Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay.

Are we about ready to, oops, is that me echoing? No, it was you echoing. We've got a quorum, and I think we've got everybody we're going to get. Call the meeting to order.

Mike, are we rolling?

Call the roll.

We are live.

Okay. First, the Pledge of Allegiance. Sasha, would you lead us?

Commissioner Smith. Chair Smith. I apologize.

Chair Clow? It's refused. Commissioner Morando?

Here.

Commissioner Raylan?

Here.

Commissioner Capon? Accused. Commissioner McReynolds?

Here.

Commissioner Barber? Here. We have a quorum.

Thank you, sir. I'd like to just break with the agenda for a minute and introduce Natalie Colley, who is the new face over at the big board over there. She's the new attorney. We'll be doing our work and welcome. And perhaps you could just give us 30 to 45 seconds of context about what brought you here and all the rest of it.

Absolutely, thank you, Chair Smith. As Chair Smith said, my name is Natalie Cauley. I joined the city attorney's office last week as the newest assistant city attorney. Things are still in flux and being decided, but it seems like I'll be working with the planning commission and taking over from Frank. In terms of background, I'm originally from Falls Church, Virginia, have not lived there since I was 18, and moved to New Mexico from Anchorage, Alaska in September. That's where I went right after law school, and I've been a practicing attorney for five years now. So very happy to be in Santa Fe and excited to work with you all.

Well, welcome. Yes, and Sasha.

Welcome, and can I just ask to amend the record to show that I'm here as well? Thank you.

Absolutely. Sorry I missed that. Are there any questions for Natalie or anything? My sisters lived in Anchorage since 1961. So I'm a big Anchorage, Alaska fan. I've been there several times.

She has a stronger resolve than I do. The winter has got to be too much for me.

Positions.

I just visited.

Could I hear her?

I'll ask you about that afterwards.

Is there a motion to approve the agenda as presented?

Motion to approve the agenda.

Second.

Are there any comments? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Ayland?

Yes.

Commissioner McReynolds?

Yes.

Commissioner Barber? Yes. Commissioner McGee?

Yes.

Commissioner Morando? Yes. Motion's approved. Agenda's approved.

Thank you, sir. I just have a question. Do we need to approve a consent agenda that doesn't exist?

Mr. Chair, we do not.

I hear a motion to approve the minutes, the last meeting.

Motion to approve minutes.

There are no minutes or findings.

I was wondering about that. I thought probably everybody had something that I didn't. OK. And are there findings and conclusions? No. OK. And there's no consent agenda. Oh, we're down to staff communications. Wait. I thought so. What? Yes, I'd say we're down to staff communications.

Chair, we'll have to push that off to the next one.

Um, there being no old business that brings us to the agenda of new business case, uh, 2024 dash 94 61, 1372 Boylan lane, 2743 Boylan circle and 2745 Boylan circle re zoning postponed from, uh, uh, the meeting. Are we ready to present?

Yes, I have my screen. Might just need it shared.

All right.

