Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Wasn't it? And your heart. Will fly. Your life. All right. Good evening. Today's November 18th, 2000, 25, 6:00. My name is Kent Thurston. I'm the chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission. We're going to call the meeting to order and going on to. Does anybody have any conflict of interest for tonight? Seeing none, we're going to go on to the next one. Public participation. Is there anybody here that. Would like to say anything on behalf of that? Well, two things, if anything is on the consent agenda. Now is the time for public participation. Or if you have anything else that you would like to announce, those of you

who have something, go ahead and come on up to the mic and I will swear you. Do I have to swear him in right here? I think I do. Right. No, it's it's it's just public participation. Yeah. So go ahead and I'm going to give you I'll give you three minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Planning and zoning. I'd like to give accolades to where they belong. And I've asked for these two city zoning signs to be put up. This one is the most. The one from last year, 2024. And if you notice that there's a font problem between case and where it says the number and the actual black lettering, which talks about the city. We talked about this the last time I had asked the TAC people to please put it in the administrative group, that a QR code should be attached to that as well. Can I go to the next one? Thank you. This one is from 2025 and it is one of the most recent ones you have put out as a zoning thing. The QR code is there, people are using it. However, we still have a font problem. The distance before magnification from it was from the sidewalk or from the street curb edge. It's not readable and therefore you're not communicating people exactly what is on there. Also, I had asked the TAC to put into the administrative group that 500ft in diameter was not a reasonable amount to contact people. Some of the people here this evening didn't receive letters for another case that is on the agenda. That's why

500ft is not enough. I'm asking that that be put onto the administrative changes and amendment to realize Las Cruces. 500ft should be increased to 800ft in terms of the diameter between the zoning object and residential housing. Young Park is a main example where where is 500ft? Which corner do you measure that distance from? Those cases will be coming to you fairly soon. So I want to thank you for the changes that you made. But they're not enough to progress to a positive communication between the residents and the city, and to know what the city is doing on a particular piece of property, especially since realize now is almost administrative. So again, I thank you for the progress. I believe there's more to be made. And since the city has already been asked to change the maps for realized Las Cruces in terms of a resolution amendment, I'm asking that the administrative distance and the font size be increased also. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Go ahead. Come on up. Good evening. My name is. I live at five Delta Drive, which is one house away from the 1701. Background. Request for a subdivision there on the side. They want to put on. Put in six townhomes. And I feel that if you have six, you're going to have a minimum of two cars per townhome. That's going to put 12 coming out of that small lot that, according to the paper here, is three quarters of an acre on

the street. We have is already very busy before you guys were probably on board here, they were on our street and they put in those side barriers which are supposed to slow people down and they don't. When that is a race street, because it's a long street with no stop signs. When it's garden planters on the side, people driving in and out of them sometimes, and you can hear it and you can see the oil on the place sometimes. So that doesn't slow down traffic at all. So if we have a minimum of 12 cars coming in out of that lot, I think that's going to make it a very dangerous. Intersection with Delta comes in to Nevada and most likely those townhomes will be wrecked and not only by people living there. So I'm assuming college students. And we have that problem in the past with some of the houses being rented. College students and our residential neighborhood is bad enough as it is right now. But if you have 12 million residents, 12 million for possibly 20 if you put three per unit, I think that's for our neighborhood and our neighbors that I spoke to. There's a lot of older people in my on my actual street, and some handicapped people, they all feel that six is too many. We understand that. Developing it is one thing, but six townhomes is just too much for that small intersection. I see there's a couple people here that are my neighbors. I really don't know them by name, but I'm sure they're going to agree with me. And that's about all I have to say. Thank you very much. Thanks for your comments.

Anybody else? Let's go on the left side. You. Yep. Come on up. And allow. Greg can. My name is I live on 980 Maple right across from this proposal. Now like my neighbor here just said, our neighborhood is already plagued with speedsters down our neighborhood in Nevada. I was a participant in the Nevada Neighborhood Project. That that property was purchased to beautify and to bring about beautification to our our neighborhood projects for our children. Just like the new developments that you have out in the East Mesa water parks, stuff like that, it was supposed to give us a place to go and enjoy our neighborhood. These parks not a very big success. Our request for speed bumps and speed traffic. Science like they have on Idaho, were denied. There are a lot of things going on that may not be on the agenda, such as our. My neighbor just mentioned. A lot of our neighbors are on a fixed income. What is the economic impact on our neighborhood when you're bringing these properties up to development? I just didn't write these things down. I apologize, but I have a lot more questions and I think

we need to discuss this thoroughly. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. I have a how the agenda works. Everything that is on consent basically, after we do the acceptance of the agenda or the consent of the can in the consent agenda will be automatically passed. And 33 and one of those, we will have to have a council member. Council agenda. So just to let you guys know on how that works is that is there anybody else on the right side that would like to order anything? I guess let's keep going on the road on the left. Anybody else? Please do consent agenda. Just keep going open about. And. Just keep doing that. That's okay. Hello. Good evening. My name is Jesus Fritz. We live at 1715. Lester, and there are four vacant houses within a block, one block radius, one at 911 Rio Grande, the other one at 1700. Lester, the other one at 1740. Lester. And across the street or next to our house at 1705 Lester

