect so this motion passes so now
could I get a motion for the next item
make a motion to vote on item 9.8 on
eliminating the 300 foot buffer from
Cannabis retailers and micro businesses
uh to the sfr zone
a second
board member Vega yes based on staff
recommendation
board member Smith yes based on staff
recommendation and meeting character and
compatibility
board member Kaiser yes based on staff
recommendation board member Bennett yes
based on strap staff recommendation
foreign
[Music]
yes based on staff recommendation and as
well wanting to see more businesses
flower in New Mexico
this motion passes we have one more left
it's a commissioner of Vega do you want
to do this one also
right we are we still have one more
right
use permit and then
um
so we'll go next with well make a motion
to vote on item 9.8
on eliminating the 300 foot buffer
between the retailers and micro
businesses
a second
former Vega
yes based on staff recommendation board
member Smith yes based on staff
recommendation board member Kaiser yes
based on staff recommendation board
member Bennett yes based on staff
recommendation board member Costa yes
based on staff recommendation
yes based on staff recommendation as
well
so this motion passes now we have one
left all right go ahead
um I make a motion to vote on item 9.8
to eliminate the special use permits
required to reduce the Cannabis buffer
a second
board member Vega
uh yes based on staff recommendation and
comments to share today board member
Smith
yes based on staff recommendation and
meeting character and compatibility
board member Kaiser yes based on staff
recommendation board member Bennett yes
based on staff recommendation
yes based on staff recommendation chair
Guerrero yes based on staff
recommendation
all four votes passed six to zero thank
you perfect thank you very much
that concludes the cases in the agenda
uh next item is is there any further
discussion
on anything tonight
looking like there's not then we have a
uh we move the real at Las Cruces update
to the front which I'm really glad we
did
next up is uh do we have any
announcements from staff
I I will try to take a stab at it and
Larry can correct me if I'm wrong uh we
have a couple of announcements in terms
of maybe some staff changes you may see
at these meetings
um David Weir and I will still be very
much involved but we're really shifting
our Focus to trying to finalize the
realize Las Cruces project
so you will be seeing some people who've
been here for a long time but many of
you may not know Adam Ochoa who has been
he was a planner with the department for
a long long time and is now plans
examiner and now he's acting senior
planner so he will be showing up from
time to time and then Dr Tim Pitts who
is one of our Deputy directors who is
now assisting sort of with those duties
as well Larry is there anything else you
wanted to add
Mr chairman members commission thank you
Catherine I know you covered it very
well I just would uh briefly say that
this this was brought on by the
there was a
a restructuring from the city manager
Office for the long-range planning that
was in the Community Development
Department they've established uh it's
called long-range planning and and
implementation to to the uh Elevate
comprehensive plan I brought a
restructure and then we made
appointments to several acting positions
and then we'll be recruiting for those
those vacancies that were created by
that restructuring
so yes you'll be seeing some new faces
but there'll be those that have had vast
experience and planning and zoning
activities
I have no further announcements for the
commission thank you excellent thank you
change is good somebody had can I jump
in there I just wanted to I don't think
Harvey Gordon's here but
um I just wanted to thank him for his
years of public service and he will be
sorely missed
absolutely he's a great guy uh well with
that being said uh could I get a motion
to adjourn the meeting
make a motion to adjourn
I'll second
alrighty perfect
board member of Vega yes
board member Smith yes remember Kaiser
yes board member Bennett yes foreign yes
perfect well this meeting is adjourned
thank you everybody
we'll see you next month