Okay, here we are 2000 I'm where I'm going to present case 2024 9461 rezoning and case number 2025 11164 general plan amendment 1372 Boylan Lane 2743 and 2745 Boylan circle. Tonight, the applicant is requesting an approval for a general plan amendment from transitional mixed use, the community commercial, and a rezoning from R1 to C2. The agent is Victoria Dalton from NM Land Solutions. The owner is Larry Boylan. And I'm Joel Cruz-Haber. So just to begin, where are we? The site takes access of Agua Fria, which is shown in the pink line. And east is generally located off of the Siler-Agua Fria intersection. And some development that has been improved recently in the area is the Esekiel Lofts and the Helmhainz development. This is a street view of the site. The arrow shows the driveway going into the subject area, the properties. I'll go ahead and get into the site history a little bit. The property was annexed in 2013 as a part of annexation phase two, area one, with legal non-conforming structures that still exist today. And through that annexation, the property was zoned R1. Now we're going to go into the 1999 future land use map, as well as the applicant's request for general plan amendment. The future land use map designation currently is transitional mixed use. And this does encourage a mixed use variety of residential, commercial development, and typically is associated with a mixed use zoning district. But that has not been rezoned, and that is why the applicant is requesting that. But staff is recommending denial of the general plan amendment as the future land use map. The future land use map in this area has been reviewed and amended. And that was through the West Santa Fe River corridor plan. which was a culmination of input from neighbors, city agencies to discuss what they want this area to look like in the future. And that was completed in 2017. It is also provided in attachment A of the staff report. And this is an excerpt from the West Santa Fe River Corridor Plan. which completely acknowledges that the R1 district may not have been the best zoning designation. This plan recommends that all parcels in the mixed area that are currently designated residential, one dwelling unit per acre, future land use map, and or currently zoned R1 single family be re-designated and re-zoned. The intent is to create a reasonable transition for more intense commercial uses near Siler Road to less intensive residential uses near Frenchies Park. Multifamily rental and affordable housing is encouraged with the density ranges recommended. This is a map that was created through that plan and The parcel, I really hate to use my .. Oh, no, wait. I have a pointer here. OK, see the laser pointer? The property is here. The mixed use designation is shown right there for this property. And through this master plan, the Santa Fe River Corridor District overlay I'm sorry, the Santa Fe River Corridor Overlay was created. And this is an overlay that restricts height, setbacks, open space, but most importantly, like I said, height. This overlay districts restricts height of structures to 28 feet. So regardless of the zoning district being proposed tonight, 28 feet is going to be the height for all structures. no matter what. That is because of this overlay. Now we kind of get into why staff is recommending a C1 or a mixed use designation. Like I've mentioned before, R1. But what is the difference between C2, C1, mixed use, height, setback, lock coverage, different types of uses? I mean, no matter what, there's not a development plan. There's not a master plan. There's not a planned unit development designation with this. We don't know what is going to be coming online. So we just have to go by with whatever the code will allow us to do. So with the applicant's request in C2, you would think it would be 45, but no, 28 feet is the maximum height that would be allowed for the zoning district. The open space requirements would also be trumped by the overlay district, which I can go back. So in the overlay district, subdivisions, when they provide between five and 25 or more homes, shall dedicate at least 10% of common space. And this is in lieu of park dedication to the city. So the master plan back in 2017 took into consideration that we have too many parks. And this is something that... That would supersede the open space requirements of 250 square feet for a dwelling unit. If approved as C2 with the general plan amendment as well, it would be 60% maximum lot coverage, which is the same. for non-residential uses and then for C1. However, for residential uses, it does decrease to 40% for maximum. But it is encouraging both mixed uses. For density, C2, there is no density. But lot coverage, the maximum height of structures, will determine what the density is, how much parking space there is, the amount of open space required. For C1, maximum height of structure is at 36. However, as I mentioned with the overlay, we're at 28. The density for C1, it does depend on how much infrastructure is provided for the site currently, and that infrastructure is specifically dependent on if they're connected to public water and public sewer. Currently, this site is not connected to city water services. It is connected to It is connected city services through a private septic line, which through our DRT comment response would have to be connected completely in the future. Now, between staff's recommendation of C1 and mixed use, we do encourage C1 because, as this body knows, mixed use has probably been the most rezoned from zoning designation that we have in the city. People usually rezone from mixed use to C1, C2, higher densities. And that's because for mixed use, density is restricted mostly by height. So if we're looking at the top, for the top cell here, a maximum height of 30, well, let's go... Where mixed use development is located Jason. To residential uses or residential zoning all buildings and structures within 70 foot of the joining residential property shall not exceed 25 feet in height. gosh sorry. What I meant to read was, buildings of 25 feet in height or less shall not exceed a maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre. So automatically, through mixed use, we're only allowing structures that are going to allow a maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre, whereas C1 can allow up to 21. So that is why, and in our zoning definitions for C1, it is an encouraged zoning designation for transitional buffers such as where we're at located for this property. Now that we've gone through the dimensional standards, this is a brief snapshot of how some of the uses differ in mixed use C1 and C2. So for example, for a cannabis, For a light assembly manufacturing in mixed use, not allowed. C1, not allowed. C2, that would be permitted. So someone were proposing some kind of light assembly manufacturing, that would not go in front of the planning commission. It wouldn't go in front of the board for any kind of public input. It would just go straight to building permit. So that's just how you would read this. And for C1, most of the uses that are not typically found in a neighborhood style area, such as service repair garage, cannabis retailer, cannabis manufacturing, continuing care community, are just Well, that one is permitted, but that one does tend to represent more of a neighborhood community style. But through C1, it does automatically restrict these uses. Same thing with mixed use. It does restrict a lot of the majority. For the cannabis commercial retailer, it is permitted with site-specific use standards. So that is just determining how far it is from another residential area, from another cannabis, from another church, from a school, and whether or not it's allowed there. Since we're doing a full overview of the site, the property does a but a an established female floodway, however, the height the elevation from that funnel way to the property. it's not in a flood way, but through the overlay Santa fe river overlay district, it does require a minimum of 15 foot setback of structures. As for utilities, as I mentioned, there is an existing private water, a private sewer line, which through my laser dot, it stops here in the middle of the property, goes up, and then connects right into where we have manholes in the Santa Fe River in that tri-arroyo. Future development will require that a connection be made to the city. and that that be converted from a private to a public sewer line, as well as, depending on the future development, would likely be connected to water. And a little bit about the topography. Starting at Agua Frida at the entrance, we're at about 6,710 elevation. And it makes you think about how high we are here, huh? And it gently slopes down to about 6,690 to here. And the slope of the site generally goes from east to west. So it kind of just flows out here. The staff did send this application to the departmental review team, parks, open space, traffic, water utility, the folks that we would reach out to typically for these items. However, a lot of them mentioned that their comments are not really needed at this time. It's when they would see some real development And fortunately, with the future land use map promoting a higher density zoning than R1, that's more than likely the reason why. But having a development plan, having a master plan that they can provide conditions of approval, technical corrections is typically when they provide their comments. This meeting, these applications, an ENN was held for these applications on September 26, 2024. And my understanding is that there was general support for the project. I did not attend this ENN, so I will let the applicant speak to that. The public notice for these applications were duly notified, as mentioned for the previous public hearing, and were postponed. Mailers were sent to neighbors with 100 feet certified mail, posters posted on site, and a legal section posted on the New Mexican, all on May 20th. So as for the approval criteria staff finds that the agent has not satisfied the approval criteria for a general plan amendment. Part of that is there is not mention of how the request is consistent with the Santa Fe River Corridor Plan, which does specifically promote mixed use as the feature zone and is relatively recent, which does not make the 1999 erroneous or out of date. since that has traffic impact analysis, economic analysis in there. So therefore staff finds that the agent has met the approval criteria or a rezone to mixed use or to C1. Now staff has provided those findings for you and to meet the yes staff fines agents met the approval criteria for a less intensive zoning district than originally requested that is given to us and by section 3.5 b2b And that is in the old code because that is when this application was submitted. Through staff's review, we did take into consideration how uses now that are in the new code and dimensional standards that have changed in the new code have been applied. And that has been presented to you tonight as well as the staff report. And we do recommend that you accept staff's findings as they are consistent with the general plan. These are the recommendations before you tonight to deny case number 2025-1164. And for the governing body, yeah. City and land use staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the governing body approve case number 2024-9461 rezoning to a less intensive zoning designation of C1 or mixed use. And that is the other recommendation. The motions required for this is to approve or deny the general plan amendment, and so, if you sorry whoa.

