You're live.
Uh, good evening. Uh, I'll now call to
order the February 24th, 2026 Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Um, it's 6 o'clock and I am Chair Kent
Thirstston. Um, first on the agenda, is
there any conflict of interest?
All right. Uh, seeing none, we'll move
on to uh, public participation.
If someone uh,
if someone has anything to say that's
not really on the agenda here today,
um,
go ahead and come on up and and we'll
allow you to have have some time to to
speak since it's just public
participation. Also, if you um we do
have one item on here on the
um consent agenda. So, if you if anybody
on the uh would like to hear that from
the from the audience, you can kind of
come up and also say something on that
one. So, we're going to go in. Does any
any participation from the public
tonight?
Go ahead. Come on up to the mic. And I
don't have to swear I'm in on this one,
right? because it's just public
participation. Go ahead, state your name
and
we'll give you three minutes.
Um, good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
U, my name is Terrence Beverly. I'm here
because of the um proposal to change
zoning for a cannabis operation on the
corner of Three Crosses and Alamita, I
believe. Is that tonight?
That that one will be on the agenda
tonight. So, we're going to get to that
one later.
So, I can speak at that time.
Yes.
Thank you.
Yep. Thank you.
Is there anybody else public
participation?
Okay.
Um
All right. So, we need the acceptance of
the agenda. This includes the minutes
and the items on the consent. Uh if if
any item on the consent needs to be
removed for discussion, now would be the
time to do so. Anybody
have any
I'll make a motion to accept to approve
and accept tonight's agenda.
Mr. Chair, I'll second that motion.
Commissioner Costa.
Yes.
Commissioner Smith.
Yes.
Commissioner Costa.
Yes.
Commissioner McCaslin.
Yes. Uh, Commissioner Murray is absent.
Commissioner Kaiser,
yes.
And chair,
yes.
Your agenda has been accepted and
consent agenda item approved.
All right. So, moving on to new
business. Uh, first we have item 7.1.
Can I have a motion to approve 7.1?
A motion to approve item 7.1.
Second.
All right. Now, we'll turn it over to
staff for the presentation.
Thank you, Chair Adamo, Community
Development. For the record, uh before
you, we have your proposed uh special
use permit for a cannabis dispensary
located at 2110 North Alamita uh
Boulevard. If that address sounds
familiar, a cannabis dispensary was
permitted, a special use permit was
approved for cannabis dispensary there
about two years ago in 2024. Uh current
conditions are located in the southeast
corner of Alama Boulevard and three
crosses avenue. Property encompasses
roughly about a quarter of an acre in
size and is currently a developed
commercial property but uh that is
currently kind of being redeveloped out
of its vacance uh phase. Uh following uh
this proposes following the 2001 zoning
code. This application was submitted
right barely before the end of the year
for they could try to get this special
use permit. Uh because technically under
the the current new development code
that use is no longer allowed on the
property which is why they they pushed
this to get it in uh under the the the
grace period for the old code. So under
that the property under the under the
2001 zoning code is zone C2. uh
especially uh SUP application submitted
during grace period. They're allowed to
come here which is again why we're
reviewing it now.
So showing the zoning map here this is
again under the 200 zoning code the
property here is zone C2 surrounded by
C2 uh the east north and west and
multifamily zoning as well. Uh of course
those south past the lateral here which
is last cru lateral that is where we
have single family.
Again showing the property here we all
might know it as the Eagle Mart. uh and
laundromat which was one of the previous
uh businesses that were on that
property.
So this is a proposed new cannabis
dispensary under 2001 zoning code. It
require uh requires a cannabis related
business to obtain basically a special
use permit when located within 300 feet
of a single family zoning district. Uh
this property is roughly approximately
155 feet from an R1A single family
medium density zoning district to the
south of which I just showed on the map.
Uh this will allow all uh this will the
proposal will follow all city of Los
Cru's standards and requirements as well
as all state and New Mexico regulations
uh governing cannabis related uh retail
activities.
Uh once after the analysis, we really
saw no life, safety, welfare issues
identified by this proposal. Uh the
business will function like any other
business within the city. Um like if it
was a bar, if it was convenience store,
it basically would service the same if
you will. Uh it meets buffer district
requirements from a school or daycare
and other cannabis related
establishments. Uh the LA Los Cruus
comprehensive plan has numerous goals
and policies and actions that support
the proposed SUP which includes uh
encouraging the redevelopment or reuse
of of properties or commercial
properties that are vacant in the core
of the city. Uh proposed site appears to
meet all standards and requirements of
code. Staff will assure that before a
business license is uh issued for the
proposed cannabis dispensary. Approval
of the SJP will allow the continued use
of a developed commercial property. Like
I said before, in the core of the city,
this public notice was sent out
following all standards and requirements
of our of our zoning code. Uh all
surrounding properties uh received
notice. Uh it says here staff received
no comments, but literally about an hour
ago, we received about three phone
calls. one, just asking uh questions
about it, general questions about the
dispensary, and two, who were basically
uh churchgoers or church uh people who
uh go to a couple churches that are
close by there that were against the
proposed uh cannabis dispensary, but
that was essentially it.
So, with that, tonight, uh staff does
recommend approval for the proposed uh
special use permit based on the
following findings. subject property
does meet the distance separations
required from a school or daycare and
other cannabis related uh
establishments. In terms of the proposed
use business will function again like
any other business within the city and
the proposed SCB uh meets the purpose
and intent requirements of section 38-2
of the 2001 zoning code as amended well
no longer amended but just 2001 zoning
code not no longer in effect.
Additionally, all applicable
requirements as outlined in 200 zoning
code and those stipulated by stating
Mexico must be adhered to in subsequent
occupation of the proposed business.
The SP meets the purpose and incentivate
Los Cruises through the promotion of
higher development intensities and
incorporation of small commercial uses
along major thorough affairs which Alama
Alama is considered a collector roadway
as as well as three crosses avenue as
well.
With that tonight, commission, your
vote, your options, one to vote yes and
approve the proposed special use permit
as recommended by by staff to vote no,
deny the proposed uh special use permit.
Just remember, a denial requires new
information or facts not identified or
presented uh during staff review since
we are recommending approval. Three to
vote to amend adding uh conditions
deemed appropriate by the commission
tonight or for the table postpone and
direct staff accordingly. That is the
conclusion of my presentation. And the
applicant's representative is here if
you have any questions for them. But I
request for questions.
Does the uh applicant have wish to have
a uh presentation?
Not at this time, sir.
All right. Is there uh we're going to
move on to public participation then and
I'm going to go here on the left and I
believe I have to swear them in on this.
Is that right?
All right. So, come on up.
Do you have Is there a
Do I have to swear I'm in?
Yeah.
All right. Can I get your name?
Yes. My name is Terrence Joel Beverly.
All right. Uh, do you swear or affirm
that the testimony you're about to give
is the truth and nothing but the truth
under penalty of law?
I do.
Go ahead. Okay. Um, good evening again.
Um, I'm a longtime member of this
community. My first house was on this
property we're at today. My second house
is maybe three blocks away on the corner
of San Pedro and Mountain. I went to
Alama
uh to Lucero Elementary where it's where
the library is at now. I went to
Washington Elementary, went to Alama
Junior High, went to Court Junior High,
and I graduated from Mayfield High
School. After graduating, I went to the
military, and I went to school in
Phoenix, Arizona. When I came back, this
has been and will always be my home.
This cannabis shop is in the Lucky,
used to be formerly Lucky uh Eagle Mart
on that corner. Um, you walk in the
doors and there's a big glass counter
and they have
50 or 60 glass bongs and pipes right
there right next to the candy section
practically where the kids go and buy
their fountain drinks, their candy.
Everything's right there out in the
open. These are little children that
could go in there and buy ice cream
cones.
