Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Today is Tuesday, September 23rd, 2025. And I am Chair Thurston. We're going to go on to the conflicts of interest. Does anybody have any conflicts of interest tonight? Once again, I have a conflict of interest. We have one of our own land, but we will get to that in when it's on the agenda. I think it's 8.1 is the one I have a conflict of interest on. I'm going to move to public participation. If there is, if there's anybody here that would like to say anything that's not regarding the items on the agenda today, you can do so right now. Also, this is your time to if you have any issues with what is on the consent agenda, this is your time also to have any questions about that. So that'd be 7.17.2, 7.3. If we have anyone for public participation and no, we do not. Okay. So now we're going to go on to the acceptance of the agenda. There is one item on here, though, on the acceptance of the agenda. Help me walk this. Walk me through this one again. So we need to remove 8.1 in its entirety because it is it's it's the one that I have a conflict of interest on. And since we don't have a quorum here to table it, we can't have any really discussion about it. So we are just going to see if we can remove 8.1, and then we'll have to reapply for the following month. So I need a motion for someone to remove 8.1. Is that correct? Oh,

accept the agenda with the removal of 8.1 okay, so just to clarify, 8.1 isn't going to be postponed. It's just straight removal. Okay, I'll make it I'll make a motion to accept tonight's agenda with removing item 8.1. I second okay, this is on the motion to accept the agenda with the removal of 8.1 Commissioner Acosta. Yes, Commissioner. Murray. Yes. Commissioner. Keyser. Yes. And. Chair. Yes. Thank you. All right. So the acceptance of the agenda then, that moves us down to postponements now. Up to now, we have. No. Okay, so I'm being told that these postponements, we need to have a motion that is going to table to post to postpone 6.1 and 6.2 indefinitely. I make a motion to postpone 6.1 and 6.2 indefinitely. Oh, I got to have you do it as a separate vote. Sorry, I'm messing it up. I make a motion to remove 6.1 indefinitely. I'll second. This is on the motion to postpone item 6.1 indefinitely. Commissioner Acosta. Yes, Commissioner. Murray. Yes. Commissioner. Keyser. Yes. And, chair. Yes. Thank you. I'll make a motion to postpone indefinitely. Item 6.2. I. Second, this is on a motion to

postpone item 6.2 indefinitely. Commissioner Acosta. Yes, Commissioner. Murray. Yes. Commissioner. Keyser. Yes. And chair. Yes. Thank you. All right. That moves us all the way down to 8.2 on our agenda here today. So now I'm going to turn the time over to staff for the presentation. Oh, sorry I messed up again. We need a motion to hear. 8.2 A motion to hear item 8.2 I second. Good evening. Commission Adam Ochoa for the planning, planning, zoning, planning, zoning commission, community development department. For the record, before you have a proposed special use permit for a cannabis dispensary that will be located at 1103 South Solano Drive. Property is located on the east side of Solano Drive, roughly about 115ft south of its intersection with Utah Avenue. Property encompasses roughly 0.27 acres in size, and is currently has a vacant commercial building on the property. Property is zoned NH three U. Under the realized Las Cruces Development Code, which stands for Our neighborhood three Urban Zoning District shown the property here. As you can see, Solano Drive, Utah Espanyola. Of course, everybody knows Solano Drive commercial Corridor, one of the major commercial corridors in Las Cruces showing here the property as well. That vacant commercial property with the unimproved parking area. Just to give you an idea of the building we're talking about. So what is being proposed for the property is a new cannabis dispensary under the realized Las Cruces Development Code. It

requires any property that is zoned NH three and NH three to seek a special use permit to allow a cannabis cannabis dispensary on the property. Additionally, realize Las Cruces requires a new cannabis dispensaries located within 300ft of an existing cannabis dispensary to to seek a special use permit. This proposed new dispensary is approximately 197ft from an existing one at, located across the street catty corner across the street at 1128 South Solano. The proposed dispensary does meet all other buffer distance requirements from any school or daycare. Additionally, the the business will be required to follow all other City of Las Cruces requirements and State of New Mexico regulations governing cannabis related retail activity. When staff did their analysis, staff really saw no real life safety welfare issues associated with this. Staff treats cannabis dispensaries or any cannabis related type of business like any other type of business, that it functions like any other type of business in the city of Las Cruces, the Las Cruces Comprehensive Plan does have numerous goals, policies, and actions that support the proposed Special Use permit, including including bringing businesses back into established areas, allowing for other options for for employment, so on and so forth like that as found within your attachments and your staff. Report the proposed site plan that was submitted to staff does appear also to meet all standards required for the new commercial business, including parking, driving requirements, so on and so forth like that that do meet the real Las Cruces development code. Notice was sent out to all surrounding property owners per code, and staff did actually receive two phone calls from the public against one against this

