Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

l now call to order the February 24th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission. It's 6:00 and I am Chair Kent Thurston. First on the agenda. Is there any conflict of interest? All right. Seeing none, we'll move on to public participation. If someone. If someone has anything to say, that's not really on the agenda here today. Go ahead and come on up. And we'll allow you to have have some time to, to speak since it's just public participation. Also, if you we do have one item on here on the. Consent agenda. So if you if anybody on the would like to hear that from the from the audience, you can kind of come up and also say something on that one. So we're going to go in is any any participation from the public tonight. Go ahead. Come on up to the mic. And I don't have to swear him in on this one. Right. Because it's just public participation. Go ahead, state your name and we'll give you three minutes. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Terrence Beverly. I'm here because of the proposal to change zoning for cannabis operation on the corner of Three Crosses and Alameda. I believe it's okay that that one will be on the agenda tonight. So we're going to get to that one later so I can speak at that time. Yes. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Is there anybody else public participation okay. All right. So we have the acceptance of the agenda. This includes the minutes and the

items on the consent. If if any item on the consent needs to be removed for discussion, now would be the time to do so. Do anybody have any? I'll make a motion to accept to approve and accept tonight's agenda. Mister chair. I'll second that motion. Commissioner Costa. Yes, Commissioner. Smith. Yes, Commissioner. Yes, Commissioner McCaslin. Yes. Commissioner Murray is absent. Commissioner Kizer. Yes. And, chair. Yes. Okay. Your agenda has been accepted. And consent agenda item approved. All right. So moving on to new business. First we have item 7.1. Can I have a motion to approve 7.1 a motion to approve item 7.1 A second. All right. Now we'll turn it over to staff for the presentation. Thank you chair Adam community development for the record, before you, we have a proposed special use permit for a cannabis dispensary located at 2110 North Alameda Boulevard. If that address sounds familiar, a cannabis dispensary was permitted. A special use permit was approved for cannabis dispensary there about two years ago. In 2024. Current conditions are located in the southeast corner of Alameda Boulevard and three Crosses Avenue. Property encompasses roughly about a quarter of an acre in size and is currently a developed commercial property, but that is currently being redeveloped out of it's vacant phase. This proposal is following the 2001 zoning code. This application was submitted right barely before the end of the year, for they could try to get this

special use permit because technically, under the current new development code, they use is no longer allowed on the property, which is why they they pushed this to get it in under the the, the grace period for the old code. So under that the property under the under the 2001 zoning code is zoned C-2, especially SGP application submitted during grace period. They're allowed to come here, which is again why we're reviewing it now. So showing the zoning map here. This is again under the 2001 to go to the property here zoned C-2 by sea to the east, North and west, and multifamily zoning as well. Of course, those south past the lateral here which is lateral, that is where we have single family again showing the property here. We all might know it as the Eagle Mart and Laundromat, which was one of the previous businesses that were on that property. So this is a proposed new cannabis dispensary under 2000. One zoning code requires a cannabis related business to obtain basically a special use permit when located within 300ft of a single family zoning district. This property is roughly approximately 155ft from a single family medium density zoning district to the south, which I just showed on the map. This will allow all this will. The proposal will follow all City of Las Cruces standards and requirements, as well as all state in New Mexico. Regulations governing cannabis related retail activities. Since after the analysis, we really saw no life safety welfare issues as identified by this proposal. The business will function like any other business within the city. Like if it was a bar, it was a convenience store. It basically would service the same, if you will, requirements from the school, daycare and other cannabis related establishments. The Elevate Las Cruces Comprehensive Plan has numerous goals and policies and actions

that support the proposed SCP, which includes encouraging the redevelopment or reuse of of properties or commercial properties that are vacant in the core of the city. Proposed site appears to meet all standards and requirements of code. Staff will assure that before a business license is issued for the proposed cannabis dispensary approval, the SCP will allow the continued use of a developed commercial property. Like I said before, in the core of the city. So public notice was sent out following all standards and requirements of our of our zoning code. Surrounding properties received notice. It says here staff received no comments, but literally about an hour ago we received about three phone calls one just asking questions about it, general questions about the dispensary and to who were basically church goers or church people who who go to a couple of churches that are close by there that were against the proposed cannabis dispensary. But that was essentially it. So with that tonight, staff does recommend approval for the proposed special use permit based on the following findings. Subject property does meet the distance separation required from a school or daycare and other cannabis related establishments. In terms of the proposed uses, business will function again like any other business within the city, and the proposed meets the purpose and intent requirements of section 30 8-2 of the 2001 Zoning Code, as amended. Well, no longer amended, but just 2001 zoning code and no longer in effect. Additionally, all alcohol requirements as outlined in 2000 and Zoning Code and those stipulated by the State of New Mexico must be adhered to, and subsequent operation of the proposed business. The. Meets the purpose and intent of elevate Las Cruces through the promotion of higher development intensities and incorporation of a small commercial uses along major thoroughfares, which Alameda Alameda is considered a collector roadway

as, as well as Three Crosses Avenue as well. Well that tonight commission your vote your options one to vote yes and approve the proposed special use permit as recommended by by staff to vote no. Deny the proposed special use permit. Just remember, a denial requires new information or facts not identified or presented during staff review since we are recommending approval. Three vote to amend adding conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission tonight or for the tablespoon and direct staff accordingly. That is the conclusion of my presentation. The applicant representative is here if you have any questions for them, but I stand for questions. Does the applicant have wish to have a presentation? Not at this time, sir. All right. Is there. We're going to move on to public participation then. And I'm going to go here on the left. And I believe I have to swear him in on this. Is that right? All right. So come on up. Do you remember. Do you have is there a. Do I have to swear him in. Yeah. All right. Can I get your name? Yes, my name is Terrence. Joel. Beverly. All right. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law? I do. Go ahead. Good evening again. I'm a long time member of this community. My first house was on this property we're at today. My second house is maybe three blocks away on the corner of San Pedro and Mountain. I went to Alameda, to Lucero Elementary, where it's worth this. The library is at now. I went to Washington Elementary, went to Alameda Junior High, I

went to junior high, and I graduated from high school. After graduating, I went to the military and I went to school in Phoenix, Arizona. When I came back. This has been and will always be my home. This cannabis shop is in the lucky used to be formerly Lucky Eagle Mart on that corner. You walk in the doors and there's a big glass counter and they have 50 or 60 glass bongs and pipes right there, right next to the candy section, practically where the kids go and buy their fountain drinks, their candy. Everything's right there out in the open. These are little children that can go in there and buy ice cream cones. I've got a problem with that. You know, I used marijuana growing up. I don't recommend it to nobody. It's an excuse. There's hundreds of kids that live in that area. There is a school bus that parks on the property of one of the churches there, which is a minute walk across the street to there's a school bus stop there with elementary kids going in and out of there morning and evening. Besides my religious opposition to this, there's also a health factor involved. If you're promoting a smoking of any kind, it's going to be wrong. That's about all I got to say. I just hope it doesn't pass, because that community, that that neighborhood is in desperate need of help anyways. It's it's a really poor. I replaced at least 7 or 8 windows in the past year at my church. From people breaking in. We've had break ins at that church all the time. Meanwhile, the church is out there doing food bank and we have our doors open anytime during the week. You can go by there and if you're

hungry, we'll send you home with a box of food. Thanks a lot for your guys time. Have a blessed week. Thank you. All right. We're going to keep going on to the left. Is there anyone on the on the left. Go ahead. Come on up. And can you please state your name and then I'll try again. Sure. My name is Margaret Wetzel. All right. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law? I do thank you. Go ahead. I'll give you three minutes. I am the property manager for the Texaco conference. And we own one of the church properties there on three crosses. I have a statement tonight from one of our members that was unable to attend, and he would like me to read it for you. This issue tonight is personal to me. My family roots are in this neighborhood. We originally sold the store property before it was a berry field, among other things. But children are more important than profits, adding more things to to trip kids up is inexcusable. Illegal or not, cannabis products are harmful, and especially for kids, there are more than enough outlets for THC. Please do not add this one to the list. And this is from Lloyd Lindbeck. And I also have, you know, some of the same concerns. You know, we have children that go in and out of this facility and we already have issues with break ins in the property. And I just feel like this adds to the issue. There's been several times where there's been homeless people that have to be, you know, asked to leave. It's it's just not a good situation in that neighborhood. And that's it. Thank you. Thank you.

