Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

You're live.

Good evening, I'm gonna call to order the July 28th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission at 6 p.m. I am Chair Crystal Downs. First on the agenda is the conflict of interest. Does any member of the commission or any member of the city staff have any known conflict with any item on the agenda? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to public participation. At this time, I would invite anyone from the public to come up and speak on anything that is not on the agenda under new business. If you would like to speak on any item on the consent agenda, please do so now. You will have three minutes, and please state your name for the record. Does anyone have anything they'd like to share? Okay, seeing none. Next, we have the acceptance of the agenda. By voting to approve the acceptance of the agenda as presented, we will be approving the minutes from our last meeting and the items on the consent agenda, unless a commissioner wishes to remove a case from the consent agenda, and then we can vote on that amended agenda. Madam Chair. Commissioner Acosta. I'd like to make a motion to proceed forward, please.

Thank you. I'll second. Thank you.

Okay, this is on the motion to accept the agenda. Commissioner Smith? Yes. Commissioner Kaiser? Yes. Commissioner Acosta? Yes. And Chair? Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, moving on to new business. Item 7.1, can I have a motion to approve item 7.1, please?

I make a motion to approve item 7.1. I second.

Thank you. Staff?

Good evening Commission, John Castillo for the record. Today we have Lomita Subdivision, a preliminary plat. So today we're gonna review, the review is limited to the Lomita Subdivision preliminary plat. The Planning and Zoning Commission's role is to act upon, to either approve or disapprove the preliminary plat. And discussions need to focus on subdivision compliance, layout, access, utility extensions, and connectivity. The current conditions of the property, it's located approximately 855 feet from the intersection of Salopec Boulevard and Stern Drive. The lot itself encompasses approximately 2.324 acres. It's currently vacant and undeveloped attractive land, and the current zoning designation is NH1S, which is our neighborhood one suburban. Here highlighted with the blue is gonna be the subject property. Here's an aerial view of the subject property. So the proposal is to subdivide the one existing tract into nine residential lots. The lots range in size from .138 to .201 acres. The minimum lot frontage is 27.26 feet, which still meets the NH-1 zoning designation. water, sewer, and gas will be extended to the properties. There will also be one tract of land that is approximately .254 acres, which will be maintained and owned by the developer to be utilized as drainage. Here's an image of the preliminary plot. This is tract A, which will be the drainage tract. So there was no public safety, health, welfare issues identified. It aligns with the suburban neighborhood place type as called out by Elevate Las Cruces Comprehensive Plan, and it will provide additional housing opportunities. This did go before the Development Review Committee, or DRC, who looks at subdivisions from an infrastructure utilities improvement standpoint. On July 1st, after minor discussions, they discussed neighborhood connectivity, right-of-way design for Salopec Boulevard, and the applicant's parkland dedication fee in lieu of $3,718.56 for each lot of parkland. They recommended approval of the preliminary plat. Today's staff's recommendation is based on the following findings. It complies with the requirements and standards of the City of Las Cruces subdivision code. The lot widths comply with the requirements of the 2025 development code. The proposed preliminary plot is consistent with existing development found in the surrounding area. It meets the intent and purpose of Elevate Las Cruces Comprehensive Plan and DRC gave it a recommendation of approval on July 1st, 2026. Notice was sent to all relevant agencies and departments. Notice was sent to all surrounding properties within 500 feet. Staff did receive several phone calls with general questions about the subdivision. Some of them were seeking more information Seeking to view the layout of the subdivision, others were inquiring about what was to be developed on the property. Today your options are to vote yes to approve, vote no to deny, vote to amend, or vote to table.

Thank you. Any discussion?

Yeah, I have a question concerning the fee in lieu of, it was at $3,700 for a park. Could you give a little more detail as far as what that fee is and why they would pay the fee instead of helping develop a park?

So the applicant is willing to pay the fee because Through the calculation of parkland dedication, the city, with our Parks and Recreation Master Plan, accept parks that are three acres or larger. This one falls short of that. So they could either pay the fee or still create the park, but keep it more as a privatized park. So it would fall under an HOA or be maintained by the developer as well, like the Tractive Land. In addition to that, there is the Salopec Park located less than a quarter mile from the area.

So they'll pay the fee, and then will the city eventually build some small park nearby, or there just won't be a park there at all?

So during the DRC discussion regarding parkland dedication, it was made known that Parks and Recreation is looking at improving Salopec Park in the near future, so if anything, those fees would go towards that or towards building a new park.