specific dispensary, this location, and another one just against dispensaries in general. So just against dispensaries overall. But with that, staff does recommend approval for the proposed special use permit based on the following findings. Subject property meets the requirements from any adjacent school or nursery or daycare. The parcel, as it exists, is surrounded by commercial land uses with similar context and look feel. The business will function as any other business in the city. All applicable requirements as outlined by Rio Las Cruces and those stipulated by the State of Mexico must be adhered to for subsequent operation of the proposed business, and the proposed SCP meets the intent and purpose of the Elevate Las Cruces Comprehensive Plan. With that, your options tonight are one. To vote yes and approve the proposed special Use permit as recommended by staff. Two to deny vote no and deny the proposed Special use permit. Just a reminder if you do vote to deny other findings of fact, be provided to make that vote three to vote to amend and direct staff accordingly. I'm sorry to amend and provide conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission or for table postpone and direct staff accordingly. That is the conclusion. My presentation. The applicant representative is here. If you have any questions and I stand for questions. Do commissioners have any questions? Just a couple of questions on clarifying. So this is under the new development code that was passed earlier this year. Correct. Mister chair. Commissioner Kiser that is correct. That is this is under the revised Las Cruces zoning code, essentially. So. Under this new code, any cannabis dispensary within this zone

would require a special use permit. Is that Mister chair Commissioner Kiser. That is correct. Okay. And then they in this case they're also within 100 and within that 300 foot buffer triggering a special use permit in that case as well. Correct. That is correct. Yes. And then because we are under the new code, I just want to clarify that there were no parking requirements for this business. As part of their application. Mister chair, Commissioner Kiser, under the realized Las Cruces Development Code, they are zoned urban. So they don't because they're in the urban core. Parking isn't a requirement from them, but when they actually do develop the plan for the site because they are improvements they need to do to it for drive through driving now, and they are actually providing off street parking for the site as well. Okay. But that that's something that they're choosing to do. That's not something the city is requiring. Mister chair. Commissioner Kiser that is correct. Okay. Thank you. And then my last question, I guess, is. Looking at the site plan, it doesn't appear to me at least, but I could be wrong that they're being asked to do any sort of landscaping improvements. Mister chair. Commissioner Kiser, they are part of the. What is the MRA area of of the city of Las Cruces per realized they are allowed to do a a portion of the required landscaping instead of the full 15% of what's typically required. They from what the site plan that was provided. It does appear that the calculations, those calculations meet the requirements of the MRA area, sir. Okay, but I guess my question is I don't it's not clear to me what their landscaping is. I see it looks like potentially a new retention pond, Mr. Chairman.

Yeah. Commissioner Kiser, my apologies. I don't have the site plan on here. I do apologize about that, but there is a planter that's located in front of the property. It looks like a like a like a long triangle there. I'm sorry, rectangle where they will have their required landscape requirements, the number of tree, the number of trees and shrubs and required cover as well, sir. That's it's not a lot, but thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. With that, then we'll go to, I guess. Does the applicant want to present anything before we go to public comment? They have nothing to add, sir. So okay we're going to go to public comment. Yeah. And anyone who wants to speak we'll give you three minutes. Sands I'm going to say seeing none, we're going to go I guess to a vote. Right. This is on a motion for 8.2 a vote. Commissioner Acosta. I vote yes because the proposed special use permit meets all city and state requirements, will operate like any other business in the area and aligns with the Las Cruces Comprehensive Plan for Land Use and Economic development. Commissioner Murray. Yes, based off staff. Staff recommendation. Commissioner Kiser. Yes, based on staff recommendation and consistency with elevate Las Cruces and Chair. Yes. Do we still have to state why we