Stand on the left. Anybody else come on up. And once again, once you get up there, if you'll state your name, I'll swear you in. My name is David Todd. And do you do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law? I do thank you. I the the lady in the gentleman who spoke with, I guess, the seventh day Adventist Church. I, I go to the church on the other side of the the road, the Mountain View Christian Church. So we know that, you know, THC has problems. We're finding out more and more about what those problems are. So there's there's reports of paranoia and schizophrenia and, and so this drug we're, we're basically putting this magnet for drug use in our community. We're less than a block away from this, from this storm. So we've had a break in a couple of years ago where they stole our sound system. We had we installed two mini splits on the on the same side towards the store. They came in and they cut the copper lines. It probably gained them about $20, but it cost us several thousand dollars to replace the equipment. That was both the mini splits, the repair, the the copper lines and then put enclosed barbed wire fence fences to keep anybody out.

We've also had people behind our clinics who are obviously smoking, just kind of hanging out there. That's within like two businesses. Well, the one building and then us of the that store. So we also had a couple last year who decided to roll around against the back wall of our building and light a fire under it. And then we have a rock falling for one of our windows, and it cost us several hundred dollars to replace. So this store is going to be a problem in our community, and we just really need to think about what we're doing. You say the man who was promoting this said, this is a line with elevate Las Cruces. I don't see how this is elevating Las Cruces to bring yet another of these businesses in here, because there's already one within a mile down off of Main Street. So and that's probably 15 others in the city. You don't need to have all these stores and some of them are already going out of business. So I just feel that you should deny this request. Thank you, thank you. Anybody else on the left? All right. Well, I guess my left. You guys are all probably wondering. He keeps saying left. I'm backwards. Okay. Over here on the right. Go ahead and come on up.

And I can swear in Karen Rogers RA ers. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law? Yes. Go ahead. Yeah, I understand fine. Marijuana is legal. It's legal in New Mexico. We can't. It is what it is. It'll be here. I'm not against it. You want to smoke up? Smoke up? But what I want to talk about is where is the actual intersection? It's at. I live one block down from this place. And just since January of this year, I've seen 42 fender benders for people cutting across towns in place, not stopping on Hoagland onto Alameda, people cutting across as fast as they can across Alameda into the gas station. Now we have people who can who who will be wanting their pot shop and they'll be crossing over the street. I saw that they said it has no impact to the safety. That's not true. I'm already watching. I'm already watching accidents. I've watched 5 or 6 major accidents with multiple ambulances happen in that intersection. I live there, I'm the one who sees most of them, the one who calls them in to the police. So I believe that adding more traffic by having a marijuana shop there can endanger the safety of the neighborhood will cause more accidents. That is one of the only thoroughfares in and out of that section. If there is a major accident due to someone needing to get their fix, or they've run out of their gummies and they pull in there and they're already high and they cut across the intersection because the light's going to change and it's a major accident. You've closed down Mayfield High getting through. You've closed down people's access to Main Street and Albertson's. You've closed down people trying to go down to Dalrymple using Dona Ana Avenue traffic and the problems that can come from the traffic of people trying to get in and out of that shop could

be a major issue for that neighborhood. I watch it every day. I watch the high schoolers speed to get in and get out. I want to talk about there are, I agree with people that there are enough pot shops in this town, cannabis shops, pot shops, THC businesses. There's enough in this town. You can't throw a stone down without finding one. You drive down valley and there's 3 or 4 drive thrus. We have enough. If people can't drive that mile and a half to go get their fix, then maybe they should plan ahead. Better to plan ahead to get milk. Maybe they should be planning ahead to go get their edibles or their smokables. I also want to talk about the fact that we have increasing homelessness because of the canal back there, because of the parks. I have a wall in front of my house and I see people smoke on that wall daily. I don't need more people smoking on my wall. That is my homeowners liability. If they were to fall off of my wall into the street, that is my liability. If they just randomly fall the other way into my property. We are just asking for the homeowners in that area to assume more liability for other people's actions. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else on the right that would like to speak? All right. I think we're going to close for public participation and go to the counselors or counselors. Right. Commissioners. Man I'm terrible at that. All right. Go ahead. Keizer I've got a question about the 2024 special use permit that was approved at this location. Can you talk more about the relationship with this application? Did it

expire? Like, what's what's the deal with that, mister chair, Commissioner Keizer, that unfortunately this didn't come to fruition. They're actually looking at doing a complete addition onto that building to the south side of you can kind of see it on your on your site plan that's in your packet. They're doing an addition to the south side. Let me just pull it up. How about that. Right. They're trying to do an addition here to the south side. And that's where they're going to be doing all their cannabis related business and just keep the convenience store here. But unfortunately this is in the very bad floodplain area. So that addition would have just taken forever with flood studies. Kent knows all that fun stuff, FEMA requirements, so on and so forth like that. So unfortunately that one just fell through, unfortunately. So now this is a new business that's trying to go in there since it's a new business, a new business required to submit for a new special use permit. Okay. And then putting it on the inside of the building. Then is the city confident that they can meet all the state requirements around the security protocols for getting in and access to the products? Mister chair. Commissioner Kaiser, the state has been working with the city tremendously with actually having agents, if you will, to make sure before anything gets issued by them, they go out there and inspect and make sure what they have in place meets requirements for state statute as well. We go out there and make sure they're meeting requirements from fire code standpoint, building code standpoint and planning as well, sir. So there's about four different I set of eyes on any type of a new proposal including cannabis or. Okay. So presumably the applicant is confident they can meet those requirements. Otherwise they wouldn't be here. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? Commissioner, that is correct. The applicant's representative has actually helped numerous cannabis businesses in the city of Las Cruces open up and make sure that they're following state statute and city

requirements, sir. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. A question I guess, for staff. I know, you know, it's been probably a minute since we've seen one of these applications come through. I honestly don't even remember the last one we've seen. But I know, you know, we get a lot of concern from residents and the neighbors to these businesses about, you know, potential increase in crime and attracting, you know, whatever it may be. I know in the past, the city has not been able to produce any evidence that that has been a reality that comes to bear as a result of these businesses. Have there is the city aware of any incidences where these businesses have produced an increase in crime in the vicinity? Mr. chair, Commissioner Kizer no, the only time we really see any issues is when they go above and beyond what they're allowed to do with their cannabis related business. They'll open up a lounge that's not permitted. They'll have like a block party that's an upper mid or something like that. That's what we see. Typically all the other stuff is an enforcement issue, so we keep an eye out for that. If we do see an issue with our code enforcement or police department, we do contact the state. And of course the state state troopers as well, because they're the ones who are enforcing all that, as well as the agents for the state of New Mexico, the the Bureau for cannabis. Thank you. And then my final comment, just generally on this particular intersection, definitely understand the safety concerns there. You know, that's whether this goes in it's approved tonight or not. Those conditions still exist. I mean this is not far from another part of town, McClure road, that we have heard from a lot

of residents. And I know this commission has has expressed our desire for the city to address some of those via other mechanisms. But this unfortunately, the special use permit doesn't allow us to address those issues. Those issues are going to be there. Regardless of whether or not this goes through tonight, I will say, you know, it is a gas station. It's a prime location. There's apartment complexes going in nearby. You've got a trailer. The trailer and the ladder there. It's a prime location. I really wish there was an opportunity to reimagine what this corner could be from an economic development perspective. I think a gas station there is not ideal from a just a highest and best use of the that particular lot, but unfortunately that's not before us this evening. So that's just what I have to say about that. You know, the commissioners. Mr. Chair, if I may, and these are just out of curiosity, question staff, this intersection can get congested. We all understand that. But did we consider the impact of the factors of related to traffic as a concern? Mister chair? Commissioner Acosta, our traffic traffic section did take a look at this. It's it's not an additional use. It's just ancillary use with what's existing on the property. There's no issues with the additional. The increase in intensity was not that that required any type of special traffic impact analysis or any type of study for traffic in that area. Unfortunately, as Commissioner Kizer brought up, this area is the roadways are rather antiquated, if you will, in their design and their widths and so on and so forth. Again, these are thoroughfares. But as you can see, they're restricted thoroughfares unfortunately. So it's just going to take a real big bond to city. I guess we'll have to

basically pony up and and get that road, those two roadways redone in order for them to be wide enough to be more safe and so forth like that. But again, like like Commissioner Kizer said, we see this unfortunately in this part of town a lot, ma'am. And so this would not impact Jessup whatsoever that traffic lanes, other traffic section did approve this, ma'am. They saw no issues with the proposal. I have one additional question. Can you. Update me? Is there any standards or for being the distance, being close to a church? Because I mentioned there was two individuals that spoke that they their churches are close to this establishment. Mr. chair. Commissioner Acosta, there is not a distance requirement from religious institutions per not per our ordinance, ma'am. Thank you. Mr. Acosta, just a quick question for staff, considering since April 2022, Las Cruces is the third leading revenue driver of the cities for New Mexico at 141 million, just a little north of that. You know, looking at that would be, you know, assuming around almost, you know, 3.9 million. Do we know how much of that we've received and or what it's used for? Mr. chair? Commissioner, I unfortunately do not know that. I do know our finance department and our city management was working on those things, but we have no idea what's happening with those money, sir. So, Commissioner Kaiser's point, you know, I do see two separate issues, you know, one that continues to not go away. I don't know if there's any way that, you know, cannabis businesses, for instance, going in and redeveloping a property or whatever that may be, you know, hopefully adding some security presence with that, because the