We got there.

So if you so choose to approve the general plan amendment, we have listed all three for you to approve or deny a rezoning to mixed use, C1 or C2. I'll leave this up as you, well, after the applicants discuss, I'll bring this back up. Are there any questions for me?

Can everyone hear? Okay.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Victoria Dalton, 915 Mercer Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87505.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do so under the penalty of perjury?

Yes.

Please proceed.

Thank you. Good evening, commissioners, and thank you for being here tonight. I appreciate you taking that extra time. So I do have a presentation, and let me see if I can get connected really quick.

Okay. Okay.

Updates window. Next. Button. Page 1 of 6. Quickly personalize what narrator. Power. The window heading level 1. Welcome to narrator. I see what. Scan off.

Here. He's reading my whole presentation.

Second. Okay.

How weird. Oh, my gosh. Okay.

I did.

Here's my PowerPoint. Okay.

I'll just let him take over. No, no, no. You're good. Here's your window. Okay.

Now. We could.

Okay, I just want to make sure that it's not going to start reading. Okay, so thank you, and I do have a presentation. I just want to make a slight correction to my business name, our business name, which is Dalton Land Insights LLC. NMLand Solutions is Dissolved. So if we can just make that change at some point, I know I need to change some stuff in the application. I also have just a couple of responses before I get on with my presentation. So in response to the R1 zoning designation, when all these properties were annexed into the county, almost every single one of them, was designated with R1 rezoning. It was assigned as a holding place to allow for those who were annexed into the city to allow them to rezone the property based on surrounding land patterns. I also want to state that in regards to open space, there is plenty of property to comply with open space. Mr. Boylan, who is the applicant, actually coordinated with Santa Fe County in the taking of seven acres of his property within the Santa Fe River. So he's dedicated that for restoration of the trail as part of that project. We also understand that connection to city water and city sewer would be required. There are ongoing conversations about hooking into city water. There are existing possible water rights that would be transferred over to allow the water budget and offsetting water rights that we would need to work with when development is contemplated. um another item is there is a private sewer line and there was a agreement many years ago with the city um that mr boylan would be allowed to build this sewer line and at the time of annexation the sewer line would be accepted based upon um you know the line being constructed in uh to city standards and meeting um city requirements that hasn't happened but it's a very old line um So with that, I will get on with the presentation. Okay, so the proposed general plan amendment and rezoning align zoning policy with existing land use and evolving urban corridor function. The Boylan family's four decades of commercial and industrial use, including historic river track mining, an onsite well drilling business, and a grandfathered mobile home park, supports the need for C2 zoning designation. C2 includes compliance with the river corridor overlay development review and infrastructure requirements to ensure controlled growth. The proposal supports sustainable urban development focused on fairness, consistency, and practical planning. The proposal updates the land use zoning to align long range policies with daily regulations for consistency. Family owned properties with over 40 years of commercial and industrial and mining well drilling and a grandfathered mobile home park support rezoning request. The application uses proper procedures to ensure zoning aligns with established land use and policy frameworks. Rezoning places the boiling property on par with neighboring sites, supporting compatible development. On this slide, I do have a very small little clip of the vicinity map, just showing some of those existing uses. Um, to the rear of the subject property, we have a, um, I believe now it's rich Duran plumbing and that's on its own tract and it's zone C2. Uh, they can have any other commercial uses that are available in C2. Um, and as long as they comply with the, uh, with the, the river corridor plan. So, um, just a little further down the road, you know, there's other lots that have been rezoned and I'll get into that a little bit more. So why C2 instead of C1? C1 zoning supports lower intensity office oriented uses, acting as buffers near residential areas. C2 allows broader commercial uses suitable for major urban corridors like Agua Fria. Chapter 14-4.7, West Santa Fe River Corridor, Does this is supposed to say does limit residential doesn't limit residential density, although it does by lot coverage and open space, of course. And it does restrict the height, however, it doesn't restrict the you know will the density. And then see to offers long term long term adaptability, while maintaining regulatory oversight and Community compatibility. And on that same table, you can see some of those other uses that are allowed in C2 that would not be allowed in C1. And some of those are like the restaurant. A restaurant would fit in perfectly in that area. There's a Little shops antique shops conference extended stay bed and breakfast so those kind of uses they fit in that area it's a nice area to have other uses other than what see one offers. Okay, so the next, the urban corridor supports high traffic volumes, transit access, and a mix of residential and commercial uses. Nearby parcels have been developed or rezoned for multifamily housing, commercial services, and mixed use projects. Existing roadway capacity and utility access support appropriate zoning and development at the site. Zoning that aligns with corridor functions enhances visibility, accessibility, and connectivity, avoiding underutilization of this land. I actually chose this slide. It does show Agua Fria as a major corridor. And also because if you look way up to the north, you'll see the castle lot, the castle And that's been there since forever and ever. So over 50 years, I'm 50, so I think it's older than me. And that was rezoned when it was annexed into the city. It came in as R1, and there is no development plan associated with it. There was a condition only that they had to dedicate additional right-of-way for future redevelopment. So that's just, there's a very interesting history that we won't get into tonight. So here's another slide and this would be directly across Mr. Boylan's property. And so I think staff did refer to the latest C1 or C2 zoning PUD. And I believe this is, I'm not sure if this is a complete residential or if it's live work or I'm not sure, but then right catty corner or adjacent to that, we have the very popular Escondido restaurant and that's directly across from Mr. Boylan's property. restaurants are not allowed in C2. And there are some uses that Mr. Boylan is very interested in, maybe, you know, just whether he wants to develop or market. Everyone on this corridor has had the fair right to market the property as C2 with the prior rezonings. Okay, so this is looking east, standing at the eastern boundary of Mr. Boylan's property. So of course, this vacant land that's here, and you see lots of weeds, that property is actually, I believe, an extension of these river lofts apartments that was approved for multifamily apartments. A grading permit was permitted. The property was fully graded, and in fact, The drainage improvements failed and ended up flooding a big majority of Mr. Boylan's mobile home park, including his son's home, and infested it with mold. So we won't get into that, though, but that's just history. So then this is still on Mr. Boylan's property, Caddy Corner, looking south. There is kind of this industrial looking building, maybe most likely offices. So it's kind of like just to show the character that does fit in with this area. And one of these buildings could easily house C2 uses. And it fits, as I said, the architecture features do fit in.