Avenue. So we've got four vacant homes there. Then we're going to build or the proposal is to build six townhouses to increase the traffic. And yet nothing is being really done as far as looking at what's already there. I mean, you know, you can redevelop those homes if somebody doesn't want one single family home, they could redevelop those because those homes, for the most part, are just vacant and they're not being really used other than one rental. One of them is a rental, and that rental is across the street from us at 1700. Lester. So we know that we know the neighborhood there, and we know that people are just have those houses vacant. And that issue is being being is not being addressed by the city, by the Economic Development Council, that Chris Farr, whatever his name is, I spoke to him. And in regards to the fact that those homes are not only vacant, but there's there's nobody as far as codes, codes, compliance in in relation to maintaining the homes. And yet those of us that live there are expected to maintain our homes. So what's going to happen with those homes that that the first plan is to build homes on the right? If you're not taking care of the vacant homes around there, what's the city going to do with those additional homes that they're going to build off of Nevada? That's that's our objection. The density, in addition to the to the high traffic area that we already

have there. Thank you, thank you. Anybody else on the left side? Come on down. I'm Doctor Williams. I'm here with Joe and Ralph regarding the property. Antonio. So our church is right across from the property. We've been. Following the property trying to find out who owned it. Is it available for what seemed like years. We finally last thing we, when we got through to City Hall was they asked us to make an offer. So sorry. The offer. You're talking about on 700. Yeah. 7.1. We're going to hear that one tonight. You are. So we'll we'll come back to you when it comes to get to that one. All right. So this will be the public participation basically for, for one month if anyone has 16.2, 6.3, 6.0, 7.1, we're here tonight. So you have the opportunity to come back on that. Thank you. Thanks. Hi. Good evening. My concern for for the development of the plot on Nevada is that. They will be two story houses, I'm assuming, with a number of properties there. And so that's a concern. I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt you one more. One time. I haven't been asking people their names, so I'm going to have to see if you can give us your name for the record. Oh, yes. Melissa Tanksley. I live on Memphis

Court. Thank you. And another concern that I have is that if it was to be for low income, low income dwellings, I think the. The rate that they might go into foreclosure or be vacated would be somewhat higher than, than normal. And then there's the issue of squatters. So that was a concern for me. And I was unclear. Is is it six dwellings or 12 dwellings? Is there an answer. Can I get an answer to that one during the public participation? It's just it's just public participation okay. And in years past I understood it was going to we were looking into building a community garden there and having walking trails, which I think would benefit our community more so than additional housing there. It is a very crowded area and very busy street, and no way to curb the traffic. Thank you, thank you. Anybody all right? Go ahead. I just need you to stay with me. Okay? Thank you. I received a letter, but many of my neighbors did not. I feel like it's evasive and not full disclosure. Like, who owns this property? Was it? A survey was ordered. We have no blueprint. Are these dwellings going to be two story, three story access in and out. We don't have that

information. And does that mean on my lot I could build three dwellings and sell them individually? Because usually in a subdivision to sell a piece off you have to have it approved by the subdivision surveyed all of those kinds of things. So what is that? How is that going to impact others? I'm on members court. I have a very large lot, almost as large as this one. So what are you opening the door to? And who does own this property? I understood tonight, I'm not sure it's accurate, but I understood tonight that the city owns it. Really? And if they own the property, is it for free enterprise profit? What was the purpose for the city owning this property? So and also just the traffic being that close to Young Park, we have a lot of. I don't know, the proper word to use and be politically correct, but there's a lot of stuff floating in our neighborhoods spreading out from the incident at the park. It's not very well supervised. And who will be in charge of the maintenance of these townhouses? Is it going to be low income? Will there be backgrounds checks, or are they going to be individually sold? That's not clear. And I think that it should be. And I understood you to say something. I don't know how to get this off the agenda, but you said something about getting it removed or if it's up for vote or where that is, and if we could have some clarity on that.

Thank you. And thank you for listening. Thank you. Good evening. Planning and zoning. I need you to state your name. My name is Gregory Chovanec, and I would like to give a historical background as to this property and why. What are the rules on spectrum? Well, we we can. Already spoken. You can come back for the next one. We can stop on this. Okay. So we'll you get you'll get one shot at the on the public participation. I'm not talking about public participation. I am talking about the item 62, which you have on the consent agenda that you allowed other people to speak about. And it is fair that you allow me to speak about it because your body, including Mr. Faber and none of the people in your department, received emails from the. Yeah, I'm going to keep talking. Now, this property is city property. You have to stay in participation. Okay. Are you going to discuss 6.2 or discussion. So that is up. That is up to the to the council to whether they like it. But I agenda. All right okay. So it is up to you. Good. Thank you. Chairman I would like you to ask the council to pull 6.2.