security presence that the law requires in that aspect, you know, I think it would be good to see the city also follow up with the fact that there in and invest in on properties to make sure you know things around the area, but around the city are safer and more comfortable for residents around, you know, around here. So that's, I suppose, my comment leading it off of Commissioner Kaiser. Alright. Thank you, Commissioner Smith. I support for some things. First of all, I want to address your concern about traffic. It's been a long time. About 20 years ago I was a Las Cruces police officer and I used to personally, after working through this at us, because they didn't really follow traffic on the road as. Well. Signs. So, you know, that was over 20 years ago and traffic has always been a problem there. And probably until something happens, what that really is going to be. And so I showed you before that and it's always and in fact, I don't think that, you know, the having the cannabis in this, they have a negative impact on traffic because there's been a lot of, you know, there's a difference selling alcohol and alcohol is available to young people that cannabis is and you know, and so it's not easy to to purchase cannabis compared to purchasing. It because that's just sitting on shelves. And and so I'm just I'm just getting different points to, to, you know, people's concerns because we've had cannabis

businesses here for six years now. And yes, their very different than than, you know, a restaurant. And these are going to survive or are they going to, you know, or or die based on their ability to provide a service that that people will want to purchase and have a business that people want, you know, will help them with? And so, you know, cannabis businesses in this town, it's tough competition. And so they're going to a lot of their business. And the best way possible in the strictest way possible to, you know, to be successful. So, you know, there's this idea that, you know, having a cannabis business here as opposed to a liquor store is going to cause, you know, a decrease in, in drug use. Well, it's already high use of alcohol and very accessible to homeless people, to students. And so, you know, we have to be realistic about paranoia concerning a cannabis business because they're very difficult restrictions as far as you know, how how the how the business owner provides the service and how the customer is able to purchase it. A student can walk into a store and buy a plastic bottle of fireball, you know, easily, but there won't be able to go behind the counter and purchase cannabis products. So I feel that, you know, that's a concern that we have to operate from a from a basis of reality as far as how accessible this these cannabis products are to kids or students, because it's going to be very, very difficult for that to happen. You know, I

want to make one more is on this. Years ago, we had a someone come before the the commission to get approval to have a cannabis business on on El Paseo, which shared a parking lot with a large church there. And that building was used to be I think it was it was an Asian restaurant, Japanese restaurant. Right beside that is a schnitzel. And at that time I remember making a point. I would argue that the food or the food product that they sell, snitzel, is a lot more dangerous to a child than trying to purchase cannabis from a cannabis store with the heavy restrictions that they have there. Because any child, any person, can walk up there and buy some hot dog with ingredients chemical with a list of laws that would provide that would have more harm, way more harm than the almost impossible chance of them getting a cannabis product. So I'm sorry, I operate in reality. I like to be a common sense person. I don't like to have, you know, create a narrative that becomes your reality that you can that people freak out about. And so I was like, once again, I will say that the the danger of having that cannabis there and the negative impact that it would have on that community is not going to be, as, you know, bad as as people would think. So I know I took a lot of time, but I just something I just wanted to share. Thank you. Commissioner Mikkelsen. Thank you. So I just wanted to talk about this from the commercial real estate standpoint. So in this city, the the fire department has told us that the number one concern of loss of life is vacant commercial buildings. I realize this one's not vacant,

but the presence of any operating business with increased security and lighting is a huge benefit to any property owner here. So I just hope that you guys understand that the more business awareness that we have than hopefully the safer our city and our neighborhoods can be. Any any other one I had, I just have one question and that's the 300 foot rule. How did that come about? Who who set the 300 foot rule and what was what was the jurisdiction or how how did you come up with 300ft when that was approved, Mr. Chair? Basically that was done by the city themselves when cannabis was legalized by the state of New Mexico, where the state of New Mexico said, you have to allow this. You could put some type of restrictions and standards on it, but you have to allow it. So the city just look what we looked at was what's out there that requires a 300 foot. It would require some type of separation. The number one thing was liquor licenses. Of course, liquor licenses require minimum 300 foot separation from any school church, that that's where a church religious institution comes into play. And any military institution or installation of. My apologies. And that as well. That's less than 300ft. City Council basically votes on that as well to waive the required 300ft. The the avenue we have to do it with y'all was with a special use permit. It was less than 300ft in order. If we could allow for that, for that use to move forward that way. It was case specific for that case and doesn't run with the property, if you will. It's just for each particular business that goes into that property that's trying to do that business. So that's a quick history of how we came up with all that. So if the city is the one saying 300ft, and in this case, then the city is the one saying it's okay to be within the 300ft. Mr. chair, that is correct. We we looked at all life, safety, welfare issues, send it out to all reviewing parties,

including fire department, traffic engineering section as well, to see if they saw any issues with the potential use of the property. And everybody had no issues with the proposal and with the additional use on the property. And that 300ft just we have to be notified of a single family residential. Mr. chair, the way it reads is a cannabis related business has to be a minimum of 300ft from a single family zoning district. If it's less than that, then a special use permit can be requested for okay. I think that's really my that that's really just my only sticking point. Just I don't know I don't know if it's fair to. A mixed because it's like you're going to run a business and people want to run a business and it's good for business. In, in, in all these commercial areas, we don't know that you do want the GR tax. My only issue though is, is that we, the city itself puts a parameter on it in which we are wanting to go away from it. That's really my only issue with it is, is just that we have a 300 foot that we would like to, to someone set it up for good, for good reason in my opinion, keeping it away from houses. But that's really all I have. I don't have anything else. So I guess I guess we're now at the point for a for a vote. Mr. Chair and commissioners, could you repeat who the motion and second was for this case before I take the vote, I think Commissioner Kizer was a motion okay. And it was a tie for a for a second between Commissioner Acosta and I believe Commissioner Smith

was it I heard two voices. Sorry I was writing it. Yeah I think you just put a coaster. You okay? Yeah. It was a tie between Commissioner Smith and Commissioner. Okay. Thank you. Well, I'll go ahead and call the roll now, I did have one more question for for staff, and I think, commissioner may have kind of a similar question. I know we've had those in the past for cannabis businesses and and they would approve. Or is there any information or data as far as like any problems, what those places where we've approved variances that were close to homes or to a school or to a church, it has it has it affected any data that says this has been a problem or has not been a problem? Mr. chair, Commissioner Smith, from the time I've been doing special use permits, we have not had any issues based on how the business is being run or the the. Any issues with the neighborhood and so on and so forth. Like I said before, the issue we've had is how they've been conducting business. For instance, there's one that funny enough, you say, close to a single family zoning district. There's one off the I forget where it's off, but it was within 300ft of a single family zoning district. Basically, that business would say, come on in, buy a t shirt, and you got yourself a free gram of something by $100 t shirt. You get yourself some free cannabis. So that was shut down because the state told us about that. That was happening. So the business was completely closed. That's the only one that I'm aware of that we had potential issues with. But this was years ago when cannabis was still in its infancy and people were trying to see what they can and cannot do. But like I said before, the state of New Mexico's cannabis division has grown exponentially from when it first started, so there are definitely keeping a better eye

on on everything out there, sir. Thank you. And sorry if I if I just may elaborate on that and the operating protocol, if you will, is pretty robust for cannabis. So let's say there is some, you know, issues that are perceived by the neighborhood. It's a code enforcement issue. You can request that to be investigated inspected. And if it if they find that they're out of compliance, there's there's you know, they have to be held responsible for that. So I just want to make it very clear that there are very robust operating protocols for these facilities. Mr. chairman, commissioners, I just wanted to add one other things, the the petition or the application before you tonight is a special use permit. It's not a a waiver or a variance. And this is kind of a zoning distinction. But typically variances have to be based on some specific condition or hardship with a property. This is a special use permit. So certain cannabis if they meet all these distance requirements they're allowed a permit to operate without having to come before you. The special use permit is just a process. It's not a it's not a prohibition of this use. It's just a condition in which we want additional review to to have it go forward, to have an opportunity for the neighborhood or adjacent properties to express that. So it's it's a procedural type of item that's going forward. And so there's a little bit different criteria that you have to to to review that. So let me. All right. We're ready for a vote okay. Commissioner Acosta. Yes. Commissioner Smith. Yes. Commissioner McCaslin. Yes, Commissioner. Murray. Yes. And

Commissioner Acosta. Yes. And Chair Thurston. Oh, excuse me, Commissioner Kizer. Yes. And Chair. No. Mr. Chair, the the special use permit was approved. All right. On to the next one. Can I have a motion to approve seven item 7.2. Mr. chair, I move to approve. And can I get a second? I second. All right. Next we need a motion to motion and a second to suspend the rules to hear item 7.2 and 7.3 together, I make a motion to suspend the rules to hear item 7.2 and 7.3 together. I second. All right. Now we're going to turn it over to staff for presentation. Good evening everyone. John Castillo for the record. Today we have Soaring Eagle Heights subdivision master plan and preliminary plat, the current conditions of the property. It's located at the northwest corner of Elks Drive and Moreno Road. The lot currently encompasses approximately 23.83 acres. It's an undeveloped, vacant parcel of land. The current zoning on the property is NH one S, which is our neighborhood, one suburban, and it's also located within the suburban neighborhood place type, predominantly surrounded by single family residential development. We can see here is a zoning map of the property that's highlighted. And some of the zoning around it. Here's an aerial view of the vacant property. So the master plan proposes a single family and multifamily residential development on a parcel of land.