don't have we do not know. All right. Now we need a motion to hear 8.3 I make a motion to hear 8.3. Point of order. Pardon me sir, these two cases go together, right, John? Yes, they go together. So we will need a a motion to suspend the rules in order to hear both cases together concurrently. So we'll hear them together, both the master plan and preliminary plan. And then we'll before we're ready to vote, we'd have to vote to reinstate the rules before we could vote on them separately. So we get that motion, please. Thank you. I make a motion to suspend the rules of order. To hear 8.3 and 8.4 together. Second. Yes, we made an original motion to hear eight point. No, we did not. Second it, I, I seconded it. Oh you did second the first motion. Yeah. Well you guys were chit chatting over there. Oh. Commissioner Murray. Murray made the motion. Already did that. Okay. We already did the motion to suspend the rules. So. Okay. So now you got a call for a vote to suspend the rules. Thank you. Thanks for keeping us straight. All right. This is on the motion to vote, to suspend to suspend the rules for item 8.3. Commissioner Acosta. Yes, Commissioner. Murray. Yes, Commissioner. Keyser. Yes. And chair. Yes. Good evening. Commission, this is John Castillo. For the record. Today we have the Coyote Run subdivision master

plan and preliminary plat that I'm presenting before you. The current conditions of the property. It's located approximately 642ft west of the intersection of Thurman Road, Slash Angler Road and Longview Lane. Slash settlers Pass. The law encompasses approximately 25.5 acres. It's an undeveloped, vacant parcel of land with the current zoning of R1, R1, B, which is our single family, medium density, single family high density, and R3, r4, r2, which is our multi-dwelling medium density, multi-dwelling high density, limited retail and office, and our commercial medium intensity zoning districts. This is located within a suburban neighborhood place type and predominantly surrounded by single family residential development. These lots are the neighborhood that surrounds. It is of approximately the same size lots. Sometimes there might be a few smaller lots. This is a zoning map of the property right here. It's this property that's got the L shape that's highlighted. This is an aerial image of the subject property. So the master plan proposes a mixed use development on three parcels with a residential and nonresidential land uses that will be built in a single phase. Parcel one is a 3.7 acre tract of land. They are proposing a C-2 zoning designation, zoning district for a future nonresidential development. Parcels two and three. Total 18.81 acres. They are proposing the R1 zoning district for future residential development. This is the master plan right here. So this would be the. Proposed C2 three acre lot. Then. This is tracts or parcels

two and 3 or 1 and two which are will make up the large lot residential portion of the subdivision. So the preliminary plat proposes, you know, once again a mixed use development. Parcel one is for nonresidential development. Parcels two and three will be a 20 large lot residential development. And then parcels three and four will be for future roadway improvements. The future development of Coyote Loop, which is the main access for the residential and nonresidential development lots, and then parcel or parcel four would be for the extension of Thurman Drive slash Angler Road. Here is an image of the proposed subdivision. Once again we have the non residential lot up here. This is the tract of land that will go for the expansion and widening of Thurmond. Within the city limits. The northern side is the county. And then we have the 20 individual lots. The other parcel of right of way that's going to be dedicated and built out, known as Coyote Loop, that's going to access the residential homes. Public notice or notice was sent to all relevant agencies and departments. All supported the proposed master plan and preliminary plat notice was sent to all surrounding properties within 500ft. Staff did receive one email with general questions on the subdivision and one phone call. The phone call was regarding the naming of angler, slash, Thurman Road and Longview Lane and Sadler's Pass. Depending on the reason why this came up is that depending on maps that you look at, as well as plots that you may find on the properties, parts of the road still refer to themselves as angler. Other parts do refer to themselves as Thurmond, same way with