All right, thank you.

I have some questions about the accessibility, the circulation component of this. Can you talk a little bit more about why a cul-de-sac was ultimately proposed versus some other configuration that would have more connectivity?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Kaiser. So the cul-de-sac was proposed versus having a connection into the properties to the north. First of all, it lies outside of the city's jurisdiction. So a majority of that roadway would have to come into conformance with county's regulations. and then a small portion would then be dedicated to the city to make that 50 foot wide cross section. Discussions with the applicant as well prior to the meeting. The cost of building out the road from their small section of Piro all the way up to the nearest paved cross section would far weigh out the benefits of building a subdivision. There's also, the aerial image this property right here just to the north east ish is a cemetery as well so there would also be some conflict with expanding on Tepeyaca Street okay I guess I'm not quite following so the the street just to the north comes in and takes a 90-degree turn you're saying that

That's not feasible because the developer would have to build out that street to somewhere else? Why couldn't you connect it or at least have the option in the future should the county want to make improvements to have a connection? Maybe it's not connected right this second, but giving the option for future development that may or may not occur.

So I'll defer that and let the developers speak to that as they had discussions with the county.

Hi, everybody, Steve Green for the record. One of the biggest reasons. Hang on, Steve. Oh, sorry, yep. I was going to say, do you have to swear me in?

Sorry.

That's okay.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law?

I do. Thank you. Thank you. So one of the reasons, Commissioner Kaiser, is we would have to be responsible for also widening the roadway, which would be pretty hard to do considering the adjacent properties. I don't know if we could actually attain the ability to widen the roadway. It would be one of the biggest problems because that being a cemetery, I don't know if they'd allow us to actually widen it. So that was one of the things that was considered at one point. The other issue was the cost, because you'd have to go all the way up to where the paving begins, which is quite a big stretch of roadway. Also have to bring it up to the current standards of the county requirements is really where it was kind of coming into a problem. So that's why we elected to go with the cul-de-sac bubblehead, and that's why we did. We did originally think, oh, two points of access would be nice, but that's where the stick came in.

Okay, and so if I understand correctly, the county's requirement would have been if you were to make a connection, a physical connection, you would have to then be responsible for all those improvements? Improvements, yes, sir. Okay, I understand.

No different than the city road. We'd have to improve it also.

Gotcha, okay. Unfortunate, I guess, but not much we can do about it. Thank you.

Any other questions, I'm happy to answer. Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, any members of the public?

Yes, sir, please approach the podium.

Thank you.

Could you state your name?

My name is Robert Hull, H-U-L-L.

Thank you. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law?

I do.

Okay.

I live in the area. I'm familiar with this vacant property. I think I even knew one of the previous owners of that property who's passed away. That's not relevant. The only question I really have is it doesn't show clearly on the aerial view, but there are high tension power lines that run adjacent to that property. I didn't have time to find out if they're 380 kilovolt or how high a power they are, but it's substantial. Certainly, the electric company has a right of way, so there's no encroachment, right? And I did a little bit of... quick analysis, you know, what are the hazards of living underneath an extremely high power electrical line like that? Clearly there's properties on the other side. I can't tell from the aerial if the housing is very close. I think that maybe somebody here would know what the, if there's any legal requirements, you know, a thousand feet, something like that. Does anybody have any knowledge of that aspect?

Mr. Hull, this is public comment, so you're welcome to spend your three minutes talking to us, and then we'll see if we can get some answers at the end.

I just wanted to add that to the considerations, and perhaps it already was in the people that studied this up to this point. Maybe they already took that into account, but I just wanted to make a mention of it. Now it's in the record. Thank you. That's all I think I have now.

Great. Thank you so much.

Mm-hmm.

Is there anyone else?

My name is Michael Ford. I live at 354 Salopec Boulevard.

Hi, Mr. Ford. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law?

I do.

Thank you.

One of the concerns I have is how much traffic is going to be dumped onto that road, especially since there's only going to be a Colisec. I do know why they couldn't do the extra on there, because that's also the Tortugas Pueblo, so you may have had a lot of barriers in trying to open up another access. But that was my concern. You're going to have nine plots, and then they're going to be dumped onto Salopec, and that's extra traffic, and that's one of the concerns that I have.

Okay, thank you so much.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else? All right. Steve, would you like to address any concerns today?