This will be done in four phases. Three of those phases for single family lots and one phase for multifamily lot. There will be a tract for drainage, which will be maintained and owned by the developer. And then there's three other tracks for the development of roadways and to provide a pedestrian access to the adjacent school that is near the property. Here's an image of the master plan. The next proposal for the preliminary plot, once again, is a single family and multifamily residential development. Phases one through three are approximately 16.296 acres. This will have 71 residential lots, six internal roadways that will provide access to Moreno and Elks with a pedestrian access to the adjacent school. The improvements in dedication also proposed for Elk or for Moreno and Elks. Phase four, which is approximately 7.196 acres, will be used for multifamily residential housing. And here's an image of the preliminary plat. As you can see, phase one is kind of at the top corner. Then phases two and three are facing more towards Moreno Road. And then phase four is a larger tract of land that is at the corner of Moreno and Elks. The analysis showed no life, safety or welfare issues identified. The proposed master plan is. The proposed master plan complies with the requirements and standards of the City of Las Cruces. The proposed preliminary plat also complies with the requirements of the City of Las Cruces and the subdivision code. The new lots that are being created by the subdivision comply with all requirements of the 2025 Development Code, and then potential for providing attainable housing in the area, as well as provide a range of housing in the area. Per

elevate Las Cruces comprehensive plan. At the time of this presentation was created, notice was sent to all surrounding properties within 500ft. Staff received no emails or phone calls related to the proposal. This did have to go before our Development Review Committee, or DRC, who reviews subdivisions from an infrastructure, utilities and improvement standpoint. On January 26th, the meeting for the master plan was provided a unanimous a unanimously recommended approval with conditions. This condition was that we utilized the alternate cross section for the development of Elks Drive and Moreno Road, which was approved by our DRC. The preliminary plat also had to go. After minor discussion, the DRC recommended approval for the preliminary plat. Staff recommends approval with conditions for the master plan based on relevant city staff. The proposed master plan complies with the requirements and standards of the City of Las Cruces subdivision code. The new lots that are being created by the Master Plan comply with all requirements of the 2025 Development Code and then following the goals and actions outlined in Elevate Las Cruces. The proposed subdivision will allow for the development of alternative housing types as well as the the DRC recommending approval with condition on January 21st. Staff recommends approval for the preliminary plat based on the following findings. Once again. City staff. Showed that the preliminary plat complies with requirements and standards of the City of Las Cruces subdivision code, all the lots being created by the preliminary plat comply with all requirements of the 2025 Land Development Code and the following also as well following the goals and actions outlined in Elevate Las Cruces, the proposed subdivision will offer housing options that vary in intensity and as well, the Development Review Committee

approved on January 21st as well. So today your options are to vote yes to approve, vote no to deny, vote to amend or vote to table. Does the applicant have a presentation they'd like to give? Not not at this time. Okay. Is there any public participation? Come on up and if you will state your name. And then I will swear you in and we'll give you three minutes. Eugena Gina montoya. Ortega. All right. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law? I so do go ahead, commissioners. Chair. My name is Gina Eugenia montoya Ortega, and I am the sister of Teresa moreno, who owns half of Moreno Road. So, for my understanding, is the city of Las Cruces owns half of Moreno, and my sister owns the west half of Moreno Road all the way down. She has a mobile home down there and some rentals, which are multifamily little apartments. And I believe an extra mobile home. Her concern is, unfortunately, she couldn't be here. She goes to bed when the chickens do so. Her concern is the traffic. The traffic. That as it is, they already have trouble trying to exit with the school there. And now you're creating additional traffic with the additional building of these homes. The next thing that is her concern is right through that area that where they would like to do the building. There's an arroyo that runs through there and this last rain that they had. So what happens is the water runs right through that where they're going to create this subdivision runs through across the road. And then the actual where the water does gather is just south of Moreno Road, right, right along the road. So this actually my I believe my sister actually has video showing that it turned into

like a river. So now that you are going to concrete and pave all this 23 acres, I know that there is drainage, but that drainage probably is just to account for the property that they are looking to develop. Our concern is so now the city will maintain, you know, obviously their half of the road. So what happens on the private side. So when that water is diverted onto the road, which Moreno Road basically turned into a river itself. Now whose problem is this? Is this going to be my sister's problem? What we actually anticipate and in talking with her is, is this going to be the next Columbia Elementary School flood that, you know, is going to leave her in a bind? She doesn't have millions of dollars. She's not a developer. You know, she's just a widowed woman that her husband had has had this property early in the early 2000. And that's her concern. And that's my concern as well. I do not want the problem now to become her problem as it is. Whenever that road does kind of wash out, it's her responsibility to maintain it. So if the water, now that you know the, the, this, this housing unit will have its drainage. But what if that water overflows the drainage? My husband and I were small business owners on Valley Drive. We see that big pond right next to their flood over really well. And so if this drainage is not big enough, once again the concern is, is this going to be my sister's problem? So we just, for the record, want to know that when this if you all do approve this, which is great, we know that people need housing. I just don't want it to be her problem and I want it to be on the record. Thank you. Thank you for your concerns. Anybody on the left? Okay. Anybody on the right would like to come up when you get up

there. If you'll state your name, I'll swear you. My name is Jimmy Garcia. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law? Yes. Go ahead. I just got a few questions. When they do this development, we got notice that they would take part of our road from it. We just want to know how much would it be? And do they just take it? We don't get compensated for it. That's the only question I have and concerns. And now that she brought it up, if they do divert, the water would run over to any other place like towards Kennedy Road. Would that be a problem? And that's that's it. We'll ask those questions. Thank you. Anybody else go ahead and come on up. State your name and then I'll swear you in. My name is Brad Moore. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth, independently of law? Yes, I do, go ahead. I just have the same concerns. I live in one of Miss Marino's rental properties back there, and I've been back there for about ten years, and the concerns that I have are equal to what she has already brought in at the table here. I would like to see some drawings or some grading and drainage details if at all possible. I am not a engineer in that fact, but I have been in the construction industry my entire life, so I do understand what drawings are. And I was wondering if it is possible to take a look at these drainage and grading issues that are definitely a big concern for that area. Thank you. Thank you

for your concerns. Alright, seeing that there's no more public comment, let's open it up to the commissioners. Any commissioners go ahead. Commissioner Smith, I just have a question for staff. Clearly the. City, one of the biggest concern. Has there was that issue however overloaded diverter in case of heavy rains, which we've been getting, you know, more frequently. So does that is that. Something we're just going to be a divert type of situation, Mr. chair? Commissioner Smith, the master planning process does, as well as the preliminary planning process, does require that we submit a drainage study, which has been done and has been reviewed by our engineering staff, and they see no issue with it. As far as the diversion goes, the properties are or the subdivision is required to maintain any new post-development runoff on site, and any historical flows would be released out into how it would normally flow. As far as a lot of the concerns that were brought up regarding how it's going to flow really get discussed more through the construction phase at this time, along with further defining the road sections. As per our development code. More so in the subdivision section of our code. Moreno Road. Being a local roadway, they are required to build out a full cross section for that area. So they would be building an entire cross section which includes asphalt, sidewalk, curb and gutter. So that'll also help. And that goes to the end of their property from the beginning of their property to