I got a problem with that, you know.
Um, I used marijuana growing up. I don't
recommend it to nobody. It's an excuse.
There's hundreds of kids that live in
that area. There is a school bus that
parks on the property of one of the
churches there, which is a minute walk
across the street, too. There's a school
bus stop there with elementary kids
going in and out of there morning and
evening.
Um, besides my religious oppo opposition
to this, uh, there's also a health
factor involved, if you're promoting,
uh, smoking of any kind, it's going to
be wrong.
Um, that's about all I got to say. I
just hope it doesn't pass cuz uh, that
community that that neighborhood is in
desperate need of help anyways.
It's it's really poor. I've replaced at
least seven or eight windows in the past
year at my church from people breaking
in. We've had break-ins at that church
all the time. Meanwhile, the church is
out there doing food bank and we have
our doors open. Anytime during the week,
you can go by there and if you're
hungry, we'll send you home with a box
of food.
Thanks a lot for your guys' time. Have a
blessed week.
Thank you.
All right, we're going to keep going on
the left. Is there anyone on the on the
left? Go ahead. Come on up.
And can you please state your name and
then I'll swear you in.
Sure. My name is Margaret Wetzel.
All right. Do you swear or affirm that
the testimony you're about to give is
the truth and nothing but the truth
under penalty of law?
I do.
Thank you. Go ahead. I'll give you three
minutes. I am the um property manager
for the Texico conference and we own one
of the church properties there on Three
Crosses. Um I have a statement tonight
from one of our members that was unable
to attend and he would like me to read
it for you.
This issue tonight is personal to me. My
family roots are in this neighborhood.
We originally sold the store property
before it was a berry field among other
things. But children are more important
than profits. adding more things to to
trip kids up is the inexcusable.
Legal or not, cannabis products are
harmful and especially for kids.
There are more than enough outlets for
THC. Please do not add this one to the
list.
And this is from Lloyd Lindbeck.
And um I also have, you know, some of
the same concerns. You know, we have
children that go in and out of this
facility and we already have issues with
breakins in the property and I just feel
like this adds to the issue. There's
been several times where there's been
homeless people that have to be, you
know, asked to leave. It's it's just not
a good situation in that neighborhood.
That's it. Thank you.
Thank you.
Uh stand on the left. Anybody else?
Come on up.
And once again, once you get up there,
if you'll state your name, I'll swear
you in.
My name is David Tooffstead. And
do you do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give is the
truth and nothing but the truth under
penalty of law?
I do.
Thank you.
Um, I am the the lady and the gentleman
who spoke. We were with uh I guess the
7th Day Adventist Church. I I go to the
uh church on the other side of this the
road, the uh Mountain View Christian
Church. So, uh we know that, you know,
THC
has problems. We're finding out more and
more about what those problems are. So,
uh, there's there's reports of paranoia
and schizophrenia and and so this drug,
we're we're basically putting this
magnet for drug use in our community.
We're less than a block away from this
uh from this store. So, we've had a
breakin couple years ago where they
stole our sound system. We had uh we
installed two mini splits on the on the
same side towards the store. Um they
came in and they cut the copper lines.
It probably got gained them about $20,
but it cost us several thousand dollar
to replace the equipment that was uh
both the mini splits, the repair the the
copper lines and then put uh uh enclosed
barbed wire fence fences to keep anybody
out. We've also had people behind our
conics who are obviously smoking just
kind of hanging out there that's within
like two businesses of well the one
building and then us of the that store.
So um we also had a couple last year uh
who decided to roll a log against the
back wall of our building and light a
fire under it. Um, and then we had a
rock thrown into one of our windows and
it cost us several hundred dollar to
replace. So, this store is going to be a
problem in our community and uh we just
really need to think about what we're
doing. You say uh the man who is
promoting this said this is an in line
with elevate Los Cusus. I don't see how
this is elevating Las Cusus to bring yet
another of these businesses in here
because there's already one within a
mile down off of Main Street. So, and
there's probably 15 others in the city.
You don't need to have all these uh
stores and some of them are already
going out of business. So, I just feel
that you should deny this uh request.
Thank you.
Thank you. Anybody else on the left? All
right. Well, I guess my left. You guys
are all probably wondering. He keeps
saying left. I'm backwards. Okay. Over
here on the right. Go ahead and come up.
And if you'll state your name for the
record, then I can swear you in.
Karen Rrowers, R A W E RS.
Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give is the
truth and nothing but the truth under
penalty of law?
Yes.
Go ahead.
You're
gonna stand fine. Um, marijuana is
legal. It's legal in New Mexico. We
can't
It is what it is. It'll be here. Not
against it. You want to smoke up, smoke
up. But what I want to talk about is
where is the actual intersection it's
at. I live um one block down from this
place. And just since January of this
year, I've seen 42 fender benders for
people cutting across towns in place,
not stopping on Hogland onto Alamita.
people cutting across as fast as they
can across Alama into the gas station.
Now we have people who can who who will
be wanting their pot shop and they'll be
crossing over the street. I saw that
they said it has no impact to the
safety. That's not true. I'm already
watching I'm already watching accidents.
I've watched five or six major accidents
with multiple ambulances happen in that
intersection. I live there. I'm the one
who sees most of them, the one who calls
them into the police. So I believe that
adding more traffic by having a mar a
marijuana shop there can endanger the
safety of the neighborhood will cause
more accidents. That is one of the only
thoroughfairs in and out of that
section. If there is a major accident
due to someone
needing to get their fix or they've run
out of their gummies and they pull in
there and they're already high and they
cut across the intersection because the
light's going to change and it's a major
accident. You've closed down Mayfield
High getting through. You've closed down
people's access to Main Street and
Albertson's. You've closed down people
trying to go down to Dal Rimple using
Donanna Avenue. Traffic and the problems
that can come from the traffic of people
trying to get in and out of that shop
could be a major issue for that
neighborhood.
I watch it every day. I watch the high
schoolers speed to get in and get out.
I want to talk about um there are I
agree with people that there are enough
pot shops in this town. Cannabis shops,
pot shops, THC businesses. There's
enough in this town. You can't throw a
stone down Patcha without finding one.
You drive down Valley and there's three
or four drive-throughs. We have enough.
If people can't drive that mile and a
half to go get their fix, then maybe
they should plan ahead better. have to
plan ahead to get milk. Maybe they
should be planning ahead to go get their
edibles or their smokables.
I also want to talk about the fact that
we have increasing homelessness because
of the canal back there because of the
parks. I have a wall in front of my
house and I see people smoke on that
wall daily. I don't need more people
smoking on my wall. That is my
homeowner's liability if they were to
fall off of my wall into the street.
That is my liability if they just
randomly fall the other way into my
property. We are just asking for the
homeowners in that area to assume more
liability for other people's actions.
Thank you.
Is there anybody else on the right that
would like to speak?
All right, I think we're going to close
for public participation and go to the
counselors or Yeah, counselors, right?
Commissioners. Man, I'm terrible at
that. All right,
go ahead, Kaiser. Um, I've got a
question about the 2024 special use
permit that was approved at this
location. Can you talk more about the
relationship with this application? Did
it expire? Like, what's what's the deal
with that? Uh, Mr. Chair, Commissioner
Kaiser, that unfortunately business
didn't come to fruition. They're
actually looking at doing a complete
addition onto that building uh to the
south side of uh you can kind of see it
on your on your site plan that's in your
packet. They're doing an addition to the
southside. Let me just pull it up. How
about that? Right. They're trying to do
an addition here to the southside and
that's where they're going to be doing
all their cannabis related business and
just keep the convenience store here.
But unfortunately, this is in a very bad
flood plane area. So that addition would
have just taken forever with flood
studies, can't know, all that fun stuff,
FEMA requirements, so on and so forth
like that. So unfortunately, that one
just fell through, unfortunately. So now
this is a new business that's trying to
go in there. Since it's a new business,
a new business is required to submit for
a new special use permit.