We went too fast.

OK.

So right adjacent to those buildings on the same side of the road, we have this automobile repair shop. And so, yeah, that's not a very pretty sight. And I understand why we don't want to see that under redevelopment. I don't foresee this happening. And we can get into that further down the presentation. So historical use of the property. Portions of the property adjacent to Santa Fe River were historically mined by multiple owners, establishing an extractive industrial land use that long predates any residential designation. Since approximately 1980, the Boylan family operated a well drilling business on the property. continuing the area's established commercial and industrial character, both before and after the annexation. A mobile home park has provided established higher density residential use on the property for over four decades, predating the 1981 County Code, a grandfather density that C2 would formally recognize, although the plan is at the time of redevelopment, the mobile home park would be gone and new mobile home parks are not allowed So that would replace all of those homes. So this slide depicts a map just showing areas where the river bank was mined and stockpiled on. And the next slide just shows a couple more of those areas that are highlighted. So annexation and zoning mismatch. Annexation introduced new zoning standards that did not fully match the existing commercial and industrial uses on the Boylan property. Surrounding parcels were rezoned over time to correct inconsistencies and better reflect actual land use patterns in the corridor. The application aims to align zoning designations with real land use, promoting consistencies, transparency, and fairness in policy application.

All right.

OK. So land use pattern and corridor consistency. Nearby parcels have been rezoned to C2, further supporting rezoning the Boylan property to C2. Consistent zoning along the corridor provides predictability for property owners and the community alike. Rezoning Boylan property completes the commercial corridor and aligns zoning with long-term planning goals. So on this slide, you can see the red areas that are C2. Boylan is the property, subject property is kind of sandwiched in the middle. There's one less than one acre lot that Mr. Boylan is interested in purchasing at some time, at which case, if that happens, he would have to rezone that. So... So I think let's see consistent zoning along the corridor provides predictability i'm sorry I lost where I was rezoning boiling property completes Okay, I think we finished this slide sorry about that okay. Okay, so functional advantages of C2 zoning. C2 zoning supports various commercial and service uses benefiting from corridor access and visibility. Flexibility in C2 zoning allows adaptive reuse and reinvestment in transitioning urban areas. C2 encourages productive use of land already served by infrastructure for infill development. The zoning framework responds to changing market and community needs, supporting resilience. And of course, you know, you can see a bigger and a more highlighted list of some of the uses that are not permitted in C1 that would fit this property. OK, so the next slide. Regulatory safeguards. The current overlay district regulates the building height, setbacks, open space, and site design to ensure compatibility with the surroundings, regardless if it's C1 or C2. All projects undergo development plan review. And more than likely, for this size of a parcel, it's gonna have to come back to development, to the planning commission for review of a development plan. There's a lot of infrastructure that does need to be extended. There's millions of dollars of work that would be needed to upgrade this property and have it ready for development. So all projects undergo develop I just finished going to that base zoning defines us well overlays and reviews manage building from the environment impact effectively. approving see to zoning maintain safeguards and oversight, enabling tailored development management tools, and so I on this slide I kind of just a. inserted the goals from the overall West Corridor Plan. Let me see if I can zoom it because I can't quite see it. Anyway, so integrity and character is maintain and enhance the area's integrity, historic character, and quality of life. Okay, so neighborhood scale protect existing neighborhoods and their scale to ensure compatibility. So new development, of course, this does say required development plan with all rezoning applications. This parcel is a little different as all the as a few of the parcels around it did rezone and we're given the right to determine whether they wanted to go multifamily or you know a restaurant on the other side um so then the other one was recognize existing commercial uses with appropriate and flexible land use designation improve the safety and connectivity of street bikeways multi-use trails and pathways this is important one because you know mr boylan did coordinate on The taking of his land, you know, of course, it did include some payback but it's we all know it's all usually on the lower side, so he lost seven acres of land that he could could have counted towards lot coverage or any any other any other. Building design. Community benefits and conclusion. Next one. Rezoning supports job creation and expands the local tax base, boosting the economy. Redevelopment requires connection to city water and sewer, improving infrastructure reliability. Rezoning encourages reinvestment in underutilized land, promoting efficient land uses and compact growth. And it also enhances corridor vitality and supports nearby residential areas with accessible services and jobs. Attempted master plans. An effort to respond to the master plan application required the need to submit for the submittal of a planned unit development. A PUD would require a 30 and end meeting and would tie the property to PUD development plan to the design standards of the PUD development plan before a project has been determined. Whoops, what happened there? okay so um these two plans were uh submitted to staff at the time and they were not sure you know whether how we could move forward with this at this time without knowing whether we can have achieved the zoning um it's very expensive to hire all the engineers and architects to prepare for plans that where we know that r1 doesn't work and mr boylan is getting up there in age and he's very interested in Either finding a partner and his main main goal that he he's very interested in is doing a high density residential If possible, but if not, he also expressed interest of a small restaurant a coffee shop a laundromat Something to cater to the apartments that are out there But not storage units. There's plenty of those though And bringing up storage units, those would require approval by the Board of Adjustment or Planning Commission. So those could easily be denied, which I think they would because the River property is very nice. So key findings supporting approval. The property's history of mining, well drilling, and a grandfathered mobile home park reflects longstanding commercial, industrial, and residential use, supporting the general plan amendment and requested rezoning proposal. Initial annexation created zoning inconsistencies that justify the current rezoning for C2 or C3. 2C2 for coherence. The corridor functions as a major urban spine, reinforcing the need for consistent commercial zoning, which can include residential development. Sorry about that. I think it wants me to finish. So recommendation and closing. A recommendation of approval of the general plan amendment and C2 would update zoning and support corridor vitality, emphasis is fairness and consistency. highlighting long-term stewardship of property and equal zoning treatment, supports evidence-based equitable decisions reinforcing logical, cohesive urban development strategies, and decades of mining and all the other uses, confirm the property's established commercial, industrial, and residential character, making C2 the designation that matches the history and the current corridor, especially when you're heading off the Boylan property and heading south. Everything in that corridor is mostly commercial, probably besides the home next to Mr. Boylan's lot. And with that, I stand for questions. Thank you.