Well that's. Is there anybody else and participation. Okay. Before I make a motion to accept the agenda, I'd like to drive the 6.2. I'm hoping staff can give a presentation and address some of the concerns that have been raised tonight. Okay. Can I get a second? Second? This is our motion to remove item 6.2 from the agenda. Counselor or Commissioner Acosta. Yes, Commissioner McCaslin. Yes, Commissioner. Cresta. Yes, Commissioner. Carter. Yes and no. Thank you. Okay. We'll go to the acceptance of the agenda. Is that correct? Is that acceptance of the agenda? That is acceptance of it. Okay, okay. So now I have a. Motion to hear 6.2. Make a motion to hear 6.2. I'll second that, Mr. Chair. Good evening, Sarah Gonzalez with community Development before you is the proposed subdivision for Alleys at Nevada. Property is located at 1701 Nevada Avenue. It is approximately 0.752 acres in size, is currently zoned R-1, a, which is single family medium density. It is located within our infill boundary or urban core. It is a vacant,

undeveloped parcel and it is owned by the City of Las Cruces. Here's a zoning map of the subject property. Right here you can see where the parcel is located. You would have Lynn Middle School. Over here you have Young Park. You do have walnut, and then you have Loman across to the north side. As you can see, the area is zoned R-1, A, which is our single family zone under the 2001 zoning code. We do have multifamily that's on the other side of Walnut Avenue. Here's an aerial map of the subject property. As you can see, this parcel is vacant. There are still a few other parcels that are vacant located within the area. Here is the school as well as Young Park. So you can see that this is primarily single family. There are different lot sizes and variations. Tonight the applicant is proposing to subdivide the one lot into six townhouse lots, which would include essentially six new dwelling units which are considered townhouses. The lots do range from 0.125 to 0.126 acres in size, and they are accessed from Nevada Avenue. These townhouse developments are basically permitted by right through our zoning code, as they have met the minimum requirements. When you're developing a townhouse lot, you are able to use the exemption, which is 3862, from our zoning code, which allows you to provide a lot frontage of 24ft in width, and you're allowed to have a square footage of 2880. And so in that standard, when we look into the plat, each one of these lots are 33ft in width, which has met the minimum lot frontage of the 24 minimum standard. And then there are 110, 110ft deep, which is more than the requirement of the 2880 square footage. So you do have six lots. When you're looking at townhouses in some form, they are attached to one another. You can have different variations when you do townhouses. That means you can have two attached to each other, three or you can have all six. It just depends on how the design is done or how the development comes in. Here is one of the renderings that they

were looking at from the city of Las Cruces. As you can see here, this is where the property line would run. You'd have one dwelling unit on this side and one dwelling unit on the other side. Then you would have this courtyard area. You'd have the same moving along. So in this case, if this scenario were to be developed or built out, you would have essentially two units being connected throughout. So you'd have two, two and two based on the six units. This does go through our development review committee being that all the infrastructure is already in place, that means utilities right of way. All of that is already installed. There were no concerns from the DRC as they have met the 2001 zoning code based on the allegation or the allowance from 3862. There is going to be a condition, though if they were not approved tonight, this would be allowed and realized by right. So moving forward, the subdivision would not have to come to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. However, there is a condition that if they are not approved, they would be required to pay the 18,592 for the parkland dedication and fees, which is primary reason of which we are here this evening. So with that staff's recommendation is approval. It does comply with the city standards. It does comply with the City of Las Cruces zoning code and the subdivision code. It does comply with section 3862 of the exceptions provided to develop townhouse development. And it does promote essentially an alternative style of living or housing option, which is promoted through Elevate Las Cruces. Our comprehensive plan. The notice was sent out to the 500ft within the boundary. We did receive no information. I did not receive any emails or public comment provided prior to this meeting. With that, this is the Commission's options. I do stand for any questions. We do have. Natalie with Neighborhood Services to represent and answer any questions on the behalf of the City of Las Cruces, as they are part of the development process. And then we do have Catherine Harrison Rogers here from Parks and Rec. Does anyone have any

anybody do you have any further things you want to add on to this presentation? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Natalie Green. For the record, the only thing I'll add is this piece we are looking to take into our affordable housing land bank. So while there are renderings, we don't have an official development plan yet. It is intended to be for home ownership. So it will be for home. It will not be rentals, it will be homeownership. Typically we work with Tierra del Sol to to do that program, but we're not necessarily tied to them because it does not have any federal funds. It is allowed to go up to 120% of area median income. So for a family of four, that's a family making less than $85,000. But again, depending on the funding, sources that are allocated to the project will help dictate some of those income levels and design requirements. And just as a matter of practice, we typically don't do two stories for our programs. So I don't anticipate that they would be two stories. They would be single story. Typically, we build between 1100 square feet and 1500 square feet. So it's small starter home entry level housing. Thank you. Before we go to public participation, just a clarification on this. Open it back up for this one with comments. I'm going to give you. We'll give two minutes. What we're going to do is you ask the questions and then we will. We as commissioners do not have the answer because we're not going to execute. We are just informing the board. And so what we'll do is we'll take your questions and then we'll have those written down. And that the importance before having any of all of that, if they can't answer some of those questions. So we're going to