Longview Road and Settler's Pass as subdivisions. Further south of this one got approved, they started creating Settlers Pass, which then kept the northern part still Longview Lane. But as development continues, it will change eventually all to Settlers Pass and then eventually will change all to Thurmond Road. The DRC reviews subdivisions from an infrastructure, utilities and improvement standpoint on August 20th. August 20th 2 or 2025, there was a meeting which discussed dedication of parkland and paying a fee. In lieu of dedication. The DRC unanimously recommended approval with a condition of the proposed master plan and preliminary plat, that condition being that if the master plan does not get approval on or before December 31st, 2025, the developer will not be required to dedicate parkland or pay a fee in lieu of. If. However, the master plan does not make that deadline and gets approved within the next year, then they do have to follow or they are subject to resubmit for a new master plan. And this would follow all of our regulations of realized Las Cruces, where they would have to dedicate. An X amount of parkland or pay a fee in lieu of for that parkland. Today staff recommends approval based on the following findings based upon review by relevant city staff. The proposed master plan and preliminary plat comply with the requirements and standards of the City of Las Cruces subdivision code, the subdivision that is being created by the Master Plan and Preliminary plat comply with all requirements of the 2001 Zoning Code. Chapter 37 of the Las Cruces Subdivision code and the newly adopted revised Las Cruces. Following the goals, actions, and policies outlined in Elevate Las Cruces Comprehensive plan, the proposed subdivision will allow for the development of alternative housing types and

medium to high intensity commercial opportunities, as well as the DRC recommending approval with the condition for the master plan and approval on the preliminary plat, and the condition being as discussed earlier. So today your options are to vote yes to approve, vote no, to deny, vote to amend or vote to table. Thank you. Does the applicant have anything that they want to share as well? And do I have to swear him in? All right. Here we go. Off of memory. Do you swear off of the what is it? Testimony? Do you swear or affirm? The testimony you're going to give is. It's true. Yes, I do all of the above. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioners, my name is Anton Magallanes. I'm with Moy surveying, representing the applicant or the owner. Rather, the owner is here. So if you'd like to speak with him or if he has anything to add, I would encourage him to come up. John did a great job presenting the case. The only thing I wanted to mention is this was during that transition time of when we got our realized Las Cruces approved, and he may have mentioned this. I had to step out for just a moment, but we had just gotten we had already submitted. We just got realized last cruise, but we realized approved. So we just decided to just submit with the existing city of Las Cruces. So there was a decision that was made at

that point in time just to keep moving forward as we were along that path. And then the only thing I did mention or recognize in looking at the presentation is that last bullet says the condition being that if the master plan does not get approved on or before December 31st, the developer will not be required. I think that should read. If it does not get approved by December 31st, the developer would be required, which he does mention correctly here. So the last bullet here is the development recommends approval, being that if it's not approved by December 31st, basically there would not be a parkland dedication. I just wanted to bring that note, if that makes sense, that I think this statement should be. They do recognize that if this does not get approved on or before December 31st, they are responsible for the dedication park fee in lieu and just wanted to clear that up, but I'd be happy to answer any questions you all may have or stand for. Any comments. Steph, do you agree with the comments on that one? Just so it's on the record, Mr. Chair. Staff does agree. Thank you to the commissioners. Do you have any any questions for the applicant? Yeah. Can you clarify the conditions of approval. So this one is clear. But was there a second one or Mr. Chair. Commissioner Keiser there was not a second condition. It's just the condition of parkland dedication or a fee in lieu of. Okay. So this trigger December 31st would only apply to the parkland dedication and it wouldn't apply to the rest of the development standards under realize. Mr. Chair. Commissioner Keiser that is correct. The when time of development comes for the construction plans and actual development of houses, they would at that time follow all conditions or development

standards of realized Las Cruces because at that point realized Las Cruces will be our only code in effect. Okay, so any construction would fall under realized Las Cruces. Mr. Chair. Commissioner Keiser, that is correct. Okay. And then on the subdivision, if if the master plan, the subdivision are not approved before December 31st this year, then the only thing that would change for them is the park development piece. Mr. chair. Commissioner Keiser, that is correct. Why? Why wouldn't the other requirements of realize kick in, Mr. Chair? Commissioner Keiser because at this time they are following all of our regulations of our 2001 zoning code, as well as the chapter 37 of the subdivision code. And at that time, there is no requirement to dedicate parkland for the area. Right. But if if what you're saying is that come January 1st, 2026, if they still haven't received approval, then realize Las Cruces would kick in requiring them this new park dedication, but it wouldn't then apply to any of the other subdivision standards. I don't understand why it would be one and not all. Mr. Chair. Commissioner Keiser, the reason as to why realized would only affect the development standards as far as parkland dedication is because at this time, as I said before, we are transitioning between land development codes. So there is a grace period where any developer can come in if they are approved before December 31st, they are allowed to utilize either our old code, which would be the 2001 code, or realize Las Cruces. Yeah, I understand that. I guess what