I have one just for clarification.

You said at one point that Mr. Boylan's priority is high density residential. And that would be doable under C1. If that's his priority, why are all the arguments for C2

So Mr. Boylan is 80 years old. I don't believe that he's going to be the actual developer. He does want to support residential. However, he may pass at some point before anything ever happens. He wants to set his kids up with the best ability to get the most out of the property. All the other C2 properties along this corridor did not have a development plan besides the C1 zoning where the, across the street, I don't know if it's C1 or C2, across the street. But on this corridor, it would just close the current zoning rather than having mixed zoning, we would have a consistent strip of C2 zoning. And either way, He can do housing, but he's also expressed wanting to do a restaurant. Restaurants are not allowed in C2. There's very popular mocktail cafes, artist studios, many of those things. recreational recreational outdoor activities this site would be great for like disc golf you know so there's a lot of items there's a lot of uses in C1 that just don't work for this site especially with its access to the public off of Agua Fria and its closeness to Siler Road it's only about it's way less than probably half a mile from Silent Road. It's probably about seven lots down.

Thank you. Next, do we have other questions? Are there public comments anywhere?

Chair, there's nobody online.

The question is before the members of the commission.

Mr. Chair, I believe Joel wanted to come up to the podium.

Oh.

Thank you. Thank you.

I guess I just kind of want to thank you for your presentation, Victoria. I just wanted to add or I guess provide a little response. One of the approval criteria is that recommendation or findings that we cannot Approve a project, recommend a project for approval if it benefits one property owner. As I've shown through the Santa Fe River Corridor Plan, 2017, neighbors got together, city got together to make a recommendation as to what the future land use designation for this site can be. Mixed use is presented. Staff went above and beyond to say C1 can work. For all of the uses that were listed in Victoria's presentation for C2 that are not allowed in C1, they are permitted in mixed use. And that is one of your options tonight, I would just like to add. That's all I want to say. Are there any questions for me? Mr. Chair?

Yes.

I'd also like to elaborate a little bit more. One of the things that were brought up is there is some nonconforming uses on that property. Mobile home park is nonconforming. The drilling business is nonconforming. They're legal nonconforming as they were in. We accept them as is. They're still nonconforming. They're nonconforming in the current zoning. They'd be nonconforming in any zoning that we do. One of the things that we have to consider here when we're dealing with uses, and in particular its own district, is we cannot add conditions of approval that restrict inappropriate uses for the area. And there are a lot of inappropriate uses for that area that we would not like to see established in the river corridor or even add more intensity to that Auerfria road. I mean, it's a two-lane arterial, but when you start looking at the amount of land that where those three fingers have already been established and you start painting that whole area red as everybody starts to come and blanket that area, you're going to change the dynamics and the intensity of that area. We would like to control that intensity. We would like to control the uses that are established within that area, not necessarily to prevent the applicant from doing what she wants or what he wants, but we need to make sure that the integrity of that area is maintained. So we have to take a look at what's actually happening to that area. There's enough commercial out there already. We're adding some more by recommending approval for a downgrade to C1 or maybe even mixed use. But that's not as intense as a C2 district. The C2 district, if you think about it, and I hate saying it this way, but it's kind of the garbage can of all of our zone districts. It allows everything from light commercial to light industrial. And some of those uses would be really inappropriate next to that river corridor. And since this is more of a speculative zoning area, because they don't know what's going on there. He's doing it to give to his kids, so therefore you don't know what's going on there. We can't control those uses. A PUD? Absolutely. We can put ordinance restrictions on that overlay that eliminate those uses right off the bat so that we can control the intensity of that area. But to just bring something to bear, C2, without any controls, or an area that's already overbuilt, or a two-lane highway, that to us seems a little bit reckless on our end. So we have to control the amount of intensity that is being developed in that area. We're still in the middle of our general plan update. We're still in the middle of our code update. This piecemeals those things in that now we have to reestablish how we're going to address those needs. And we just want to have a better picture and a better control over that area and still try and work with the applicant for the changes that they want. And for us, we believe that C1 or mixed use is the better option in order to mitigate the impacts for rezoning if a rezoning is to take place. Rezoning is discretionary on the governing body. They've already established the policy when they annexed in. They've already zoned the property. They don't have to change it. We don't have to change it. It's not a right issue. So those are the things that we considered when we were looking at this area to try and rezone that property and try and accommodate the applicant, come to a middle ground. We just feel that C2 at this point in time would be just too intense for that area.