Okay. and then putting it on the inside
of the building then uh is the city
confident that they can meet all the
state requirements around the security
protocols for getting in and access to
the products?
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Paiser, uh the
state has uh been working with the city
tremendously with actually having
agents, if you will, to make sure before
anything gets issued by them. They go
out there and inspect and make sure what
they have in place meets requirements
for state statute as well as we go out
there, make sure they're meeting
requirements from a fire code
standpoint, building code standpoint,
and planning as well, sir. So there's
about four different eye set of eyes on
any type of a new proposal including
cannabis or
Okay. So presumably the applicant's
confident they can meet those
requirements otherwise they wouldn't be
here. Is that correct?
Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Kaiser, that
is correct. The applicant's
representative has has actually helped
numerous cannabis uh businesses in the
city of Los Cruises uh open up and make
sure that they're following state
statute and city requirements, sir.
Okay. Um, thank you for that
clarification. Um, a question I guess
for staff. I know, you know, it's been
probably a minute since we've seen one
of these um, applications come through.
Um, I honestly don't even remember the
last one we've seen, but I know, you
know, we get a lot of um, uh, concern
from residents and and the neighbors to
these uh, businesses about, you know,
potential increase in crime and
attracting um, you know, whatever it may
be. Um I know in the past uh the city
has not been able to produce any
evidence that that has um been a reality
that comes uh to bear as a result of
these businesses. Um have there is the
city aware of any um incidences where
these businesses have uh produced an
increase in crime in the vicinity?
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kaiser, no. The
only time we really see any issues is
when they go above and beyond what
they're allowed to do with their
cannabis related business. Um, they'll
open up a lounge that's not permitted.
Uh, they'll have like a block party
that's not permitted or something like
that. That's what we see typically. Uh,
all the other stuff is an an enforcement
issue. So, we keep an eye out for that.
If we do see an issue with our code
enforcement or police department, we do
contact the state and of course the the
the state the state troopers as well
because they're the ones who are
enforcing all that as well as the agents
for the state of New Mexico, the the
Bureau for Cannabiser.
Thank you. And then um I guess my final
comment just generally on this uh
particular um intersection um definitely
understand the safety concerns there.
Um, you know, that's
whether or not this goes in, it's
approved tonight or not, those
conditions still exist. I mean, um, this
is not far from another part of town,
McClur Road, that we have heard from a
lot of residents. And I know this
commission has, um, has expressed our
desire for the city to address some of
those via other mechanisms. But this,
unfortunately, the special use permit,
um, doesn't allow us to address those
issues. those issues are going to be
there regardless of whether or not this
um goes through tonight. Um I will say,
you know, it is a gas station. Uh it's a
prime location. There's apartment
complexes going in nearby. You've got a
trail uh the trail on the lateral there.
Um it's a prime location. Um I really
wish, you know, there was an opportunity
to reimagine what this corner could be
from an economic development
perspective. I think a gas station there
um is not ideal uh from just a a highest
and best use of the that particular lot,
but unfortunately that's not um before
us this evening. So that's just what I
have to say about that.
Any other commissioners?
Mr. Chair, if I may
and these are just out of curiosity um
question staff, this interstation um can
get congested. We all understand that.
But did we consider the impact of the
factors of related to traffic
as a concern?
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Costa, our
traffic traffic section did take a look
at this. Uh, and since it's not an
additional use, it's just ancillary use
with what's existing on the property.
saw no issues with the additional um the
increase in intensity was not that that
required any type of special traffic
impact analysis or any type of study for
traffic in that area. Unfortunately, as
Commissioner Kaiser brought up, this
area is the roadways are rather
antiquated, if you will, in their design
and their widths and so on and so forth.
Again, these are thorough affairs, but
as you can see, they're restricted
thoroughares, unfortunately. Um, so it's
just going to take a real big
bond that the city, I guess, will have
to uh basically pony up and and get the
that road those two roadways redone in
order for them to be wide enough to be
more safe and so forth like that. But
again, like Commissioner Kaiser said, we
we see this unfortunately in this part
of town a lot. Ma'am,
and so this would not impact the SUA
whatsoever.
Traffic, like I said, our traffic uh
section did approve this, ma'am. They
saw no issues with the proposal. I have
one additional question. Um, can you
um update me? Is there any standards or
um for being the distance being close to
a church
because I I mentioned there was two
individuals that spoke that they their
churches are close to um this
establishment.
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Costa, there is
not a distance requirement from
religious institutions per not uh per
per our our ordinance. Ma'am,
thank you,
Mr. Costa.
Um, just a quick question for staff. Um,
considering since
April 2022, Los Cusus is the third
leading um, revenue driver of the cities
for New Mexico at 141 million, just a
little north of that. Um, you know,
looking at GRT, that would be, you know,
assuming around almost, you know, 3.9
million. Do we know how much of that
we've received and or what it's used
for?
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kos, I
unfortunately do not know that. I do
know uh our finance department and our
our city management uh was was working
on those things, but we have no idea
what what's happening with those monies,
sir.
So, to Commissioner Kaiser's point, you
know, I do see two separate issues. You
know, one that continues to not go away.
I don't know if there's any way that,
you know, cannabis businesses for
instance going in and redeveloping a
property or whatever that may be. Um,
you know, hopefully adding some security
presence with that because the security
presence that the law requires in that
aspect. Um, you know, I I think it would
be um good to see the city also follow
up with the fact that they're going in
and investing on properties to make
sure, you know, things around the area,
but around the city are are safer and,
you know, more comfortable for residents
around, you know, around here. So,
that's I suppose my comment leading off
of Commissioner Kaiser.
Thank you,
Commissioner Smith.
Um, I had I wrote down several notes on
things. Um, first of all, I want to
address your concern about traffic. Um,
it's been a long time, but over 20 years
ago, I was a Los police officer and um,
I used to deal with traffic in that
area, especially uh, after Mayfield
students uh, got out of school because,
um, they uh, didn't really follow
traffic laws very well far as stop signs
and yield signs. Um, so, you know, that
was over 20 years ago and traffic has
always been a problem there and probably
until something happens with that road
always will be. Um and so um I share a
concern there and it's always been
there. Um, and in saying that, um, I
don't think that, you know, the, uh,
having a cannabis business there is
going to have, um, you know, uh, a more
negative impact, um, on traffic because
there's been a gas station, um, you
know, convenience store there for
decades selling alcohol. And alcohol is
10 times more available um to young
people than cannabis is. And um you know
and so it's it's not easy to to purchase
cannabis compared to purchasing alcohol
because that's just sitting out on
shelves. And um and so I'm I'm just I'm
just giving you know just some points to
to you know people's concerns because um
we've had cannabis businesses here we're
going on what six years now and yes
they're they're businesses. They're no
different than than open up a you know a
restaurant. And um they're either going
to si survive or or they're gonna, you
know, or or die based on their ability
to provide a service that that people
will want to purchase and have a
business that people will, you know, um
will help maintain it. And so with the
number of, you know, cannabis businesses
in this town, um it's tough competition.
And so they're going to manage their
business in the best way possible, in
the strictest way possible to, you know,
to be successful. So you know, there's
this idea that, you know, having a
cannabis business here as opposed to a
liquor store um is going to cause, you
know, an increase in in in drug use.