I'm not understanding is why the trigger would only be for the park dedication and not everything. Mr. chair. Commissioner Keiser, as it sits looking at the preliminary plat based on the zoning designations. If we were to utilize realize Las Cruces, this does exceed all of those development standards. As far as minimum lot width of the zoning designation. And please forgive me, I don't remember the zoning designation offhand with it being either NH three or NH one suburban, but it does exceed all of those development standards already. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. That clarifies my question. But I to your point, I think I think they would have to if, if if it's denied today, then they would have to actually come back with amendment before the end of this year. Is that correct, Mr. Chair? That is correct. Okay. And then they would have to add parkland or park fee in lieu and stuff like that today. Right, Mr. chair? Yes. If we cannot get them in before January, but okay. And then but today we're the where this is the master plan that we would be approving and then this would make everything okay according to the condition. Mr. chair. That is correct. Thank you. You guys got any more questions? All right. We're going to open it up to public input. And we're going to give you we'll give you a three minute to talk. Can you please state your name Eugene Hannaway. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony today is true to the best of your ability? Yes, sir. Go ahead. So this specific plot

of land is very desirable in our area. Larger lots, Las Cruces are tired of living on small postage stamp lots, so these are highly sought after lots by you delaying the vote to agree. All you're doing is you're passing more cost onto us to put in this park that we don't want anyway. So I understand the realize Las Cruces piece is to better communities and things like that. But the target audience of this is not for that. It is for retired folks that want to come in and live a life on a larger lot and not live on top of each other. So again, by you guys prolonging this process, all you do is pass the buck onto the landowners because that's who the developer is going to pass that dollar onto, because he's going to have less land to sell. So that means that he will charge more for his lots. So I encourage you guys to approve this today so that we don't have to keep going back to, you know, redoing surveys. And because all that does is cost more money and prolong things, which the economy is headed in the right direction today and costs are going up for diesel for everything else. So all it does is raise cost lots. So I encourage you all to approve this today. That's all I have. Thank you. Anybody else on the list go on the left side. And when I say left side my sorry. My left over here. Anybody else on that side okay. Seeing none. Anybody on the right side. All right I think everyone's good. So now we can go ahead and commissioners. Got any more questions? Okay. We can now go to a vote, but we gotta

separate the vote off to or we got to reinstate the rules. We'll go now. Okay. So we just got to make a motion for eight. Okay. So we can just make a make a vote for 8.3 then just a point of order. So the motion would capture the condition that staff was recommending okay. This is on the vote for 8.3, Commissioner Acosta. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Keiser. Yes. Based on staff recommendation and consistency with the elevate Las Cruces and chair. Yes. We need a motion to hear 8.4. No, we need a motion to hear 8.4. I make a motion to hear 8.4. I second. All right back to staff for the presentation. Or I guess we just go straight to the vote. Sorry, this is on a vote for 8.4, Commissioner Acosta. Yes, Commissioner. Murray. Yes. Commissioner. Keyser. Yes. Based on my previous findings. And. Chair. Yes. Thank you. And I don't think we have any any items for discussion tonight. And do we have any staff announcements, Mr. chair, just wanted to remind you all holidays are coming November and December. We will be moving those commission meetings up a week since we'll be on the. The fourth Tuesday will be the holiday week, so please make please plan accordingly to assure that we're here that third Tuesday of November and third Tuesday of December.

Since everything is moving up a week, those those two months. Thank you. Mr. Chair, our community development Director. I just wanted to let everybody know that we will be bringing some amendments to realize Las Cruces back in October. So it's important that we do have quorum. So we'll be reaching out early to make sure that we can get quorum. For those, it's just minor tweaks and things that we've been improving over the over the course of the year, but it'll be critical for our timing to make sure we do have quorum. Thank you. All right. Any any other ones? All right. So motion to adjourn. I'll make a motion to adjourn. I second all in favor? Aye.