Thank you. Commissioner Miranda.

Thank you, Chair Smith.

I had a question for staff. Essentially, it relates to the other applications that have happened. I get there's some C2 there across the street. That's mixed use and was done in a development plan, right?

Yeah, I think you're referring to, well, there's the River Trail alofts is a C1 development. That's the underlying zoning there. So that's a residential development that was about there. And then across the street was a HomeWise development, and it's mixed use. On front, they have the Escondido restaurant, which is done quite well. And then in the back, they have... kind of live work spaces which um have become more live they don't have a ton of live work going on there but there's the you know it's kind of built out for that and that may you know evolve over time so those are some of the more recent developments that have you know happened um I do want to point out, and we did point out in the memo, that those two parcels that are zoned C2 that are immediately adjacent to this property were zoned prior to the West Santa Fe River Corridor Plan. And so that was done before the community got together and said, you know, this is what we want to see here. And so I think that's an important, you know, piece to measure, you know, every property is different, you know, and so we want to, you know, look at, you know, this particular case with the information and knowledge that we have from the community and what their vision for this is.

Appreciate the context.

Commissioner, Mr. Chair and commissioners, may I just comment to some of staff's responses? Yes. Okay, so as far as the zoning goes, these areas were zoned. The prior areas were rezoned prior to the West River Corridor Plan. However, the C2 uses still remained in place. They did develop into high-density residential, which C1 would have not permitted. And now we're at the point where we don't meet that. I mean, regardless of the fact we are at a 28-foot height and we have to comply with open space and... other setback in lot coverage. In the C2 district, it's still greater. And this corridor that was part of Santa Fe County, even though it was nonconforming, just with submittal of a master plan to request the property to be rezoned, all that would have been required for a major corridor. Santa Fe County would have allowed the master plan zoning to occur based on the existing uses, however, the property was annexed before that could even take place. So the purpose of purchasing this property in the beginning was because it was very industrial in nature. It was owned by Richard Cook and several construction companies. So the land use pattern in this area has always been geared toward heavier commercial properties. You have your commercial uses, however.

I'm just going to point out, the question wasn't necessarily a door open to an additional presentation. Okay, thank you.

No, I agree, I know. Okay, so anyways, I just want to state that. One more thing, though we did have to en and meetings nobody attended we sent out notice certified notices nobody attended, except for one person who was in favor and we had one phone call in favor, so that is speaks for the Community, thank you.

I guess we share. Are we waiting for Chair Smith?

Yeah, he asked me to take over.

Just take over as... I just want to make a clarification that high density is between R10 and R29. Those are the high density districts in our general planning. So SC1 district does allow for 21 dwelling units per acre. SC2 district is basically undefined. It's whatever you can fit as long as you can meet the infrastructure demands for what you're building. So that's just a clarification.

Thank you.

So if, okay, as for going through this, and thank you both for your presentation. I'm getting lost here because if we have C1 that allows residential, not all mixed use, but some permitted mixed use, and what is staff's real reasoning for not allowing the C2? Because the overlay doesn't allow the height, so we don't need to worry about the 45 feet. I mean, what is staff's main thing? Is it we're along the river corridor in the 2017? That's the only thing that's stopping you guys from improving C2?

Well, Chair Smith, Commissioner Reeland, first off, I mean, the Santa Fe River Corridor Plan specifically told this future city and staff that we want this parcel to be zoned mixed use in the future now that's why we're not recommending c2 we're not recommending the general plan amendment which is the pathway for c2 so in the general plan amendment the master plan it's not consistent If we did see some kind of proposed development plan, a master plan, a PUD, where we know what kind of development is going on, where we can get the DRT comments, we would have certainly worked with the applicant to promote a C2 zone with a development plan. That is certainly, we've had those discussions, but we are here today.

Yeah, okay. Thank you very much for the clarification. Definitely.

Chris Matthews?

Sure.

So I'd like to make I'd like to ask staff, I'm going to say something you tell me if it's right. yeah. I guess my reading of this after the presentation is the same as when I saw it first as the applicant materials. Essentially, the issue. Is that. It would be possible for some of these uses to work in a presentation, but we have no presentation in terms of a development plan. There's no proposed layout for us to have the context of whether they would work within the fabric around it.

Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Chair Smith and Commissioner Morando. Correct. We are just, you know, applying a new zone district here. We're not applying any restrictions or, you know, I mean, there could have been a photo of Santa Fe Disney. You know, it could be it could be anything. Right. It could be a whole host of things. And there is a Venn diagram of uses that are allowed in a C2 zone. That, you know, are not compatible, we believe, in this area for a number of reasons for, you know, the general plan, which we don't want to amend if we don't have to, you know, as you know, we're all going through that general plan update process now. It is incredibly intensive. There is a lot of community engagement. where we're seeking feedback and guidance on the vision of Santa Fe, and we want to respect that. And the vision of the general plan was that this was a transitional mixed-use area, and that comports with either C1 or mixed-use zoning. Then again, in 2017, the city collected itself together and did a, you know, engagement event and the vision for this was designated as mixed use. And so we think that, you know, without a development plan or a master plan or a PUD, just applying those zone districts to this property, C1 or mixed use, will allow for development to take place on that property that is in line with the city's vision. So whatever that might be, and we don't have to you know, think about what could happen or what would happen, we can just be comfortable in the fact that, you know, that development will be of the scale and of the use that the community, you know, wanted for that area.