Well, there's already high use of
alcohol and very accessible to homeless
people, to students. And so, you know,
we have to be realistic about um
paranoia concerning a cannabis business
because there are very difficult
restrictions as far as, you know, um how
the operator, how the how the business
owner provides the service and how the
customer is able to purchase it.
a student could walk into a a store and
buy a plastic bottle of Fireball, you
know, easily, but they won't be able to
go behind a counter and purchase, you
know, cannabis products. So, I I feel
that, you know, that's a concern that we
have to operate from a from a basis of
reality as far as how accessible this
these cannabis products are to kids or
students because it's going to be very
very difficult for that to happen. Um,
you know, I'm going to make one more
point in this on this. Uh, years ago, we
had a um someone come before the the
commission to get approval to have a
cannabis business on um on El Paso,
which shared a parking lot with a large
church there. And but that building
which used to be I think it was a it was
an Asian restaurant, Japanese
restaurant. But right beside that is a
Dina Stitzel.
And at that time I remember making a
point. I would argue that the food or
the food product that they sell at that
dwiner snitle is a lot more dangerous to
a child than trying to purchase cannabis
from a cannabis store with the heavy
restrictions that they have there.
Because any child, any person could walk
up there and buy
some hot dog with ingredients,
chemicals, with a list this long that
would provide would would have more
harm, way more harm than the almost
impossible chance in them getting a
cannabis product. So, I'm sorry. I I
operate in reality. I like to be a
common sense person. I don't like to
have, you know, create a narrative that
becomes your reality that you can that
people freak out about. And so I like
once again, I would say that the the the
danger of having that cannabis there and
and the negative impact that it would
have on that community is not going to
be as um you know bad as as as people
would think. So I know I took a lot of
time, but I just something I just wanted
to share. Thank you.
Commissioner McCelson.
Um, so I just wanted to talk about this
from the commercial real estate
standpoint. So in this city, um, the
fire department has told us that the
number one concern of loss of life is
vacant commercial buildings. I realize
this one's not vacant, but the presence
of any operating business with increased
security and lighting is a huge benefit
to any property owner here. So, I just
hope that you guys understand that the
more business awareness that we have,
then hopefully the safer our city and
our neighborhoods can be.
Any any other one? I uh I just have one
question and that's the 300 foot rule.
How did that come about? who who set the
300 foot rule and what was what was the
uh jurisdiction or how how did you come
up with 300 feet when that was approved?
Mr. Chair, uh basically that was done by
the city themselves when cannabis was
legalized by the state of New Mexico
where the state of New Mexico said you
have to allow this. You could put some
type of restrictions and standards on
it, but you have to allow it. So the
city just looked we what we looked at
was what's out there that requires a 300
foot require some type of separation.
The number one thing was liquor
licenses. Of course, liquor licenses
require minimum 300 foot separation from
any school uh church. That that's where
a church religious institution comes
into play and any mil military
institution or installation. My
apologies. And that one as well. If it's
less than 300 feet, city council
basically votes on that as well to wave
the required 300 feet. uh the the avenue
we have to do it with y'all was with a
special use permit is less than 300 feet
in order if we could allow for that for
that use to move forward. So that way it
was case specific for that case and
doesn't run with the property if you
will. It's just for each particular
business that goes into that property
that's trying to do that business. So
that's a quick history of how we came up
with all that. So if this if the city is
the one saying 300 feet and in this case
then the city is the one saying it's
okay to be within the 300 feet.
Mr. Chair, that is correct. We we looked
at all life, safety, welfare issues,
sent it out to all reviewing parties,
cleaner, fire department, traffic uh or
engineering section as well to see if
they saw any issues with the potential
use of the property. Everybody had no
issues with the proposal and with the
additional use on the property
and that 300 feet just we have to be
outside of the single family
residential.
Mr. Chair, the way it reads is a
cannabis related business has to be a
minimum of 300 feet from a single family
zone district. If it's less than that,
then a special use permit can be
requested for.
Okay.
I think that's really my that that's
really just my only sticking point. Just
I don't know I don't know if it's fair
to
a mixed because it's like you you're
going to run your business and people
want to run a business and it's good to
put a business in
in in all these commercial areas. Um, we
don't want them vacant. You do want the
GRT tax. Um, my only issue though is is
that we the city itself puts a parameter
on it in which we are wanting to go away
from it. Um, that's really my only issue
with it is it's just that we have a 300
foot that we would like to to someone
set it up for good for good reason in my
opinion, keeping it away from houses.
Um, but that's really all I have. I
don't have anything else.
So, I guess I guess we're now at the
point for a uh for a vote.
Mr. Chair and commissioners, could you
repeat who the motion and second was for
this case
before I take the vote?
Uh, I think Commissioner Kaiser was a
motion.
Okay. And it was a tie for a for a
second between Commissioner A. Costa and
I believe
Commissioner Smith. Was it? I heard two
voices. Sorry, I was waiting.
I think you just put a co.
Okay.
Yeah. Yeah. It was a tie between Council
Commissioner Smith and Commissioner.
Okay. Thank you. Um well, I'll go ahead
and call the role now.
I did have one more question for for
staff. Um and I think you Commissioner
Kaiser may have uh kind of voiced a
similar question. I know we've had
variances in the past um for cannabis
businesses and um and that we've
approved
Are is there any information or data as
far as like any problems with those
places where we've approved areases that
were close to uh homes or to a school or
or to a church? Has it has the city
collected any data that says this has
been a problem or has not been a
problem?
Mr. Chair, Commissioner uh Smith, from
the time I've been doing special use
permits, we have not had any issues
based on how the business is being run.
Uh or the the um
any issues with the neighborhood and so
on and so forth. Like I said before, the
issue we've had is how they've been
conducting business. For instance,
there's one that funny enough you say
close to a single family zoning
district. There's one off uh I forget
where it's out, but it was within 300
feet of a single family zoning district.
Basically, that business would say,
"Come on in, buy a t-shirt, and you got
yourself a free gram of something. Buy a
$100 t-shirt, you get yourself some free
cannabis." So, that was shut down
because the state told us about that
that was happening. So, business
registration was completely closed.
That's the only one that I'm aware of
that we had potential issues with. So,
but this was years ago when cannabis was
still in its infancy and people were
trying to see what they can, cannot do.
Uh but like I said before, the state of
New Mexico's cannabis division has grown
exponentially from when it first
started. So they are definitely keeping
a better eye on on everything out there.
Sir,
thank you.
And sorry if I if I just may elaborate
on that. And the operating protocol, if
you will, is pretty robust for cannabis.
So let's say there is some, you know,
issues that are perceived by the
neighborhood. It's a code enforcement
issue. you can request that to be
investigated, inspected, and if it f if
they find that they're out of
compliance, there's um there's, you
know, they have to be held responsible
for that. So, I just want to make it
very clear that there are very robust
operating protocols uh for these
facilities.
Mr. Chairman, commissioners, I just
wanted to add one other things. Um the
the petition or the application before
United is a special use permit. It's not
a v a waiver or variance and it this is
kind of a zoning distinction but
typically variances have to be based on
some specific condition or hardship with
a property. This is a special use
permit. So certain cannabises they're
meet all these um distance requirements.
They're allowed a permit to operate
without having to come before you. The
special use permit is just a process.
It's not a pro it's not a prohibition of
this use. It's just a condition in which
we want additional review to to have it
go forward to have an opportunity for
the neighborhood uh or adjacent
properties to express that. So, uh it's
it's a procedural type of item that
that's going forward and so there's a
little bit different criteria that you
have to to to review that. So,
all right, we're ready for a vote.
Commissioner Costa.
Yes.
Commissioner Smith.
Yes.
Commissioner McCaslin.
Yes.
Commissioner Murray.
Yes.
And Commissioner A. Costa.
Yes.
And Chair Thirsten.
Oh, excuse me. Commissioner Kaiser.
Yes.
And And Chair?
No.
Mr. Chair, the the special use permit
was approved.
All right, moving on to the next one.
Um,
can I have a motion to approve seven
item 7.2?
Mr. Chair, I move to approve.
And can I get a second?
A second.