the end of their property. So that's the responsibility to make sure that any water runoff is contained within their development. Mr. chair. Commissioner Smith, that is correct. It just point of clarification on that. It is also the historic. Oh, sorry, it is the historic home. So when when water does come into a development and the natural, the historic flow that goes out will still come out of that subdivision. So they're not allowed to generate more. But you but water will still need their subdivision as it as it did before that that land was there when it was vacant land. So a lot of the times you'll have people say, hey, well, you were supposed to take all of the ponding. Well, that's not necessarily true, that the rules, as I understand it, is you can't increase the discharge. That's that's correct. Right, Mr. chair, that is correct. Okay, I have I go Council go ahead. Yeah. I just want to follow up on that point. So looking at the the proposal here, though, if I'm understanding this correctly, I think it's tract A is there at the south west corner of the property. That would be the drainage retention pond. Is that correct. Yes. Mr. chair. Commissioner Kizer that is correct. It is the drainage pond to catch the what wouldn't be caught from the lots themselves. But like like Chair Thurston said it was to catch that post-development that will still allow the historic flow to go through. Okay. So I guess that's my my question is that's sitting right in the middle of what appears to be the existing arroyo. So how is that how is

that going to work? You're going to have this increased flow filling a pond that's are already receiving water from upstream. And this is not a this is not a tiny little arroyo. I mean, whatever whatever's flowing through here is going to be cooking pretty good. So I'm having a really hard time understanding how this is an acceptable solution. Mr. chair. Commissioner Kizer, I can also I can speak to it a little bit, but I will also defer to the to the applicant's representative who's here. But they are required to provide a FEMA flood study to show the exact runoff that would be produced from that. And if FEMA has deemed it to be insignificant, then the pond will hold. If not, they do have to accommodate the pond to fit. And is that work been completed? That work is still in progress. So how do we know by approving this that it's going to work? Mr. chair, Commissioner Kizer, during many multiple staff meetings with the applicant and property owner and their representative and staff, we did also put a note on the master plan that says that if FEMA does not approve the study, we will alter the way the pond works to accommodate. So. So in this case, if if there if the drainage doesn't work, tract A is going to have to increase is basically how that would. And then they would end up as a development that you would you would probably end up losing lots. If drainage does is not sufficient. But I but that is all up to the engineers of the

project. Good evening. My name is Renee Molina, I represent, I am the engineer for this project and I need to raise my. I need to be sworn in, I all right, you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law. I sure do. Go ahead. So in regards to drainage, there is an arroyo that traverses through the property, and the bulk of the arroyo is actually on phase four. What we're intending on doing on this development is just like any other development that has come through this board and through City council for multiple years. We are our intent is to retain the post-development drainage that we create, and that's what will be used for post development flows. The water that comes through that arroyo currently now is allowed to be in its current state and discharge the current location. We are not, so we can't increase any flow onto that arroyo and we are not intending to. The intent is to retain the water that is being developed by the home roofs, the impervious areas of the roadways, sidewalks and so on. Historical flows will remain. We are not allowed to drop more water into Arroyo. It shall remain as is currently. In regards to building in that arroyo. There is no intent to build in that arroyo. We are developing what's referred to as or known as a closure. A conditional letter of map revision that will change the drainage map for that area. Because there is an error that

was done previously, and we're going through the process with FEMA to correct that error. That process is ongoing, but will be part of the project as we come to the next phase, which is the construction drawing phase. Yeah, I appreciate the explanation. I guess I'm just. That's going to be a deep hole now. Tract A, I mean, because you're going to have to capture all this additional runoff that you're legally obligated to capture in the same location that you're having all these upstream flows converging, it's going to have to be a deep hole in all actual commissioners. In all actuality, that track will not take flow from the arroyo. The flow that will go into the pond, the retention pond will be only from the roadways and the rooftops that will be developed. The arroyo that's from an area. Areas that are upstream from this development will flow through. Track A is not going to be in the path of the arroyo. Do we have an image in the PowerPoint presentation? Because that's not what I'm seeing. These are runoff flows directly into tract A. Do you have contours. Yeah. No. And I would I mean I've I've. Yeah. This one right here. May I approach. Yes please. It's part of the staff report. Yes. Mr. chair. Commissioner Kizer that is part of the staff report. But it wasn't placed in the

presentation. Yeah. Sorry. You have to get next to a mic to yeah. Any discussion has to go through a mic. Sorry has to be recorded I apologize. So I will kind of map the arroyo. So track A sits over here on this corner. The oil is actually coming in to Moreno right here. And it stays on Moreno Road. It tracking is over on this corner. Moreno where the arroyo comes into Moreno is in this area right here. And it will be in close, close proximity to where phase three or phase two roadway ties in to Moreno. I lost them. I'm so sorry. It's right here. It's in this area. If you could see where I'm pointing. Track A, the retention pond is over in this location. That I understand what you're saying, but that's not what I'm seeing. I'm seeing tract A come all the way to the new white, white tailed Eagle Road. So are you saying that you're going to disconnect that very end, the very tail of the arroyo and push it entirely onto the road? The arroyo currently comes into Moreno at that location, that that stretch. Let's call track a flag off the pole portion of the flag loft is not going to be the pond location. It works out as to how we want it to develop the lots, and that's areas area that's available. But the intent of track is a

retention pond for the development, not to curb any flows from from the arroyo to come into track A, because we would need a very large pond to attenuate that peak. And we can't do that. We're not going to bring that arroyo into track day. Okay. So grades will reflect that when you. So when you build out that white tailed Eagle Road, you're going to what are you going to do with the arroyo. You're going to put it in a pipe and send it into the road that you're about to build on. Moreno Commission. No, sir. We will not put a pipe. The the drainage will continue as it has been currently. It will be overland flow of what comes over the roadway, how it does now and merge onto Moreno. We don't want to deviate or change that flow path, because at that point we would be changing historical flow paths and we can't do that. Okay. Yeah, I understand what you're saying. Thank you for the clarification. Sure. My question to staff. Now that can't be the answer. No way can that be the answer that we're just going to say, we're going to put this road down in a subdivision and just let the Arroyo wash over it. That cannot be the answer. It, if I may, design standards exist to safeguard from multiple things. The design standards allow for water to go over roadways and stay on roadways to a certain criteria that will be held and met. If we were to put pipes in this system and do something like that, you would have to take a pipe network. That would

be very cumbersome to maintain all the way down past this property, all the way down to the western side, probably around a quarter mile or longer. And you would still have the issue of someone being able to try to maintain a pipe network system that would be silted up. Someone brought up Columbia. Columbia middle school had two 60 inch pipes that took a flows from Arroyo multiple times. Those pipes were full with sediment and water would overtop. It's best to allow the water to continue as it historically has, and maintain the design parameters that are set forth within the design standards. Yeah, I appreciate the explanation and I don't disagree with you 100%. I think my concern is that with all that being said, this is the wrong site design for this location. That just essentially damning with this new road at the end of the arroyo and saying, we're just going to let that road, the arroyo, overtake that road and send it on down its way. It's only going to pick up more velocity as it is now flowing over concrete and asphalt, with no friction or way less friction than a sandy arroyo and going to cause massive issues downstream. That's my concern. I don't disagree with everything that you just said. I think my concern here with this conversation is that this site plan is the wrong site plan for this location. Any other comments by the commissioners? Any other questions? I just want to go back to our what about so natural for which is

historically just what happens when they get there. And with the. With track and. Capturing any flow from the rooftop and. The stream. It will not add to the historic flooding. It's basically like a containment line. In the way it really is. Is that correct? Commissioners? Yes. That's correct. The intent of this development is to take impervious area flow, rooftops, streets, sidewalks covering better manage it through the roadway system, let it drain onto track and be retained, thereby not increasing historical flows. And historical flows will remain as is. I thank you for that clarification. Any other questions? All right. I got a couple. First up on the DRC review. What what is the alternate cross-section turn out to be? Mr. chair, which cross-section are you speaking about? Thanks. That alternate cross-section. Ultimately they're dedicating about a ten foot wide tract of land. From there, they're going to take the existing alignment to the south of theirs, as you can see, right here, right at the intersection. They're going to align it to keep it going this way, and then it's going to eventually taper into a two

lane roadway back as we reach the city limits. Okay. So it's. Left turn. All right. So you'll have all of that. Yeah okay. What. So on Marino that's a local. That one's a local. Right Mr. chair. That is correct. It is a local roadway. So according to development codes, they are they going to be paving the entire distance of Marino to the edge all the way to the end of track day, to the end of their property? That is correct, Mr. Chair. Okay. And then the other one, because we've been stuck up on that sometimes, is the entrance going into the school, is there any improvements being put on that, or have those been waived by staff? There are no improvements to that. That tract of land actually belongs to the school. Okay, okay. I thought this was true. Okay. So that's and then you do have a spot where the pedestrian kids can walk to school. It looks like you have that in tract B, is that right? That's what track B is for, Mr. Chair. That is correct. Track B is that it's located between lots nine and ten. Okay. The other one, it says it's going to be owned by the HOA. Is that or it's going to be owned by the developer until an HOA is formed. That is correct. Okay. On the issue of drainage, is there any requirement for like a de-silting? Because when the water comes in, it's it because if it's going to go back onto the Marina road, is there going to be like a de-silting or what's your what's your policy on dumping the water back onto the road? Because I know it happens throughout the whole city. I mean, it's it's a good way sometimes to, to convey water, but do you have to desilt the water or is that