start here on the left hand side. And then I need to support you now. And then we'll go ahead. And you just give us give us the questions that you have for the testimony that you want to give as well. All right. So before you go. I'm going to have your name right. Okay. Do you swear to affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of death? Yes. Thank you. One more questions. Is a member of the neighborhood Nevada project was to improve our neighborhoods. Driving issue or. The homes. This property was also purchased under that program. And I would like to know what changed. Why was this property not maintained for the purpose that was purchased for? And that's most important. I do live right across the street, so I see this every day when I walk outside my house. Secondly, the economic impact on our already fixed income residents in the area, what we're going to do to protect them against our already increased property taxes. Furthermore, I. That's what I thank you, thank you. Right on the left. Let's keep going. Can you please state your name? Gregory Chovanec s h e r v a n I c k. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony

you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth? I do thank you, and thank you, passenger. You don't want me to speak longer? This is a travesty. Tonight, the information that you were given in your packet is misinformation. This property was bought by the city of Las Cruces. Who is the applicant here? For a park? And it was bought with money from Dona Ana Community United. This gentleman just spoke. About what? He didn't remember the name. And it was given to the city through that program. Councilor Vazquez pushed it really hard. The mayor also commented on it. So please go back to the resolution of the purchase of this property. This is not just a zoning deal. This is park property. It has been used in the calculation of which you voted on for impact fees. How do you separate a plus or minus sign from a multiple from mathematics and a solution? I only have one question because we have the experts from realize here an appeal on this subject is still under current. Las Cruces l c. M u items. Or is it a realized Las Cruces? Because the rush for this is amazing. I got an email. On the 14th of November. Okay. By the 29th of November, DRC had already pushed it

through for a zoning project. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, I would like you to answer the question. If I appeal this as an amicus, is it under the current Las Cruces municipal code or is it under realize. Thank you. What's the answer? I, I stated earlier how you will do this. We'll answer the questions afterwards. Thank you. Anyone else on the left? Okay. We will now let anybody on the right that would like to come back up. I'm not sure. Real quick. Okay. Sterman for you got to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law. I do thank you. There seems to be some legal things. How the city can purchase property for a cause, not use it for the cause. Then what is the city going to do with the money that they make from the sale? Then the other thing is on the appeal. If this is passed, do we have to go to the city council or where can we get advice on that to follow this down the road? Or am I asking the wrong group, the wrong council, I mean that you keep keep asking the questions and we'll see if we can get those, okay, because of the impact it's going to have on our neighborhood, that what is the city going to do to enhance our area, which was the original intent for them to have this property? Do you do

you see what I'm saying? And then here's the police force. It's very hard to get that area patrolled, even after the incidences at what used to be the old Lin school, what we have at Young Park and then the traffic and damage, it's like a racing center through there. And yes, there is a stop sign. As a matter of fact, there's two. But very often when you take that curve to go up to Lees drive those, it's not enforced. They're not stopping at the stop signs. And that's a separate issue. But the issue is the danger that this will bring to the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else on. Okay. We're going to close the public participation. Does anyone have any Commissioner. Sorry, I shouldn't call the councilors. Commissioners have any questions? I should ask how council feels about us taking their titles? I've got a few questions. First of all, thank you for staff for providing some clarity. I think this is a really fantastic project on its face, though, hearing some of the things that were raised tonight and then again, going back to the staff report, it would seem that we don't do ourselves many favors here. I think we're maybe unintentionally. Stoking some vibes of secrecy or conspiracy. So I'm hoping that staff can address some of the questions that were raised by some of the speakers this evening, starting with the the fact that the city is not listed as an applicant for this application, which in fact, I believe there are. In

fact, it wasn't even mentioned at all if that was the city owned property until you got into the minutes from the DRC meeting as an attachment. So my first question is why is the city not listed as the applicant? And why? Why not identify that in the staff report at the outset? Mr. Chair and Commission, when you look at any one of our Prns packets, we generally will say on there that it does have the representative. It's the applicant who has submitted the subdivision application. So in this case, the applicant was Carter Surveying who had submitted the application for the subdivision as it is a subdivision for the city. But the applicant essentially is Carter surveying. The property owners have not all been listed on any of the packets that you move forward with. You generally will see solder. Miller. They're the representative for Sierra Norte. You will see the same information going on to all of your packets. But this applicant can affect anything without the owner's consent. Correct, Mr. chair, that is correct. Yes. When the plat comes in, it is signed off by the city of Las Cruces. We do get the mayor to sign off as they contest to the property basically being subdivided. That is correct. But the applicant who submitting the application is not the city, it is the Subdivider that is placing it basically onto the property. So if we were to go through all of the four cases we had this evening and you look through all of your packets, our packets stay consistent. We provide the representative who has submitted those applications. And has no, I guess the the first thing is a property owner has the consent. They have the competition. But because they cannot come on and submit a subdivision application for a property that I do not own. Correct. Mr. Commissioner, I