All right. Next, um we need a motion to
motion and a second um to suspend the
rules to hear items 7.2 and 7.3
together.
I make a motion to suspend the rules to
hear items 7.2 and 7.3 together.
I second.
All right. Uh now we're going to turn it
over to staff for a presentation.
Good evening everyone. Uh John Castillo
for the record.
Uh today we have a soaring Eagle Heights
subdivision master plan and preliminary
plat. Uh the current conditions of the
property, it's located at the northwest
corner of Elks Drive and Moreno Road. Uh
the lot currently encompasses
approximately 23.83 acres. It's an
undeveloped vacant parcel of land. Um
the current zoning on the property is
NH1S which is our neighborhood one
suburban and it's also located within
the suburban neighborhood place type uh
pro predominantly surrounded by single
family residential development.
We can see here is a zoning map of the
property that's highlighted
um and some of the zoning around it.
Here's an aerial view of the vacant
property.
So the master plan proposes a single
family and multif family residential
development on a parcel of land. Uh this
will be done in four phases. Uh three of
those phases for single family lots and
one phase for a multif family lot. Uh
there will be a tract uh for drainage
which will be maintained um and owned by
the developer. Uh and then there's three
other tracks for the development of
roadways um and to provide a pedestrian
access to the adjacent school that is
near the property. Here's an image of
the master plan.
The next proposal for the preliminary
plat once again is a single family and
multif family residential development.
Uh phases 1 through three are
approximately 16 uh 296 acres. This will
have 71 residential lots uh six internal
roadways that will provide access to
Moreno and Elks uh with a pedestrian
access to the adjacent school. The
improvements and dedication also
proposed for Elk or for Mareno and Elks
um phase 4 which is approximately 7.196
acres will be used for multif family
residential housing
and here's an image of the preliminary
plat. As you can see, phase one is kind
of at the top corner. Then phases two
and three, facing more towards Mareno
Road. And then phase four is a larger
tract of land that is at the corner of
Mareno and Elks.
Uh the analysis showed no life, safety,
or welfare issues identified. The
proposed master plan uh is uh the
proposed master plan complies with the
requirements and standards of the city
of Las Cusus. The proposed preliminary
plan also complies with the requirements
um of the city of Los Cusus and the
subdivision code. The new lots that are
being created by the subdivision comply
with all requirements of the 2025
development code um and then potential
for providing attainable housing in the
area as well as provide a range of
housing in the area per elevate loss
cruis's comprehensive plan.
At the time of this presentation was
created notice was sent to all
surrounding properties within 500 ft.
staff received no emails or phone calls
related to the proposal.
This did have to go before our
development review committee or DRC who
reviews subdivisions from an
infrastructure utilities and improvement
standpoint. On January 26, the meeting
for the master plan um was provided a
unanimous a unanimously recommended
approval with conditions. Um this
condition was that we utilize the
alternate cross-section for the
development of Elks Drive and Marina
Road uh which was approved by our DRC.
Um the preliminary plat also had to go.
Um after minor discussion, the DRC
recommend approval for the preliminary
plat
staff recommends approval with
conditions for the master plan. U based
on relevant city staff. U the proposed
master plan complies with the
requirements and standards of the city
of Luskers's subdivision code. Uh the
new lots that are being created by the
master plan comply with all requirements
of the 2025 development code. And then
following the goals and actions outlined
in elevate Los Cusus, the pro
subdivision will allow for the
development of alternative housing types
as well as the de uh the DRC
recommending approval with condition on
January 21st.
Staff uh recommends approval for the
preliminary plat based on the following
findings. Um once again, city staff um
showed that the preliminary plaque
complies with requirements and standards
of the city of Los Cusus subdivision
code. Um all the lots being created by
the preliminary plaque comply with all
requirements of the 2025 land
development code and the following um
also as well following the goals and
actions outlined in Elevate Los Cruises,
the proposed subdivision will offer
housing options that vary in intensity.
Um and as well the development review
committee approved
um on January 21st as well. So today
your options are to vote yes to approve,
vote no to deny, vote to amend, or vote
to table.
Does the applicant have a uh
presentation they'd like to give?
No, not at this time. Okay. Is there any
uh public participation? come on up and
if you will state your name and then I
will swear you in and we'll give you
three minutes.
Eugina Gina Mononttoy Ortega.
All right. Do you swear or affirm that
the testimony you're about to give is a
truth and nothing but the truth under
penalty of law?
I so do.
Go ahead.
Uh commissioners, uh chair, my name is
Gina O'henya Montoy Ortega and I am the
sister of Teresa Moreno who owns half of
Moreno Road. Uh, so from my
understanding is the city of Los Cruus
owns half of Modeno and my sister owns
the west half of Modeno Road all the way
down. She has a mobile home down there
and some rentals uh which are
multifamily little apartments and I
believe an extra mobile home. Uh her
concern is unfortunately she couldn't be
here. She goes to bed when the chickens
do. Um so her concern is the traffic.
the traffic that as it is there you have
trouble trying to exit with the school
there and now you're creating additional
traffic with the additional building of
these homes. Um the next thing that is
her concern is right through that area
that where they would like to do the
building. There's an a royal that runs
through there and this last rain that
they had. So what happens is the water
runs right through that subdiv where
they're going to create the subdivision
runs through across the road and then
the actual where the water does gather
is just um south of Moreno Road right
right along the road. Um so this
actually uh my I believe my sister
actually has video showing that it
turned into like a river. So now that
you are going to concrete and pave all
this 23 acres, I know that there is
drainage. Um but that drainage probably
is just to account for the property that
they are looking to develop. Um our
concern is so now the city will maintain
you know obviously their half of the
road. So what what happens on the
private side? So when that water is
diverted um onto the road which Roto
road basically turned into a river
itself. Um now whose problem is this? Is
this going to be my sister's problem?
Um,
what we actually anticipate in in
talking with her is is this going to be
the next Colombia Elementary School
flood that, you know, is going to leave
her in a bind. Um, she doesn't have
millions of dollars. She's not a
developer. You know, she's just a
widowed woman that her husband had has
had this property uh early in the early
2000s. And that's her concern and that's
my concern as well. I do not want the
problem now to become her problem as it
is whenever that road does kind of wash
out, it's her responsibility to maintain
it. So if the water now that you know
the s the this
uh housing unit will have its drainage,
but what if that water overflows a
drainage? My husband and I were small
business owners on Valley Drive. We see
that big pond right next to their flood
over really well. And so if this
drainage is not big enough, uh once
again, the concern is is this going to
be my sister's problem. So we just for
the record want to know that when this
if you all do approve this, which is
great. We know that people need housing.
Uh I just don't want it to be her
problem and I wanted to be on the
record. Thank you.
Thank you for your concerns. Anybody on
the left?
Okay. Anybody on the right that would
like to come up? When you get up there,
if you'll state your name, I'll swear
you in.
My name is Jimmy Garcia.
Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give is the
truth and nothing but the truth under
penalty of law?
Yes.
Go ahead.
I just got a few questions. Um, when
they did this development, we got
noticed that they would take part of a
road from it. We just want to know how
much would it be and
do they just take it? We don't get
compensated for it. That's the only
question I have and concerns.
And now that she brought it up, if they
do divert the water, would it run over
to
any other place like towards Kennedy
Road? Would that be a problem?
And that's that's it.
We'll ask those questions.
Thank you.
Anybody else?
Go ahead and come on up.
State your name and then I'll swear you
in.
My name is Brad Moore.
Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give is the
truth and nothing but the truth and
independency of law?
Yes, I do.
Go ahead.