going to just turn into a, a mud road? Mr. chair, for the record, again, essentially, yes, sir. There are there are design standards in our code that requires whatever post development or I'm sorry, historic flows be dumped out from the property onto the road. Some type of a design need to be taken care of that issue, sir, that's taken care of in the actual design and construction drawings with our Public Works department. Public Works department. Actually, the director and deputy director were present for the VRC, and they did approve this subdivision. Seeing that the the flood, there's no flood issues or or drainage issues with the area, sir. Okay. That's I, I get the historical, you know, like water is going to come through there. That's not a it's not a question. Right. I was just wondering on is it going to now have a is Marino just going to be covered in dirt when the first rain comes. That was more of my that's my issue. I'm on my very last one. I don't see any parks in here because according to this wonderful new realize Las Cruces, he needs a three acre park. Mr. chair, the discussion of parks was brought up during the DRC vaguely for just a moment, but as the project started back in 2022 and we have been ongoing with this through other discussions with management and different departments or not different departments, but our Parks and recreation department, they were not required to do a park as we've been ongoing with this project. So you're telling me that my projects that I've talked to you about, I can now not put parks in those, Mr. Chair, that or go ahead, Mr. Chair. This was actually submitted prior to during that interim period. And since it was close to coming to the Planning Zoning Commission, it was deemed to fall under that

transition period. And so it beat the time clock. But I'm going to disagree on that a little bit, because I thought we had our last our last meeting. We said that there were no more that were going to be coming through, except that we're going to be coming through the old it was all going to be coming through the new realized Las Cruces. That was my that was my recollection. But if I am wrong, then help me understand what other projects are also not following that. Mr. chair, this should be the last residential subdivision that comes through in that manner. Everything else now has either been submitted during the transitional period or has now been submitted in the new Land Development Code. As I said before, this project started back in 2022. We did see some stoppage and then it was reapplied for again in 2024 and continued further discussion about road cross sections, as well as the flood zone. We had a the last one we had is the city came in and they were trying to hurry up and get a subdivision approved so that they wouldn't have to pay park fees. And that was my understanding that that was going to be the last of them. And now this one coming in. What can you go back to your presentation? Does it show under the revised code, or does it show that under the old code in a presentation, Mr. Chair does show under realize. However, we've discussed with our director as well. This is something that has come in prior before any of the new code was even thought of, or as it was being developed. So I'm going to see I'm. I see that more of a how do you what's what's the right word martial law where it is, we can make

whatever rule we want for the time being. I'm sorry, but that I, I get stuck and slapped with part all the time and anybody, any applicant that comes in here is going to get hit with a fee. And Lou, which I still don't understand where the fee in lieu funds are going and if they're even going to parks. But that's, that's the rest of the rest of the stuff. I like that they were able to the pedestrians are in there. I think, you know, you will go with the the flooding that's going to happen because that has to there's no way they're going to it's not going to get approved through the city without without that being taken care of. But I do think there's a little bit of a. A parks issue that is being, being waved on this one. That's a serious disadvantage to other developers in this town that are doing it. That's close to because you're having to pay park impact fee. You're you're paying two impact fees now you're paying a regional and a neighborhood park, and the regional is $2,600. And then you have to pay the, the fee in lieu when sometimes the parking fee is also larger, depending on the size of the home that you're building. And so that can be somewhere in the neighborhood of a close to a $10,000 per lot savings that were that they don't have to look like that's my that's my only issue with this. And I'm going to leave it at that. I have one more question. You stated that they applied in 2022, and then they stopped. In time for a restart. Is that considered a a reapplication, Mr. Chair? Commissioner Smith, that is considered a reapplication. So the way that we've processed out our subdivision applications, if we have no activity within a certain period of time, we

expire the application. They are notified to resubmit. But at this at the in 2005. And. The new regulations. Correct. Mr. chairman, interject please, Mr. chair. Commissioner Smith, sir, it'd be a 2025 when realized went into effect sir. So even with the 2024 they're still under the old code. Additionally, on top of that, the biggest reason why in 2022, that original application kind of stopped was because of drainage issues and the studies that needed to happen for the arroyo and so on and so, and alternate cross sections for Moreno. And so a lot of hurdles in the way that they needed to work out from an engineering, traffic, drainage, flood, flood control standpoint, that park that our parks and recreation department, that's why they deemed it the find for this to move forward under the old code. Sir, just to clarify, like I got one point on that one, though, the other applicants that were put in here, there were multiple that said that the park impact the fee in lieu would be waived if it was approved before the end of the year. That was on multiple applications. This one is not approved before the end of the year. Mr. chair, to give a little bit more clarification, whilst all of staff did recommend approval, by the middle of December, some staff was out of office and could not meet the the required dates as well as the applicant meeting the required dates to go to DRC by the end of 2025. So we had to approve them. That happens all the time that we have. We have stuff that doesn't get done on time. I, I don't know,

I am I my opinion is I would put an amendment on this, that there is a fee in lieu that will pass it with a fee and a number of departments that the fee in lieu just that's, that's the rules that have been put forward. If not, then it's just doing a favor for favor for one. But then all the other developers that come in, we're not going to do a favor for. I don't find that being fair as a code based finding. That's my that's my only issue with it. Do I agree with the actual park fee? No, I don't, but that it's in the code. We're going to live with it. Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, just a point of order. First thing I want to say is the approval of the subdivision is a four step process. You start with the master plan, which you have this evening, which is kind of a conceptual. This is how the street network you want to connect. This is how on a higher level you want the drainage to work. This is the the layout, preliminary layout, mix of uses of a property. Then you go to the preliminary plat where you actually get more detailed. You get more studies on how the drainage is to be handled, how the street network, if there's any need for cross sections. After that point, you go to the actual construction drawings where you actually have to approve how the entire subdivision will be graded, how drainage will take place, the size of the streets where they're connecting to the network, how utilities are extended, etc. And so that's a whole other process outside of the planning and Zoning Commission. And if any of those standards are not met, the city will not approve those plans, will not issue permits. And if there's something that the applicant cannot do, then he may have to go back and redesign his subdivision. And then after that stage or

concurrently is the final plat where the actual legal documents drawn up, where the lots are created and actually filed, and they they can be sold tracks or provided right of ways or dedicated et-cetera. So tonight you're at that conceptual and also that intermediary step where can these concepts potentially work. It's before the actual final details go forward. So in your role as planning and zoning commission, those are two items that you approve. And the applicant or the property owner can't go forward with the subdivision. It's preparing the construction drawings or the final plat until he he passes this level or she passes this, this level of approval. So at this stage, you can place conditions on both the master plan and the preliminary plat. If there's something that you know before you have construction drawings, if there's additional drainage reviews that that you would like to see take place, you can place that type of condition. I don't think it's out of your purview to also address the the park fees that you feel this needs to be under. But to the applicant, I think before they go to the final plat stage, they could ask either one that that condition be removed. And at that, what staff would probably do would bring the final plat to you with that request. Or there could be a determination that from a legal standpoint, the city erred by not getting this in a timely manner, and they need to fall under the 2001 zoning code and 1989 subdivision code, or 1992 subdivision code. So just want to provide that as information as you go forward. The other option that you have is that you feel that they the intent is for them to fall under the previous land development codes, that they've met all their requirements. And then you could motion to approve that, you know, and your series of

options that you have. The other one is you can recommend approval with conditions, or you can feel that the requirements for this master plan and the preliminary plat have not been met. And you can deny these applications. And then it puts it back to the the applicant on how they choose to go forward with this proposal. Kaiser. So I have a few more questions. This is related to really the the pedestrian. Elements of this subdivision. First, I, I don't disagree with what's been proposed. I'm just curious to see if, if we can take this to a more intentional level when it comes to specifically pedestrian and cyclist access, because we're immediately adjacent to the middle school. And then just on the other side of the middle school is an elementary school. So I think this is a perfect opportunity to not just do the afterthought of, oh, we got to we got to slide this in somewhere, but actually have some intentionality behind it that makes it an inviting space to actually encourage. I think there's a huge marketing potential here with this development to say, if you come and live here, whether it's by a single family or move into the future multifamily complex that you don't, you can skip the drop off and pick up line. Your children can walk right across the neighborhood to the school. So on that point, the first question I have is, did staff have any conversations with the school district, specifically the Safe Routes to School program around how to make these connections? Mr. chair, Commissioner Kaiser, no staff did not speak with safe