just want to add that as a matter of practice, our team hires professional surveyors and they do the subdivisions on our behalf. And so yes, the city did have to go through a sign off process and affidavit that we are the legal owner as the Housing and Neighborhood Services Administrator. I'm the designee for our Affordable housing and Land bank and trust fund. So I do sign some of those affidavits. Yeah, I appreciate that. And I understand what I'm saying. I guess what's confusing to me is this is the same project the city owned property. And what we don't mention any of that, any of that. And staff report it's not until the DRC will read the minutes. The lack of being a parent of. And I guess I just don't. Why? Why are we what are we being not being forthcoming that we obviously a private company and. We need to disclose that they're the owner on this for now. It's just that person's main applicant. It is what it is. Those are the ones. But when the city I mean, we should hold ourselves to a little bit more transparency here. Mr. Chair and Commission, we do have our standard practices in which we do relay the information has not come up. This is one of the first city projects that have been moved forward. When you look at our packets, they're pretty standardized as to who is represented on those applications. When we do go to DRC and it is presented, we may see the owner be present or you still see representatives and that's where it is coming out. I don't think the standard necessarily is different, as we do have to hire out as well to do our cases and our packets. They are the representatives that are providing the information and coming to the public hearing to meet those standards. Thank you for that. Next question. Is any presentation could you expand a little bit on the reason why

the city chose to go with the old code, and not the current code? Mr. chair and Commission, when you're looking at real lives lost Cruces, there is the parkland dedication that is now required or payment in lieu. When you're looking at development of the six parcels that would be on the property, they were required to essentially pay the $18,000 that would have been payment in lieu of that gets added on to essentially that development for those affordable housing costs. If they went through the 2001 zoning code, they did not have those those fees associated with them. So that was the primary goal was to not essentially pay those, because they will still pay impact fees on the development when it comes in, but not the parkland dedication. But what does that say when the city is trying to take advantage of a small amount of pain and impact fee? What does that say about an impact fee? Mr. Commissioner? What the city's intent. This is a pass through subsidy to the home buyer. So we're trying to reduce the cost for the end user. So reducing the fees inherently reduces the cost of the homes and makes them more affordable for the homeowners. So we're we're basically saying right now impact and increase costs for homeowners. Given the we've we've presented evidence that was not necessarily the case. So. Affordable housing is not treated any differently than regular market rate housing. So we pay impact fees, although we do have a waiver process on occasion that we utilize. But again, we're obligated to pay permit fees, the parking fees, if this carries on to the next phase, we'll pay public safety and park impact fees as well. So and all of that becomes a pass through to the end user. So the homeowners would have to absorb

that cost. So again going under the 2021 code will reduce the the per lot cost for the homeowners. And. I don't think that's a very good look, but we'll leave it at that. My next question. Is about how the city came to own this parcel. There were a couple references from speakers this evening about maybe it was purchased as part of another. Separate park program. Just if you can address that head on, that would be helpful to understand and maybe clarify what what actually transpired. Mr. Commissioner. So I had to pull up the resolution myself. It was purchased sometime in 2019. It was part of the Nevada Cool Corridor. It does talk about that. There was an intention to or did it say to facilitate planning services and engage residents in a small scale projects to create temporary community spaces and allow residents ideas for various uses and refines plans? It's been vacant since then. The staff that was involved in the original purchase is no longer with the city. Parks has also since adopted a parks Master plan, which changes some of the their requirements. And so it was sitting vacant. We were approached by REM, which is who we named this subdivision after. For those who don't know, he's a 92 year old architect who provided the conceptual. And so he wanted to work on some sort of development plan or alternative housing types. That's outside of our usual scope. For those who know some of the work we do, we primarily

work multifamily, low income housing tax credits. And so we've been asked to explore smaller starter home scale type housing. So this this seemed like a good opportunity. We did reach out to the various departments to see if they had a use for this parcel. They responded that they didn't. It was no longer in alignment with parks or any community facility building. So the best, best use was additional housing for our housing stock. I got a question for you. If it's not aware of the answer currently, but it is for purchase. Whenever it was purchased to be some type of intent, should we not uphold the original intent of the purchase? Chair Thurston, members of the Commission. Was that a comment or a question? I guess my question is if anything's possible, what would you design as a park? So I want to be I want to be clear that I actually have no documentation in any of my files that actually outline that this was specifically I messed up. I need to have you say your state, your name. Sure. Absolutely. Catherine Harrison Rogers Parks and Rec, for the record, do you swear? Do I have to know just because I have to have a name? So screw up on that. That's fine. I do want to clarify that I actually have no documentation in my records that specifically targeted for Park. It was never on a on a capital improvement plan related to to parks. But that being said, if if it were to be designed as a park, it in terms of the distancing from the neighborhood, it doesn't necessarily add a lot of value. We already have a a community park in the area that that serves a basically a half mile