I just have the same concerns. I live in
one of Miss Manorano's rental properties
back there and I have been back there
for about 10 years and the concerns that
I have are equal to what she has already
brought at at the table here. I would
like to see some drawings or some
grading and drainage details if at all
possible. I am not a engineer in that
fact, but I have been in the
construction industry my entire life. So
I do understand what
drawings are and I was wondering if it
is possible to take a look at these
draining and grading
uh issues that are definitely a big
concern for that area. Thank you. Thank
you for your concerns.
All right, seeing that there's no more
public comment, let's open it up to the
commissioners. Any commissioners? Go
ahead, Commissioner Smith.
I just have a question for staff. Um,
clearly drainage is um seems to be the
the biggest concern. Um,
has there has that issue been addressed
as far as how water will be diverted
diverted um in case of heavy rains,
which we've been getting, you know, more
frequently? Um, so is that is there
going to be a new drainage system put in
or is just going to be a diversion uh
type of situation?
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Smith, um, the
master planning process does as well as
the preliminary plat process does
require that we submit a drainage study
which has been done and has been
reviewed by our engineering staff and
they've seen no issue with it as far as
the diversion goes. Um the properties
are or the subdivision is required to
maintain
um any new post-development runoff on
site. Um and any historical flows would
be uh released out into how it would
normally flow. Um, as far as a lot of
the concerns that were brought up, um,
regarding how it's going to flow, um,
really get discussed more through the
construction phase at this time. Um,
along with, uh, further defining the
road sections. Um,
as per our development code, um, more so
in the subdivision section of our code,
uh, Mareno Road being a local roadway,
they are, um, required to build out a
full cross-section for that area. So,
they would be building an entire
cross-section
um, which includes asphalt, sidewalk,
curb, and gutter. So, that'll also help.
And that goes to the end of their
property from the beginning of their
property to the end of their property.
So it's the it's the developer's
responsibility to make sure that any
water runoff is contained within their
development.
Mr. Chair, uh Commissioner Smith, that
is correct.
It just point of clarification on that.
It it is also the historic Oh, sorry. It
is the historic flow. So when when water
does come into a development and the
natural the the historic flow that goes
out will still come out of that
subdivision. So, they're not allowed to
generate more, but you but water will
still leave their subdivision as it as
it did before that that land was there
when it was vacant land. So, a lot of
the times you'll you'll have people say,
"Hey, well, you were supposed to take
all of the ponding." Well, that's not
necessarily true. The the rules, as I
understand it, is you can't increase the
discharge.
That That's That's correct. Right,
Mr. Chair? That is correct.
Okay.
I have I Go ahead, Kaiser. Go ahead.
Yeah, I just want to follow up on that
point. So, looking at the the proposal
here though, if I'm understanding this
correctly, uh I think it's tract A is um
there at the south um west corner of the
property. That would be the drainage
uh retention pond. Is that correct?
Yes. Uh Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kaiser,
that is correct. It is um the drainage
pond to catch the
um what wouldn't be caught from the lots
um themselves, but um like like um Chair
Thirst said, it would to catch that post
development um that will still allow the
historic flow to go through.
Okay. So, I guess that's my my question
is that's sitting right in the middle of
what appears to be the existing AOYO.
So,
how is that how is that going to work?
You're going to have this increased flow
filling a pond that's already receiving
water from upstream. And this is not a
this is not a tiny little royal. I mean,
whatever whatever's flowing through here
is going to be cooking pretty good. So,
I'm having a really hard time
understanding how this
is an acceptable solution.
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kaiser. Um, I
can also I can speak to it a little bit,
but I will also defer to the um
to the applicant's representative who's
here. Um, but they are required uh to
provide a FEMA flood study uh to show
the exact runoff that would be produced
from that. Um, and if FEMA has deemed it
to be insignificant, then the pond will
hold. If not, they do have to
accommodate the pond to fit.
And has that work been completed?
That work is still in progress.
So, how do we know by approving this
that it's going to work?
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kaiser, during
um many multiple staff meetings with the
applicant um and property owner and
their representative and staff, we did
um also put a note on the master plan
that says that if
um FEMA does not approve the study, we
will um alter
the way the pond works to accommodate.
So, so in this case, if if they're if
the drainage doesn't work, track day is
going to have to increase is basically
how that would and then they would end
up as a development that you' you'd
probably end up losing lots if drainage
does is not sufficient. But I but that
is all up to the engineers of the
project.
Good evening. My name is Renee Molina. I
represent I am the engineer for this
project. And if I need to raise my I
need to be sworn in, I'd
All right. You ready? Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you're about
to give is the truth and nothing but the
truth under penalty of law?
I sure do.
Go ahead.
So, in regards to drainage, uh there is
an AOYO that go traverses through the
property and the bulk of the aoyo is
actually on phase 4. Uh what we're
intending on doing on this development
is just like any other development that
has come through this board and through
city council for multiple years. We are
our intent is to retain the
postdevelopment drainage that we create
and that's what tract A will be used
for. post uh pre-development flows the
water that comes through that a royo
currently now is allowed to be in its
current state and discharge at the
current location. We are not we can't
increase any flow onto that rao and we
are not intending to the intent is to
retain the water that is being developed
by the home roofs the impervious areas
of the roadways sidewalks and so on.
Historical flows will remain. We are not
allowed to drop more water into the
aroyo. It shall remain as is currently.
Um in regards to building in that Aoyo,
there is no intent to build in that
Aoyo. We are developing what's referred
to as or known as a Clomar, a
conditional letter of map revision that
will change the drainage
um mapping for that area because there
is an error that was done previously. uh
and we're going through the process with
FEMA to correct that error. That process
is ongoing but will be part of the
project as we uh come to the next phase
which is the construction drawing phase.
Yeah, I appreciate the explanation. I
guess I'm just um
That's going to be a deep hole. No,
tract A. I mean, because you're going to
have to capture all this additional
runoff that you're legally obligated to
capture in the same location that you're
having all these upstream flows
converging.
It's going to have to be a deep hole.
In all actual commissioners, in all
actuality, that tract will not take flow
from the AOYO.
The flow that will go into tract A, the
pond, the retention pond will be only
from the roadways and the rooftops that
will be developed. The aoyo that's from
an areas areas that are upstream from
this development will flow through track
A is not going to be in the path of the
Aoyo.
Do we have a aerial image in the
PowerPoint presentation? Because that's
not what I'm seeing.
At least Royo flows directly into tract
A.
Do you have contours?
I mean I've Yeah, this one right here.
May I approach?
Yeah, please.
It's part of the staff report.
Yes,
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kaiser, that is
part of the staff report, but it wasn't
placed in the presentation.
Yeah. Sorry, you're going to have to get
next to a mic to
Yeah, any discussion has to go through a
mic. Sorry. Has to be recorded.
I apologize. So, I will kind of map the
AOYO. So, track A sits over here on this
corner. The A Royo is actually coming
into Moreno right here and it stays on
Moreno road.
It track A is over on this corner.
Moreno where the AOYO comes into Moreno
is in this area right here. And it will
it will be in close close proximity to
where phase three or phase 2 roadway
ties into Moreno.
I lost the M. So, so it's right here.
It's in this area. If you could see
where I'm pointing, track A, the
retention pond is over in this location.
That I I understand what you're saying,
but that's not what I'm seeing. I'm
seeing tract A come all the way to the
new
uh white whitetail eagle road.
So, are you saying that you're going to
disconnect
that very end, the very tail of the Aoyo
and push it entirely onto the road?
The Aoyo currently comes into Moreno
Road at that location.
That that stretch, let's call track a
flag lot. The pole portion of the flag
lot is not going to be the pond
location.
It works out as to how we wanted to
develop the lots and that's areas area
area that's available but the intent of
tract A is a retention pond for the
development not to curb any flows from
uh from the Aoyo to come into track A
because we would need a very large pond
to attenuate that peak and we can't do
that. We're not going to bring that aoyo
into track day.
Okay. So,
grades will reflect that.