As much as it's come up a lot that, okay, mixed use zone is this difficult zone to pencil let's say it doesn't happen necessarily a lot it's obviously happened right across the street from this i think the reason for that is the overlay's height limitation because generally speaking on mixed use that's where it gets difficult um a lot of the things you might want to do and i i say this because i've tried to do it i've worked on properties where they were going after mixed use and it was difficult because of the height requirement, that's not an issue here. Your overlay puts you at that 28 feet. So it was actually hard for me to see why C1 would be more. To me, when I look at this property, it seems really ideal for mixed use because of the height requirement already on it.

Can I ask the applicant to tell us again why you are not okay with mixed use zoning?

So this is the first time in this report that mixed use was brought up to us. Also, C1 was actually just mentioned when Mr. Cruz took over the case. So when I first started, we first started with this case a few years ago, that current staff recommended approval and send me the staff report and it was rejected and everything changed overnight. We noticed, we send out certified notices, which are so expensive. And then when we, when after all that happened, Mr. Escobel and that same staff met with me at my office and we discussed the two conceptual plans that I, that we created to kind of show that things do fit in this area. But when I submitted them, staff wasn't sure whether we had to design strictly to that design. And we were just so unsure because a big part of that property in the front is probably going to be mostly road dedicated to access. to be truthful. It's just a weird strip of land, and it adjoins commercial. So right away, we have to be set back 200 feet from that. So there's a whole lot that can't happen in that frontage area. So basically, when we came back and drew up the plan, it stopped right there, because then we would have had to start all over again and do another E&N meeting, send out certified notices, which are $10 apiece now. So, I mean, just starting over, and we've been on hold because of staff shortages mainly for a little over two years. So, does that mean that you are okay with mixed use? The only thing I was just discussing with Joel is the ratio of... of housing versus commercial. Like, you know, how do we make that all work? And Joel says they're updating that in the next phase of the code, but that never worked as commissioner Morando stated, that zoning is very difficult. No, no, you didn't state that. You didn't state that. I'm sorry. You've drawn things on the board. And because of the height, I'm sorry.

No, I'm going to have to. So, no, I'm saying the opposite. So elsewhere in the city, that is difficult because of the height. Actually, on your lot, it makes a lot of sense. The main downside, which is height. You already have unposed on you because of the overload. Yes.

Okay. Thank you for clearing that up. Thank you for clearing that up. But, and then other than that is. Amen. So it's. Yeah.

I, I, I kind of. Sorry. Yeah.

So you're fine with mixed use? I would like to look at it first, discuss it with my client, because he does feel that he's kind of been left out of the whole process. Everybody around him has been rezoned, mostly on this corridor on the same road. I was just answering your question. I'm sorry, Commissioner.

Please. Okay. Commissioner.

Every time we ask you something, it's not another.

I apologize.

I'll say within the proposed criterias, I think there's a real misunderstanding of what these zoning changes would or could mean. and also the mechanisms that are actually in front of you to get what you need. I think doing a preliminary development plan or a master plan, you mentioned not wanting to foot the architectural and engineering costs. Yeah, I completely understand that those mechanisms are there as an ability to do that. And it seems like that would be a way to do this. Apart from that, I can say from this commissioner's perspective, mixed use makes a lot of sense.

Okay. I get that. I appreciate it. And maybe it could be doable. I just need to discuss.

Yeah.

Thank you. We're not asking you.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Escobar. I just want to clean the record again. When Nathan and I met with the applicant because we felt, you know, we wanted to help the applicant move it along. All of us know Mr. Boylan. He's a good guy. We did recommend a PUD and we did identify that we would work with Mr. Boylan on a very light preliminary development plan so they didn't have to spend as much money as he would normally on a regular preliminary development plan. I think that was what we originally discussed when we went to that office because we wanted to restrict those uses that we felt were inappropriate for that area. Because if you have a C2, but you don't have all these industrial uses that break the area or all these uses that shouldn't be there, and we can restrict those uses but still have the benefit of that walkable community, other uses like a restaurant and other needs that would benefit for that community, we definitely want those. But they chose a different route. We don't believe that just going blanket open C2 is appropriate for that area.

Mr. Rieland. This question is for staff. Let's say hypothetically we approve tonight a rezoning to C1. They get their development plan together and so forth, and that shows that they're going to need certain elements to go back to either mixed use and or potentially would they need a variance to go to C2 at that point if we were to approve it, or what would they do?

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, there is no variance to zoning. There are mechanisms to change the zoning, but you can't get a variance to zoning or any use that is associated with that zoning. So they're stuck with the zoning that they get if the council approves the change from what it is to what it could be.

Thanks, Chair Smith and Commissioner Rieland. I just want to clarify, too, we are making a recommendation tonight to the governing body to rezone this. And so, yeah, that is the door that is open.

Thank you, Chair. This is a question for staff. I'm curious to know that you're recommending C1 and mixed use. It seems like mixed use is a better fit. So why recommend two, C1 and mixed use?

Yeah, we're recommending, thank you for Commissioner Chair, Chair Smith, Commissioner Barber, thank you for the question. We're recommending either or. You can either recommend C1 or you can either recommend mixed use. Based on how discussions have gone, it might be best to recommend both to just one so the governing body can decide. So I guess, yeah, you do have to make a decision tonight.

Yes, Commissioner McGee.

A question for staff. Considering that the applicant is unsure of the mixed-use recommendation, wouldn't it make more sense to postpone this until they can have conversation? No? OK.

No, thanks, Chair Smith and Commissioner McGee. I think we've, you know, this case, as Ms. Dalton, you know, it's been, you know, quite a while getting here. And I think, you know, it's well within the governing body's authority to, you know, to rezone property, you know, and this is... you know, under that provision of kind of down zoning, like there's a request for this, you know, high intensity zone district. And we can, you know, cause I think, I think we all agree that our one is not the highest and best use of this land. So this is our opportunity to rezone that. And it is at the discretion of the governing body to choose, you know, which one is correct is, is proper for the city's growth and development. Not any one individual land owner to pick the zoning that best suits their needs.