buffer walk shed, as well as the general community at hand. The smaller park, those are really challenging. I'm not really quite sure what we would do to design that. We would, of course, if it were in our hands and we were directed to do something with that, we would certainly work with the neighborhood to come up with a plan. But it's proximity to Young Park and the way our current master plan outlines park facility types and park needs and park gaps, it it doesn't necessarily add to our stock in terms of filling those park gaps, because those park gaps, at least in this area, are filled. Can I just have the resolution, the purpose read back. Sure. And it doesn't. Specifically state parks. I think community space is how it reads. So I can read most of it again. Natalie Green for the record. So it says, whereas the city desires to purchase 0.87 acres of land located at 1700 East Nevada from the Stroud Revocable Living Trust, where it was appraised by a local appraiser. October 31st, 2018. And then it keeps going. So I'll just kind of expedite. Whereas the sustainability office created the Nevada Street Neighborhood Initiatives, which envisions the creation of several projects along the street and within the neighborhood, including a cool corridor, various energy efficiency projects, and building social connectedness projects, all intended to serve as a demonstration of resiliency strategy. And Whereas, part of the district three neighborhood meeting, residents approached Councilor Vasquez about the possible purchase. Residents expressed their desire to create a community space, and once purchased, staff will develop a one year contract for facilitated planning services that engage residents in a series of small scale projects to create temporary community

spaces and allow resident ideas for various uses and refine plans. And whereas the asking price for the vacant parcel was 69,000, however. I lost it somewhere that's answered my what I was looking for. Did any of somebody facilitate community meeting to explore those? I honestly, I couldn't tell you because it was the sustainability office. And again, those staff persons are no longer here. Okay. So it seems to me that it's intended for community spaces. You know what exactly that is? Was, you know, supposed to be solicited by the community. It would be frustrating if that never happened, I think we need to be made that a low moderate income housing project, which I think is fantastic to be defined as a community amenity. I think there's an argument to be made there, but the fact that it doesn't appear that there was any additional work to follow through from the city side is. Concerning. I mean, deeply concerning. And I can understand the residents frustration. And I would like to think all of us can understand that the city says we're going to do something that they should at least follow through, and at the end of the day, you know, if this was the best use and the best idea that came forward, fantastic. But it would appear to me that there's a lot going on here that is that residents had a legitimate complaint to be made. Yeah, we did reach out

to the other departments. Again, it's not in their development plans and nor do they have a use for it. So housing decided to put it to use. And so this was our intended outcome. Any other commissioners have. Yeah. Commissioners I'm finally getting it right. Have any input or questions? So now we're at the point where we need a motion to approve the amendment. All right. I just need a vote okay. We just need a vote. This is on the vote on 6.2 Councilor Joaquin Acosta. If we denied, we have to say the reason. Just for the record, I'll vote to deny. Commissioner McCaslin, deny. Commissioner Acosta approve. Commissioner. Before I say I'm not opposed to this project and concept, I think initially coming in tonight, this was a fantastic project. I had no issues hearing from the residents and then reexamining the staff report. And I know I'm very concerned that the city is not following this for finding loopholes. And I don't think residents have been adequately, adequately. Involved in this process. So I'm going to vote

no. And chair no motion fails. Thank you. Okay, so. 7.1. Oh I need a. I make a I make a motion to 7.1. Second. Okay. Once again Sarah Gonzalez with community development. This is for the North tornado housing tracts. This is a property located at 1240 North Tornado Street. It is approximately 0.339 acres in size. It is zoned R-2 Multi-dwelling low density. It is located within our infill boundary and urban core. It is also another property that is vacant and undeveloped and owned by the City of Las Cruces. Here's a zoning map before you. As you can see, this area was located within within the North Mesquite district. A lot of it is multifamily, R2, R4, and then you do have the commercial nodes that are located around them, which is your North Mesquite and your Solano Avenue. Here's an aerial map of the subject. Property is located adjacent to Booker T Washington School. We do have single family residences, and as you can tell, there are a lot of multiple sizes and differences. Just because as part of the original town site, a lot of properties had different shapes and they were over top of property boundaries when they were built. So a lot of modifications have taken place through the subdivision process. The applicant is requesting an infill development proposal with the subdivision, as it does follow the 2001 zoning code, the 2001 zoning code. You can subdivide a property so it's being subdivided from one into three new lots. For single family residential homes, the lots will range from 0.111 to 0.113 acres in size. It is accessed from North Tornillo Street. The reason it is an infill development proposal or subdivision is because there is a requested deviation to the