routes to school. Is there a reason for that point of point of connection? Actually, staff was associated with a safe route to school. Safe school? I guess it was like a get together, if you will, with with the Las Cruces public schools, the county, so on and so forth. Like that a couple weeks ago where they were showing the the connectivity of the new trails out there in the county, we did show them the the routes that are being proposed by Alex with the alternate cross section, as well as the pedestrian connectivity through the subdivision, which will allow people to walk through the subdivision and keep them off of Elks, as well as the the bicycling as well with the bike lanes. And they they they were excited to see that the city was doing something or a development was coming in in that area that would do some type of improvement to the area right there. That's pretty in need of, of of additional development for, for pedestrian connectivity. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. So on that, on that point, the trail that was recently built, I think it was by the county, or maybe it was a collaboration with the school district. I'm not sure that that trail, that multi use path was constructed at eight feet wide. What's being shown on the alternative cross section for Elks with this proposal? Smaller than that. And I'd like to see a way that we can match so that when you have going from this development, this proposal into the county, because isn't I believe the county city line is like right at the edge of this subdivision, that there's a seamless transition that they're they're of equal quality, they're of equal standard. And there isn't. You know, six feet is barely enough room for two cyclists to go past each other. And I would

just like to see us be able to match what the county recently did, because my understanding is they're interested in bringing that same eight foot trail all the way down in that gap that currently would exist between the edge of this property and where it currently is on Elks. Mr. chair, Commissioner Kaiser, there was no talk of any type of extension of that trail there. What's there there is there. So there'd be a gap between what is the county, what is ours. The only time they'll potentially put something I believe the the trail is on the east side along the freeway, and this is on the west side that meanders. My apologies. It runs adjacent to the schools. You're correct. So no, there's no discussions on that. But that was their standards. Our standards just requires six foot six foot pedestrian walkway, sir. Okay, so I guess the question is. Right in front of a school. We have a 14 foot automobile turn lane and children presumably using that to access the school get six feet. That seems very out of balance to me. We have an opportunity here to really change how we've done things in the past, and I think we can certainly find room within. What is this, a total of 50ft to give children at least eight feet. So I would like to and I'm not asking to do this right at this moment, but I would like to propose a condition of approval that that sidewalk slash multi use path on the west side of Elks be eight feet to match the multi use path that we've seen the county recently build. The other point

I want to make is I guess two points. The pedestrian Cut-through my understanding reading the staff report that's proposed to be ten feet pure concrete. My understanding is parks based on the DRC comments that parks had asked for 12 but they got ten. Again, I feel like we can be a little bit more intentional here about making something more. More inviting of a space, you know, ten feet of asphalt with rock wall on either side of you is not exactly an inviting place to be. I've had conversations with other people in the community, different points, and have mentioned that these cut thrus are they wouldn't let their children walk through them because they are a little sketchy. And so I think here's an opportunity again, to have that direct access to the school to basically say, hey, we want you to use this. We want you to use this space. We want you to walk with your kids or even send your kids alone to walk to middle school or down the street to elementary school. And I think we can just be a little bit more intentional there, rather than just throwing the scraps, doing the bare minimum. The other point I want to point out is when you exit that exit the subdivision, there is no sidewalk between that location and the entrance to the school. You have to cut across a massive parking lot. I recognize that that's outside the the ownership of this applicant, but I'm just wondering if there's a way that we can come to some sort of resolution here working with the school district, perhaps coming up with a development

agreement or something that at least gets you a sidewalk on the north side of this property, so that not only if you're taking Elks because you're going to have this phase four multifamily development, but you also have all the development to the south, to the to the east. That would potentially be using dumped outa road with all the other parents that are dropping off their kids by car. I'd like to see us have come to some solution resolution where we can extend at least a trail side sidewalk all the way into wherever the nearest sidewalk is. Currently in the middle school. I got one on one corner that that I just want to. I would like to see what's the what is Elks classification, Mr. chair? Classification. Elks is classified as an arterial. Can you pull up the cross section of the realize. For us on the screen there, I'm curious to see what the realize cross section of that and the trail system is. Because I think I think the point is that it is a white I think it is a wider trail system on the current, but I'm not I'm not positive. Yeah, I think, I think actually the if you go by the, the realize the cross section would actually be a lot wider. But I think given the context here at the end of Elks, they're asking for an alternative. So I think because they're asking for an alternative, we should we should be a little bit more

innovative here. So my question is if DRC has already approved this cross section and if it is the desire of the commissioners to change or to have DRC relook at that path, that path section. What would be the best way of doing that be so that we're not necessarily denying a preliminary plot or a master plot, but that it is asking to go back and possibly add those trail systems to match kind of more in line with what elevate Las Cruces is wanting and to be able. Because I think I think what Kaiser is saying is more in line with what elevate Las Cruces is, is having those pathways and those connectivities and those larger. Because we're looking at him. This is a ten foot, and on the other, you got a ten foot, a six foot and two other. So I just think that might be if that is the desire of the commission to have them go back. If not, you'll have to teach me what happens if to add a. Require or an add an additional layer of of approval. We'll have to vote on that. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? Commissioner, that is correct. But I think you need to also include the applicant in this discussion also. One, they may want to go forward with the recommendation that the DRC made, or they may say, yes, we're willing to look at that again and come back at a future meeting. So but I think that's a discussion. Staff can't

answer for the applicant. Okay. But I guess it's more of a consensus of the commissioners right now if if that is something that we even were wanting to push towards and then ask of the applicant. So I guess I'm going to ask the question. Yeah, I mean, I guess the question open it up to the applicant as the applicant receptive to working with the commission to find a alternative to what is already an alternative street section that accommodates, that truly accommodates pedestrians and cyclists, specifically children accessing the school that's literally adjacent to this project. I appreciate the opportunity to have an open discussion, and I appreciate the the concern that you have for the adjacent school. I would say that we've been a long time coming through on this project, and we'd like to move forward to construction drawing development as soon as possible. That being said, Alex Road, the alternative was this is the alternative that we had with staff, technical staff on public works and transport and traffic. It was their recommendation to come to this cross section to develop a left turn bay, so that the busses aren't just hanging up on a through street and be able to be much more safer on a left turn bay school busses that carry all the kids to the the school. They're the ones that came up with that width of 14ft. Are we willing to work with DRC staff or staff? Let's just say public works staff and

transportation or traffic staff to maybe massage the cross section on such that we could incorporate an eight foot wide trail adjacent to a curb and gutter, but reduce the left turn bay? Yes, I think we would be willing to have that discussion if there was a reduction to that left turn bay. In regards to the adjacent access point into the school and the school's property, I will let you know that I work for Dona Ana County. I was there for 21 years. I actually am part of that group that developed that trail. And I will tell you, the reason it was eight feet is because that's how we could fit. That was it. And I will tell you that as you go further south from that trail, you're going to have a difficult time trying to find eight feet to fit a trail. You're probably not going to find that space because more of a concern will be a vertical constraint. By adding curb and gutter so that you have that separation and give a safer buffer to the kids that would walk. In regards to access to the school, the middle school, I was very active in my role of Dona Ana County and working with Safe routes to school. And let me tell you that Safe Routes to School is very successful in getting funding to implement safe Routes to school. The pedestrian access is being proposed, although the recommendation from parks was 12, they were receptive of the ten foot and it was something that has been done and implemented and works. I'm in a neighborhood that has ten foot access points like that. I'm

very close to a middle school and let me tell you, that is used every day by kids. My kids don't use it because they went to a different school, and I wasn't going to allow them to walk eight miles. That's I drove them. But I guess the point I'm trying to make on the adjacent school and access and maybe a multi-use path is safe. Excuse me, safe routes to Schools has access to funding that's provided by Nmdot for exactly that. And I know that they are working on another school off of Lopez Road. And this is a matter of of something that maybe they will work on. When I was with the county, I worked with the school to actually name the road because it wasn't named. It was part of a civic project with the school, with the kids, and we had questions about the possibility of a trail, and they were made well aware that there's funding available for that type of stuff. I firmly believe that the developer is willing to work with public works and transportation to look at that cross section on Alex and try to fit in an eight foot sidewalk or a trail. But the trade off will be that left turn bay will be narrower, and I think that's a trade off that I personally am willing to live with. I mean, right now that left turn bay is more than twice the space that we're giving our children to be able to walk and ride their bike to school. I, I hear you on you've been you know, you've been through the ringer probably on this project, but that's not an excuse in my mind to say, well, we can't do the things that need to be done to allow our