Chair Smith?

Commissioner Marando. Yes. My own thought on that is particularly when a development plan is being proposed to us, I think at times it would make sense to kind of have a back and forth like we have with an applicant of, oh, would you want to come back with this? In this case, I mean, I do think from my own looking at the application, I think it's a really interesting piece of property because this is this like transitional neighborhood and mixed use makes a lot more sense to the current zoning. We're empowered to do it. So, you know, certainly from my standpoint, I'd like to move on it.

My comment was only because the applicant was questioning whether mixed use was what they wanted to move forward with. And I mean, it sounds based on all of the conversation, it sounds like mixed use is the best thing to do here. But if the applicant is questioning it, I don't know if we should move forward or that's why I recommended postponing.

I'm going to ask just for a judgment of the rules. If we advise, if we recommend to the governing body that they approve a mixed use, that would not stop them from hearing these arguments and doing something else. So nothing is gained, in my mind, by delaying another year. It might not be that.

That's fair. Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Barber.

I have a question for the applicant. I just want to address the 15 mobile homes that are on the property. I didn't see anything in the application to address that. Is there a transition plan for those residents? I'm assuming there's people living there. So is there a transition plan in place or in mind for those residents?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner, yes, there is. And that was actually in the development report. The whole mobile home park would go away. The property would be completely redeveloped. The mobile homes would be demolished. They're all outdated. I don't even think CID can approve them anymore. But the plan is to have a vacant piece of property. He's going to consolidate all the lots. There's a huge stockpile there, and that's also to be removed at that time.

Right. So you're addressing like what's going to happen with the property. I'm trying to ask, is there a plan for the people living?

So until we know that it can be rezoned and mixed use may be fine. Until we know that the rezoning can be approved, we don't want to throw anybody out, you know, until we get through this process.

Will a plan for those? There will be.

Of course, he's not just going to, you know, overnight tell them they have to, they're evicted. Most of them are family. So he does, he will have a plan and it will be more than, you know, the 30 days he does. Most of them are family and he does rent some of them out. So he does get income from those, some of those ones that he does rent out.

Commissioner Morando.

Thank you, Chair Smith. One, thank you for the presentation. I'm sorry. I was hurt at times. I do really appreciate the time put into this, and I don't want to appear dismissive. It just... There are a couple of things I was finding important to get straight there at a certain point. But I really do appreciate the work you've done and also just how agreeable and nice to deal with you are in all of your cases. Thank you. I guess the only other thing I will say is this being mixed use, I think another advantage to this is if you ever did a preliminary development plan, a development plan, or master plan, that would be a really good mechanism to sell to the commission how seat one or seat two would be compatible. I'm going to give that as context to a motion that I'd like to make, unless anybody else has any comments. Please proceed. Yeah. In case 2024-94-61, I'd like to make a motion. Oh, actually, a question of staff, because when this came up before, You were essentially saying for 61, we would have to deny, and then 64, we would attach a different zoning. Is that correct?

Correct. For 2024, if you are recommending, yeah, you're going to deny. You would deny that first and then make a recommendation of the rezoning. To the governing body.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

So in case 2024-94-61, I'd like to make a motion to deny. I think you have the number wrong.

Look at A. Oh, right.

As a general, I'm sorry. Okay, in case 2025-11-1-64, I'd like to make a motion to deny. With, well, yeah, motion.

Is there a second? Second.

Second.

Excuse me. We are voting.

OK. Commissioner McGee? Sure.

Yes.

That's a yes?

He said yes.

Commissioner Rayland? Yes. Commissioner McReynolds? Yes. Commissioner Barber? Yes. I believe you don't vote, Commissioner Miranda? I do. Yes. Yes. Chair Smith, the motion has passed.

Mr. Chair, I think Joel's trying to put the motions up on there so everybody can see them.

Well, they're also in the material that's circulated.

No, I appreciate it. Yeah, it would have helped. So yeah, then in case 2024-94-61, I'd like to make a motion to approve on condition that the rezoning is mixed use. subject to Santa Fe Code 1987-14-3B2E. Second. May I just say, I want to be sure that is an appropriate motion.

He's blended B and C together.

Okay, great.

clarify what Commissioner Morando was getting at is that if we approve the mixed use, this will allow the applicant to put their development plan together and then go for C1 or C2.

That would be incorrect. Incorrect. That would be incorrect. So the mixed use is its own zoning, and it has its own parameters. So this is a downgrade from the requested C2 request down to a mixed use zoning approval. And the motion is to basically downgrade the request from C2 to mixed use. No, rezoning is now, the future development plan allows for the construction of the site, but not any change to the underlying zoning once changed.

And again, I think I just want to add to that, you're not approving this, you're recommending approval to the governing body. So they're going to make the final determination.

I'll just make the clarification. What I meant by that was, If it didn't work with C2, they would be able to apply for another zoning change, but it would be another zoning change with the development plan.

Yeah. Be clear. The motion is to approve 2024-9461 rezoning to less intensive mixed use subject to Santa Fe City Code 1987-14-3.4B2B. made and seconded. Please call the roll.

My apologies. Commissioner Barber? Yes. Commissioner Raymond? Yes. Commissioner McReynolds?

Yes.

Commissioner Miranda? Yes. Commissioner McGee?

Yes.

Chair Smith, the motion is approved.

Thank you. I think Gotta go back to the agenda, but is there other, are there any staff reports or other business to come before the commission?

Mr. Chair, no, there are not.

Get to do my favorite part. I'm sorry? Matters before the commission, from the commission. Oh, I didn't mean.