minimum lot size requirements, which in an R-2 zoning designation, it does require the lot size to be at 5000ft. These lots are at 49, 22 and 4835. So just under the minimum standard being it's an infill. They can request deviations to that zoning code. Here is a lot layout from the subdivision plat provided by the surveyor which is lot one, two and three. So as you can see they are single family residential homes that meet the minimum lot width. They just do not meet the minimum lot size as far as square footage, here's the subject property. As you can see, it is vacant and then Booker T Washington School is directly on the east side of the property. Here are the renderings for the three homes that are proposed on the sites. If they were to be developed, they are three bedrooms so that it will provide single family homes that are essentially in character in nature, with the current and existing homes in the neighborhood, this would be going on lot one. This would be for lot number two. And then you'd be looking at this image for lot number three. All of them are single story homes as they would match that characteristic. Once again, this did go through the Development Review Committee on October 15th. Because the infrastructure is in place. There's no concerns when the subdivision does come in. So at that point, we're looking to ensure that it meets the subdivision code or the intent of basically your infill area. There is still a condition that remains onto the property that it would require the parkland dedication, because it is increasing by two lots. The fee would then be 74,437 and 12. With this, staff is recommending approval. It does meet the intent for the infill development plan. It does also follow Elevate Las Cruces, as we are continuing to find different areas that are vacant and our properties and developing, developing them with housing opportunities. There is also it does meet the intent for the community, and the proposed variance is compatible with the existing lots that are there. As you drive around anywhere within North Mesquite area, you can see that there are deviations to a lot of the lots that are

there. We did receive one call for an inquiry, essentially for the development and then support of the housing development. This is directly located to the south of the subject property. And so seeing housing come in was not a big concern for the actual property owner. So with that I leave you with your council or commission options, stand for any questions. And once again, Natalie is here from our housing development group. Thank you. Natalie, do you have anything else you want to add to that presentation? Okay, we'll open it up to public participation. Anybody on the left? If you have any participation, go ahead and comment up. I guess my left. Your right. And he feels if you'll state your name. You can give him three minutes. Good evening. My name is. And I live almost according to this division that is trying to develop and work with. And that's where you are. So do you. Do you swear or affirm? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of right? Yes, sir. Thank you, thank you. Okay. My name is les. On. On that. That land. And. But I'm here for the. But we try to use land for our church that is on the corner of the seventh day. Adventist to make a community service hall for our seniors and for our children to have something to do in the summer, all year round. We have a pool back there, and I came and talked for. I try to talk to our counselor. I did paperwork, I did investigation, we own that

property and who and they. The city knocked down the house that was there and they were. They put a lien on that property. So now it belongs to the city. Now we're trying to make these three apartments, I mean, these three little houses there. We don't need houses, but we need to keep our kids away from the street. And that's why we are we're working on that application, and we never got an answer. They want us to solve that property, and we wanted to make it a community center there to keep our kids safe. And I hope that you can overcome this. Thank you very much. Thank you. Can we add to. Yeah as well. So go ahead and say your name. Llewellyn. William Llewellyn Williams. You swear affirm that the testimony that the board is the truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of law? Yes, I do, thank you. Go ahead. So. As Joe said, we've been looking at this property for the past ten years. At least. We were there when the city knocked down the existing building and we couldn't find out who owned it. It was a mystery. Finally, Joe and others went around to the city hall and motel, and finally we've tracked down who who was. Once we were able to reach them, which was extremely difficult, we were told to make an offer, so we made an offer. And about a couple of weeks after making the offer, they claimed it was denied because the city is going to build

something there. We have a lot of activities on that corner for our church and for the kids. We do a lot of things with the kids from the Booker T Washington, and we just kind of felt like every attempt we made to try to do something. Regarding this activity center, we got squashed, and we were most surprised that some of that injury was being inflicted by the city. And so I'm hoping that this can be tabled and we can be given an opportunity to, to make a reasonable offer and to see if we can procure this for the community. Thank you. Anybody else on the left? We'll go on to the right. And when you get up there, when you state your name and I'll throw you in. Yes, my name is Robert brothers. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth or the truth and nothing but the truth under 21? Yes, I do, thank you. Doctor Williamson stated. And Josie, I'm also representing the church, and we have seen the property dilapidated for years, going on 30 years. It's been the same. And once the doctor and other congregants there, we started to try and purchase the land, to try and bring what we even came as far as to bring the same drawings of what we were proposing. We hired an architect, and he brought up a proposal that was perfect for the for the neighborhood, perfect for the kids at Booker T and the sewers where they could go and have after school activities, not even to include the the weekend. The weekend would have been special. It would have been a place where they could have gone and we would have had supervision. They would have been under our supervision and they would have had recreation. We were even going to put in a. Building for

whatever laws or whatever would be we would follow, and we're ready to. We had the drawings and we made the proposal, and we had a few weeks here with people from the city. Then, like Doctor Williams did, all of a sudden I was up years a singles up almost. It's like if somebody had not thought of the property until he brought it up and we did our we tried to do our due diligence to try to procure this, this, this property, because we feel that more than more housing, because there's even more dilapidated housing there already. The neighborhood is in dire need of, of of some place where these, these kids can learn and and grow naturally and get around. We feel we got shortchanged on this because we didn't have the opportunity to go through the steps that these these people have had. And we try to we were we were ready to buy it. We made it. We made a pretty good proposal. And they said, we'll take a consideration. And my feeling is, personally, this is my personal opinion, is that someone said, hey, when you about this property on this corner, and I'm sure there was people looking around saying, we don't know. Well, you know what they said, this property won't make us any money with church and kids. Who cares about that? Let's try and make some money. How can we do this to make money all of a sudden? This this property is is a foregone conclusion as far as I see here. Our recourse would be if you could take this into consideration and at least, at the very least tabled it. And let's find out what actually went on and how the property