When you So, when you build out that
white tail eagle road,
you're going to What are you going to do
with the aoyo? You're going to put it in
a pipe and send it into the road that
you're about to build, a marino,
commission. No, sir. We will not put a
pipe. The the drainage will continue as
it has been currently. It'll be overland
flow that would come over the the
roadway how it does now and merge onto
Moreno. We don't want to deviate or
change that flow path because at that
point we would be changing historical
flow paths and we can't do that.
Okay. Yeah, I understand what you're
saying. Thank you for the clarification.
Sure.
My question to staff now that can't be
the answer.
No way can that be the answer. That
we're just going to say we're going to
put this road down in a subdivision and
just let the aoyo
wash over it.
That cannot be the answer.
It if I may,
design standards exist to safeguard
from multiple things. The design
standards allow for water to go over
roadways and stay on roadways to a
certain criteria.
That will be held and met.
If we were to put pipes in this system
and do something like that, you would
have to take a pipe network that would
be very cumbersome to maintain
all the way down past this property all
the way down to the uh western side,
probably around a quarter mile or
longer. and you would still have the
issue of someone being able to try to
maintain a pipe network system that
would be silted up. Someone brought up
Colombia. Colombia Middle School had two
60-in pipes that took a uh flows from an
aoyo.
Multiple times those pipes were full
with sediment and water would over top.
It's best to allow the water to continue
as it historically has and maintain the
design parameters that are set forth
within the design standards.
Yeah, I I appreciate the explanation and
I don't disagree with you 100%. I think
my concern is that with all that being
said, this is the wrong site design for
this location.
That just essentially damning with this
new road at the end of the Aoyo and
saying we're just going to let that road
the AOYO overtake that road and send it
on down its way. It's only going to pick
up more velocity as it is now flowing
over concrete and asphalt with no
friction or way less friction than the
Sandy Aoyo and going to cause massive
issues downstream. That's my concern. I
don't disagree with everything that you
just said. I think my concern here with
this conversation is that this site plan
is the wrong site plan for this
location.
Any other comments for the
commissioners? Any other questions? I
just want to go back to my original
question uh that about so the natural
flow will continue which is historically
just what happens when it gets rained
there and with the new development plan
with track A
um capturing any water that's going to
flow from the home the rooftop
and from just the the street. It will
not add to the historic flow. It's
basically going to be contained or it's
going to be diverted to, you know, the
new roadway. It will not be Is that Is
that correct,
Commissioners? Yes, that's correct. The
intent of this development is to take
imperous area
flow, rooftops, streets, sidewalks,
curb, and gutter, manage it through the
roadway system, let it drain onto tract
A and be retained,
thereby not increasing historical flows,
and historical flows will remain as is.
All right. Thank you for that
clarification.
Any
other questions? All right, I got a
couple. Um, this is for staff
on the DRC review. Um, what what does
the alternate cross-section um turn out
to be?
Mr. Chair, um, which cross-section are
you speaking about?
Uh, Elks.
Uh, that alternate cross-section
ultimately, um, they're dedicating about
a 10 foot wide tract of land. Um, from
there they're going to take the existing
alignment to the south of theirs, as you
can see right here, um, right at the
intersection. They're going to align it
to keep it going this way, and then it's
going to eventually taper into a
two-lane roadway back as we reach, um,
the city limits.
Okay. So it's
left.
Okay. What? And so on Moreno, that's a
local that one's a local, right?
Mr. Chair, that is correct. It is a
local roadway.
So according to development codes, they
are they going to be paving the entire
distance of Mareno to the edge all the
way to the end of track day to the end
of their property?
That is correct, Mr. Chair.
Okay. And then the other one, um,
because we get stuck up on that
sometimes, is that entrance going into
the school. Is there any improvements
being put on that or have th those been
waved by staff?
There are no improvements to that. Um,
that tract of land actually belongs to
the school.
Okay.
I thought this was
Okay. So, that's
And then you do have a spot where the
pedestrian uh kids can walk to school.
It looks like you have that in track B.
Is that right? That's what track B is
for.
Mr. Chair, that is correct. Track B is
that it's located between lots 9 and 10.
Okay. My uh the other one, the ponding
is it says it's going to be owned by the
HOA. Is that or it's going to be owned
by the developer until an HOA is formed?
That is correct.
Okay. Um on the issue of drainage, um is
there any requirement for like a
desilting because when the water comes
in, it's it because if it's going to go
back onto the Marino road, is there
going to be like a desilttiling or
what's your what's your policy on
dumping the water back onto the road?
Because I know it happens throughout the
whole city. I mean, it's it's a good way
sometime to to convey water, but do you
have to desilt the water or is that
going to just turn into a uh a mud road?
Uh Mr. Chair, Adam for for the record
again. Uh essentially, yes, sir. There
are there are design standards in our
code that requires uh whatever
post development or I'm sorry uh
historic flows be dumped off from
property onto a road, some type of a
design needs to be taken care of that
issue, sir. That's taken care of in the
actual design and construction drawings
uh with our public works department.
Department of Works Department.
Actually, the director and deputy
director were present for the DRC and
they did approve this subdivision seeing
that the uh the flood there's no real
flood issues or or drainage issues with
the area, sir.
Okay. That's I I get historic and pre
you know, like water's going to come
through there. That's not a it's not a
question, right? I was just wondering on
is it going to now have a is Moreno just
going to be covered in dirt when the
first rain comes? That was more of my
That's more of my uh issue on that. And
then my very last one, I don't see any
parks in here because according to this
wonderful new um realize Los Cusus, he
needs a threeacre park.
Mr. chair. Um the discussion of parks
was brought up um during the DRC uh
vaguely or for just a moment but as the
project started back in 2022 and we have
been ongoing with this um through other
discussions with um management and
different departments or or not
different departments but our parks and
recreation department um they were not
required to do a park as we've been
ongoing with this
project. So, you're telling me that my
projects that I've talked to you about,
I can now not put parks in those,
Mr. Chair. That or go ahead,
Mr. Chair. This was actually submitted
prior to during that interim period and
since it was close to um coming to the
plan zoning commission, it was deemed to
have fall under that transition period.
And so, it it it beat the time clock. my
I I'm gonna disagree on that a little
bit because I thought we had our last
our last meeting. We said that there
were no more that were going to be
coming through except it that were going
to be coming through the old it was all
going to be coming through the new
realized Los Cruus. That was my that was
at least my recollection. But if I am
wrong then
help me understand what other projects
are also not following that.
Mr. Chair, this should be the last um
residential subdivision that comes
through in that manner. Um everything
else now has either been submitted
during the transitional period or has
now been submitted in the new uh land
development code. Um as I said before,
this project started back in 2022. Um,
we did see some stoppage and then it was
reapplied for again in 2024 and
continued further discussion about road
cross-sections as well as the flood
zone.
We had a the last one we had is the city
came in and they were trying to hurry up
and get a subdivision approved so that
they wouldn't have to pay park fees.
And that was my understanding that that
was going to be the last of them. And
now this one coming in. What can you go
back to your presentation? Does it show
under the realiz code or is it showing
it under the old code in your
presentation?
Mr. Chair, it does show under realize.
Um, however, we've discussed with our
director as well. This is something that
has come in prior before any of the new
code was even thought of or as it was
being developed.
So, I I'm going to see I'm
I see that more of a how do you what's
what's the right word? Martial law where
it is we can make whatever rule we want
for the time being. I'm I'm sorry, but
that I I get stuck and slapped with park
all the time. And anybody any applicant
that comes in here is going to get hit
with a fee and loo, which I still don't
understand where the fee and loo funds
are going and if they're even going to
parks. Um, but I do that's that's the
rest of the rest of the stuff. I like
that they were able to that the
pedestrians are in there. I think, you
know, you you we'll deal with the the
flooding that's going to happen because
it has to there's no way we're going to
it's not going to get approved through
the city without without that being
taken care of. But I do think there's a
little bit of a uh um a parks issue that
is being being waved on this one. That's
a serious disadvantage to other
developers in this town that are doing
it. That's close to because you're
you're having to pay a park impact fee.