Just to answer the last man's question, I think I kind of spoke to him. Obviously there is an easement granted for the power lines, and then of course there is an analysis as part of the construction drawings for the traffic flow onto there, and so that's already been handled also. Anything else, that's it.

Great, thank you.

Excuse me, I'm sorry. The analysis for traffic flow has been completed?

In the construction documents, which is pending this would be uploaded, so yes.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else from the public? Yes, sir. Please state your name.

Charlie Trego.

Hello, Mr. Trego. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law?

I do indeed.

Thank you.

So basically, in understanding, seeing what these gentlemen brought up behind me, and also the fact that I agree with this subdivision, I don't think it's a problem for the neighborhood. My only concern is that, and this is before the subdivision has ever been considered, that Solopek Boulevard is quite a raceway. and there's no traffic control. And it would probably be a good thing for the city to consider traffic flow and some kind of traffic control through speed bumps of some sort or manner in that area. And given that another nine lots are gonna be added, with the potential for at least twice as many cars, if not more, coming off of there, that would be a consideration I'd like the city to bring into its

thoughts so and that's it other than that I'm for it thank you anyone else from the public anything else from the developer commissioners

Just to follow on the comment about traffic volume. So Solopik, I believe, has a planted median where this egress would be built. Is the plan to change that to allow for a left turn out of the subdivision?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Kaiser, yes, that would be correct.

Okay, and is there any plan for a four-way, or I guess a three-way stop at the intersection to accommodate some traffic calming?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Kaiser, it would be dependent upon the ITE trip generation that's being done once the construction drawings are submitted. If needed, and that trip generation warrants a more impactful study to traffic, then yes, there could be further mitigation that would be needed.

But I guess what I don't understand is what's the analysis? I mean, a safer intersection versus not a safer intersection. I mean, this is presumably a relatively low volume street in the grand scheme of things. It seems like traffic delay shouldn't really factor into a three-way stop at this intersection if it provides some additional traffic calming.

madam chair commissioner kaiser that is correct um so it should be and like i said at this point we don't have the construction drawings as of yet to review but we will review them for every measure that we can and most likely it will have just a three-way or three or four-way stop thank you i answered my question thank you staff okay i think we're ready for our vote

This is on the motion to approve item 7.1. Commissioner Smith?

Yes.

Commissioner Kaiser? Yes. Commissioner Acosta?

Yes.

And Chair?

Yes.

Motion passes, thank you.

Thank you. All right, that concludes our agenda. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

I've just got one comment I want to throw out to staff. Seeing that we're, I guess, coming into the second half of the year, and I believe the official one-year anniversary of Elevate, or Realize rather, has come and gone, and I think the, I guess, maybe unofficial being the end of this year. But I guess my ask would be if we could get some sort of analysis about how it's played out so far as far as types of building permits, ADUs, duplexes, triplexes. I think I'd be really interested in those numbers and how that trend may or may not have changed since Realize was put in place.

Commissioners, yeah, we can take a look and see what's available. I do do a presentation to CIAC, which is a Capital Improvements Advisory Committee. We do include some of that information. I would recommend doing that presentation or some of that data at the end of this year so we can have a little bit more to pull from right now. Very minimal data available, but I do think... Those are questions a lot of people have to see how the new code is impacting development, so we can look to pull that together and maybe look to do something like that at the end of every year just to see year over year how things are changing, certainly.

Yeah, I think that would be great. I just wanted to throw it out there since time goes fast, so that'd be great.

Are there any staff announcements?

CHAIR JUST WANT TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW WE'RE DOWN A COUPLE COMMISSIONERS HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE GETTING THEM IN SOONER THAN LATER THAT BEING SAID THOUGH WE ARE RAMPING UP FROM A SUBDIVISION STANDPOINT SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY WANTS TO SUBDIVIDE IN THE SUMMER SO WE'LL NEXT MONTH WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE A DECENT AGENDA COMING BEFORE YOU A COUPLE POLITICAL REPLACES SPECIAL USE PERMITS AND IT'S ONLY GETTING HEAVIER WITH A BIGGER ONES COMING IN AS WELL SO THIS IS DEFINITELY A SMALL COMPARED TO SOME OF THE BIG ONES THAT WE HAVE COMING DOWN THE PIPE ZONE SO We appreciate y'all's time to be here, so we'd appreciate y'all continuing your attendance here.

Thank you. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

Make a motion to adjourn.

Second. Thank you. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everyone.