was that the gentleman that the six two we are under. I'm sorry. Thanks for your time. Thank you, thank you. Is there anybody else I'd like to get up and speak? Seeing none, we will go to room. The commissioners, Mr. Chair. Yes. Go ahead. I have a question for staff, please. Staff, can you clarify who owns this property? Is it Tierra del Sol housing, or is it the city of Las Cruces? So the city of Las Cruces owns this, but it was deposited into the affordable housing land Bank. So its disposition and restrictions are based on chapter 13 of the Las Cruces municipal Code. So its intended purpose is for affordable housing development. While the city can sell the property, we still have a fiduciary duty to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Land Bank to recoup costs, so the offer that we received was well below the costs that the city invested into the property. So I got an offer for $5,000. I can't give away land under state law because of anti donation. The only exception is affordable housing. And again the city will be giving the lots to Tierra del Sol. So we are not making money off of this. It's all for the benefit of the future homeowners. So I guess why don't we write this in our staff reports? Why isn't this part of our presentation? I mean, this to me is critical information. I don't understand why we continue to not disclose information about projects. It's not just the two. Tonight,

I feel like it's almost all of our projects that come forward and things from comments that are being made by other suddenly, you know, we've got 20 more questions lined up that staff decided that they didn't feel it was important context for a project, but especially for projects like this, I don't understand why we can't just be forthcoming about what it is we want to do and provide information to the public. We owe it to the public. We work for. So that's not a question. That's a frustration. It's a statement. I also just want to clarify that this, this body does not have to do what may not have been a property owner and a potential seller. That's private business. We don't get involved in that. So I certainly can understand the frustration that you weren't successful in your endeavors to acquire the property. But that's not something that we have any authority or insight or visibility into. That's all I have. Anyone else, Mr. Chair? I have one more additional comment or question for the city for staff, please. Yes. Go ahead. Staff, I understand we have a methodology here that we use to always list our cases, but right off of what commissioner here, my fellow commissioner has stated, and I don't know what regulations are as far as being more transparent, saying this city owns this property, which that is our taxpayer monies that own it. Right. So we can we be more transparent or what do we need to do to hit that mark, where we are more transparent with our public? Mr. Chair and Commission, I think moving forward, yes, because this has been the first time in which those questions had come up from moving forward. Staff can modify essentially our staff

reports where we just include them for all cases. And so I think it's important just to go back to, in all cases, providing any of the property owners as well as private owners and developers and applicants who are placing them forward. I think every time we come to the commission meetings, we all learn that there's new pieces or new steps that we all can grow from, and that's where we continue to improve based on comments, based on public input, based on. That's why we have these meetings on live TV so that people can watch them through YouTube, get the information out there in different forms and different formats. That's why we started putting all the case packets available for the public to view. We've increased, we've improved. We continue to do those moving forward. Thank you. I have a question for staff was a I'm not aware of the process. So if somebody does make an offer on a piece of land that the city owns, is this a negotiation process or is it an offer and a denial? It depends again, because this is within and again, Natalie Green, for the record, because this is held within the Affordable Housing Land Bank, it has a separate disposition process. So typically we would need to get a couple appraisals. First under state law to determine the value of the lot, we would have to go to the Affordable Housing Land Bank Committee to ask what they thought of that offer, or if they wanted to dispose of that, and then it would require council approval to sell the land, and then all the proceeds would go back into the trust fund. But again, because the offer was well below what the city had invested in the property, it was just we told them, no, thank you. And again, these lots in particular, we acquired five through the neighborhood action. They were nuisance abatements, right. Dilapidated properties that were then demolished and acquired for the land bank. And that mostly occurred in 2020. Council

already gave approval to acquire those specifically for the purpose of affordable housing. So that's what we're moving forward with. So that's one of. The original intent of purchasing these roles for affordable housing on this piece of land. Correct. The the five, we call them the Nap properties or nuisance abatement properties. And this was one of those. Thank you. Some were acquired through foreclosure, but this one in particular was purchased directly from the homeowner using affordable housing funds from the trust fund. So again that restricts the use to uses under the Affordable Housing General Oversight Ordinance. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. This is on item 7.1, Commissioner Berkman. Yes. Commissioner McCaslin. Yes, Commissioner. Janet Acosta. Yes. Commissioner. Kizer. Yes. And chair. Yes. Thank you. Are there any items on discussion for another night? So does anybody have any on that? We'll then go to staff announcements, Mr. Chair and Commission I'm the only staff announcement would be that next month once again our meetings are moved up for one additional week. So we will be meeting on December 16th. As of right now, we do currently have two cases moving forward. So we do have a proposed zone change and an additional subdivision and master plan at this point. Thank you. All right. I'll make

a motion to adjourn second, second. All in favor I.