kids the ability to walk safely to school. We're always told that the reason that we have gaps in our sidewalks, the reason that we don't have bike lanes on our roads, is because that all has to come when the developer comes with their project. Well, here we are. You're standing before us. We have an opportunity to do what's really needs to be done to get the outcomes that we want. I appreciate your willingness to want to work with staff to find a solution there. I just want to make sure that we have some guarantees, I think an eight foot to match what the county just built by subtracting two feet from the left turn bay. Fantastic. But it's if we don't if we don't put that as a condition of approval. My concern is that you're going to walk out this door, you're going to have a conversation and say, well, we had a conversation and we ended up right back where we are. So thank you for your willingness there. I still want to have some guarantees that we're going to we're going to get there, particularly on Elk's. I understand the complexities of the school district issue on the northern boundary, but I again, here's an opportunity to find a solution where everyone's coming to the table. You're by by doing a sidewalk that wraps all the way around in combination with the school district. That is a huge marketing opportunity for this development going forward, because very few schools in this city have what you could potentially build. Most schools in this district or in the city are not walkable or hardly walkable. And here's an opportunity to really flip the script. The the final point I'll make on this topic is whether or not any other

traffic calming on Elks Road will be part of this, particularly because that stretch that's, I guess, within a future block of the entrance to the middle school. Is there any other requirements that they're going to have to put in crosswalks, potentially speed bumps, to make sure that traffic does actually slow down through that corridor? Mr. chair, Commissioner Keizer, at this time, that would be discussions that would be done further as far as. Providing it in the cross section, as they are only required to build out half of Elks, they're only going to get a portion of it. We won't know what further traffic calming aspects we would need for the other half of Elks. Until that gets developed. So what you're saying is, because we don't know what's going to happen on the other side, we can't at least put something on this side. Mr. Chair. Commissioner Keizer, we can. It would be part of that discussion as far as the alternative cross section. Okay. Commissioner McCaslin, I love the passion that this group has for for future projects in the city. But I do feel like it is our position that if you have checked all the boxes that we currently have in our rules, that our job is to look at that and if we want to further improve our city, we should go back to our rules and make sure that our rules are stipulating what we need in this city. So I don't feel like it's the developer's position to accommodate things that aren't currently being required. Any any other commissioners or do we have a motion? I'd like to make a motion to add a

condition of approval that the multi-use path on the west side of I'm sorry, chair under realized Las Cruces. I'm sorry. The new development code, the alternate cross sections and design of roadways are at DRC. So DRC is who would have to vote on that that condition? The design condition cannot be placed by the planning zoning commission. So it basically would have to be kicked back to DRC to see if that's something they would have to do. If I'm not mistaken. David. No, Mr. Chair and Commissioners, I wanted to make the same thing. The the approval authority for alternative cross sections is now under the jurisdiction of the Development Review Committee. So I think the level of input you have is that that you would approve this preliminary plat with the knowledge that an alternative cross sections would be allowed as it goes forward. So you're aware of what's taking place. But the, the technical expertise and the, the engineering of that is, is done by the applicant and reviewed by the staff, and then it's actually approved by the development review Committee. So for, for this case and for future cases, if the Commission is dealing with what is presented, we would basically either table an item or tell me how that would be. So if we didn't like something I'm I'm not saying we don't like this one. I'm just saying if if you don't like something, then we will. What's the next process, Mr. Chairman? Commissioners, if you felt that a proposal was not meeting the standards, you could vote no. But if and if the applicant felt that they all they were meeting all the

conditions, they they could appeal that to the next level. But if they wanted to kick it back to DRC, how would how would they go about that? If there's some design flaw or something like that, that we believe that in the real life Las Cruces is not being met, and we don't agree with the intent of it, that, say, staff would agree with how how does the commission go about not necessarily like saying no. Right. But how do we get certain things revisited. And I'm not I'm, I'm this is more of knowledge basis for cases moving forward. I think the way that you would go forward is that you would approach the applicant, say, are you willing to postpone this and go back forward with that? And then it's a decision they make. But I think by the same token, the applicant has an opportunity for decision if he feels that he's met all the requirements and that he has made the compromise or made the best design, that that you should hear that and take a take a vote on that. And then that's in your mind of what's been presented, the information that's been provided. Do you feel that a standard of the city has not been met? And if that's the case, then then you can vote no to deny a proposal. And then after the vote no, then it can still go to city council and then get approved. That's right. It upon appeal. Thank you. All right with that? Can we get a motion? Oh, let me let me first clarify the we suspended the rules and to hear both items. And now we need to

reinstate the rules. I just know we just go for a vote. Yes, sir. That is correct. Since you just have to be voting on them separately. You're limited motion. And a second for approval of a of a 7.2. So you just need to call the roll for that one. And then for 7.3 you need to ask for a motion and a second and then call the vote on that one sir okay. So right now we need to have a vote. We need to get a basically a motion on 7.2 to a vote on the approval for seven on approval. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion on that. And so that's for the master plan and the master plan as it was presented to staff was recommendation for approval, with approval of an alternative cross section for the streets of the development. And if you're ready, I can take the roll. Yes. We're ready. Okay. Commissioner Acosta. Yes, Commissioner. Smith. Yes, Commissioner McCaslin. Yes, Commissioner. Acosta. Yes, Commissioner. Murray. Yes. Commissioner Kizer, before I get my vote, I'm just going to say I'm not opposed to the concept of the residential development here, but I do feel like we fell short in our aspirations. So I'm voting no. Chair Thurston. Rare moment for me, but I'm going to vote no because only the park issue. Mr. chair, the master plan was approved. It's. Yes, it was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. All right, now, next, we need a we need a motion. I now, can I have a

motion to approve item 7.3? I'd like to move to approve item 7.3 I second. All right. Now call for can we get a call for the vote? Commissioner Acosta? Yes. Commissioner. Smith. Yes. Commissioner McCaslin. Yes, Commissioner. Murray. Yes, Commissioner. Costa. Yes, Commissioner. Keyser. No. Chair. Thurston. No. Only because of the park. The preliminary plat for the subdivision was approved. All right, now, next item on the agenda is discussion items. I have I have two items that I don't know necessarily are for discussion as of tonight.

Try it again. Try to. Yeah. Okay. I guess it it was meant that I'm not supposed to say anything else. All right. For discussion items. We don't have anything on here other than there's two items that I wanted to bring up. One would be a downtown update to what's going on with the downtown update. Just kind of wanted to hear some some feedback as to the process of that and when we might hear something about that. I believe that everywhere is kind of spearheading that. Mr. Chair and commissioners, I can give you the latest. The consultants have finished their initial draft. There's been one review by the Community Development department. The next step is to get our comments addressed by the consultant and then do an internal peer review. And then after that is done, the plans are to open it up for public comment. And after the public comment is concluded, we'll put it in the process for adoption of the the updated master plan for the downtown. Thank you. And is there an opportunity for this body to weigh in? Mr. chair, I believe that we will bring that to you as a discussion item, but it's actually the plan for the MRA and the Tid. And so they will be the recommending body for that. And then city Council will be the ultimate adopter of it. My recommendation would be that that you can comment on as individuals when that public comment period is open. And then of course after the discussion, we'll take any comments that the the Planning and Zoning Commission has on the plan. Thank you. My other one that I have and points of discussion, as long as everyone's okay with that. So far, the last one was just to realize Cruces updates of certain issues. Is there any

issues with what what we've kind of run out there? Are there? The reasoning in that is if there's any issues that staff is currently seeing with either development code or it be construction issues or other things like that that you guys are seeing that may trickle down to us that we're going to be having to make discussions of. Anyways. I just would be nice to if you can give us an update as to any issues with realize so that we can be basically understanding what what's going to be coming to us for future preliminary plats, future items. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Staff is keeping a log of kind of shortcomings, if you will, a little bit or things that aren't fitting in well with our current or our new development code. So we can definitely kind of provide you an update of what we have on our list. Just so you're not blindsided with a a book of changes when we come in for another amendment, because staff is still working on kind of a time frame every six months, and then every year to do some type of amendment to code, sir. Okay. Now that there was going to be a well, I was supposed to come, I think I already did once with the couple of changes that we are staff already found were messed up a little bit or just overlooked. Is there going to be another one of those, Mr. chair, that is correct. Any type of amendment to to the new development code will have to come before the Planning Zoning Commission before it goes on to City Council, sir. Okay. Do you guys have any dates or anything like that yet? As of now, not sir. Just because like I said, we have a every six month time frame, so we need to see what we have this next few months. If we do have something ready to go, we'll definitely move it forward, sir. Okay. If you'll just do us a favor that if a applicant has a bunch of changes on it, if you'll give us an update prior to that one. So we know all the updates that. So having to go through the whole thing with the applicant. Instead work with you guys. Sure thing. Just to let you know, we do have we are working on updating providing the newly updated

amended development code. It is still available on on realized Las cruces.com on our website. That is the latest and greatest one right there. Then right now it doesn't really make sense to make paper copies just because we have to replace them every six months or a year kind of thing until it gets some weight to it, then hopefully we'll be able to get actual physical copies for everybody if need be. Thank you. With that, does anybody have anything else? All right. Can we just vote to adjourn? Mr. chair? I vote to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any?