You're but you're paying two impact fees
now. You're paying a regional and a
neighborhood park and the regional is
$2,600 and then you have to pay the the
fee in lie when sometimes the the the
park impact fee is also larger depending
on the size of the home that you're
building. And so that can be somewhere
in the neighborhood of a close to a
$10,000 per lot savings that we're that
they don't have to live by. That's my
That's my only issue with this and I'm
gonna leave it at that.
I I have one more question. You you
stated that they applied in 2022 and
there was a stop and then 2024
there was a restart. Is that considered
a a reapplication?
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Smith, that is
considered a relication. Um, so the way
that we've processed out our subdivision
applications, if we have no activity
within a certain period of time, we
expire the application and they are um
notified to resubmit.
But wouldn't that fall at this at the in
2024 that would fall under the new
regulations? Correct.
Mr. Chair, remain objective, please. Mr.
Chair, Commissioner uh Smith. No, sir.
it'd be a 2025 when realized went into
effect. So even with the 2024 um uh
they're still under the old code.
Additionally, on top of that, the
biggest reason why in 2022 that original
application kind of stopped was because
of the drainage issues and the studies
that needed to happen for the AOYO and
so on and so and alternate crosssections
for Moreno and Elks. So, a lot of
hurdles were in the way that they needed
to work out from an engineering traffic
uh drainage uh flood flood control
standpoint that park that our parks and
recreation department that's why they
deemed it the fine for this to move
forward under the old codes there. Just
to clarify,
I I got one point on that one though.
The other applicants that were put in
here, there were multiple of them that
said that the park impact, the fee in
loo would be waved if it was approved
before the end of the year. That was on
multiple applications.
This one is not approved before the end
of the year. Mr. chair. Uh to give a
little bit more clarification, whilst
all of staff did recommend approval, um
by the middle of December, um some staff
was out of office and could not meet the
the required dates as well as uh the
applicant meeting the required dates to
go to DRC by the end of 2025.
So, we had to approve them.
That happens all the time.
We have we have stuff that doesn't get
done on time. I I don't know. I am I my
opinion is I I would put an amendment on
this that there is a fee in lie that we
would pass it with a fee and amending it
that the parks get the fee in loo just
that's that's the rules that have been
put forward. If not, then it's just
doing a favor for favor for one, but
then all the other developers that come
in, we're not going to do a favor for. I
don't find that being fair as a
codebased
finding. That's my That's my only issue
with it. Do I agree with the actual park
fee? No, I don't. But that it's in the
code, we got to live with it.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, just a point
of order. Um,
first thing want to say is the approval
of a subdivision is a four-step process.
You start with a master plan which you
have this evening which is kind of a
conceptual this is how the street
network you want to connect. This is how
on a higher level you want the drainage
to work. Um, this is the the layout
preliminary layout mix of uses of a
property. Then you go to the preliminary
plat where you actually get more
detailed. You get more studies on how
the drainage is to be handled, how the
street network, if there's any need for
uh cross-sections. After that point, you
go to the actual construction drawings
where you actually have to approve uh
how the the entire subdivision will be
graded, how drainage will take place,
the size of the streets where they'll
connect into the network, how utilities
are extended, etc. And so that's a whole
other process outside of the planning
and zoning commission. And if any of
those standards are not met, uh the city
will not approve those plans, will not
issue permits. And uh if there's
something that the the applicant cannot
do, then he may have to go back and
redesign his subdivision. And then after
that stage or concurrently is the final
plat where the actual legal documents
drawn up where the lots are created
actually filed and they they can be sold
tracks are provided rightaways are
dedicated etc. So tonight you're at that
conceptual and also that intermediary
step where can these concepts
potentially work? It's before the actual
final details go forward. So,
in your role as planning and zoning
commission, those are two items that you
approve and the applicant or the
property owner can't go forward with the
subdivision
preparing the construction drawings or
the final plat until he he passes this
level or she passes this this level of
approval. So, at this stage, you can
place conditions on both the master plan
and the preliminary plan. Um, if there's
something that you know before you have
construction drawings, if there's
additional drainage reviews that that
you would like to see take place, you
can place that type of condition. I
don't think it's out of your purview to
also address the the park fees that you
feel this needs to be under. But to the
applicant, I think before they go to the
final plat stage, they could ask um
either one that that condition be
removed and that at that what staff
would probably do would bring the final
plat to you with that request or there
could be a determination that um from a
legal standpoint, the city erdred by not
getting this in a timely manner and they
need to fall under the 2001 zoning code
and and 1989 subdivision code or 1992
subdivision. division code. Um so just
want to provide that as information as
you go forward. Um the other option that
you have is that you feel that they uh
the intent is for them to fall under the
previous land development codes that
they've met all their requirements and
then you could motion to approve that
you know and you your series of options
that you have. The other one is you can
recommend approval with conditions or
you can feel that the requirements for
this master plan and the preliminary
plat have not been met and you can deny
these applications and then it puts it
back to the um the applicant on how they
choose to go forward with this proposal.
Twer
um so I have a few more questions. Um
this is related to um really the u the
pedestrian um
uh elements of this subdivision. Um
first I I don't uh disagree with what's
been proposed. Um, I'm just curious to
see if if we can take this to a more
intentional level, uh, when it comes to
specifically pedestrian and cyclist
access because we're immediately
adjacent to the middle school. Um, and
then just on the other side of the
middle school is an elementary school.
So, I think this is a perfect
opportunity to not just do the
afterthought of, oh, we got to we got to
slide this in somewhere, but actually
have some intentionality behind it. Um,
that makes it uh an inviting space to
actually encourage. I think there's a
huge marketing potential here with this
development to say if you come live here
whether it's buy a single family or move
into the future multif family complex
that you don't you can skip the drop off
and pickup line your children can walk
uh right across um the neighborhood to
the school. So on that point, uh the
first question I have is did staff have
any conversations with um the school
district, specifically the safe routes
to school program around uh how to make
these connections.
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kaiser, no staff
did not speak with uh safe routes to
school.
Is there a reason for that?
A point of point of correction. Um
actually staff was associated with a uh
a safe route to school uh u a safe route
to school um uh I guess it was like a
get together if you will with with the
Los Cruises public schools the county so
on and so forth like that couple weeks
ago where they were showing the the uh
connectivity of the new uh trails out
there in the county. Uh we did show them
the the routes that are being proposed
by Elks with the alternate cross-section
as well as the pedestrian connectivity
through the subdivision which will allow
people to walk through the subdivision
and keep them off of Elks. Uh as well as
the the bicycling as well with the bike
lanes and Elks. uh they they they they
they were excited to see that the city
was doing something or a development was
coming in in that area that would do
some type of improvement to the area
right there that's pretty in need of of
of additional development for for
pedestrian connectivity.
Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
So on that on that point, um the trail
that was recently built uh I think it
was by the county or maybe was a
collaboration with the school district,
I'm not sure. um that uh that trail that
multi-use path uh was constructed at 8
ft wide. Uh what's being shown on the
alternative cross-section for elks with
this proposal um smaller than that. Uh,
and I'd like to see a way that we can
match so that when you have going from
this development, this proposal into the
county because isn't I believe the
county city line is like right at the
edge of this subdivision that there's a
seamless transition that they're they're
of equal quality. They're of equal
standard and there isn't um, you know,
six feet is barely enough room for two
cyclists to go past each other. And I
would just like to see us be able to
match what uh the county recently did
because my understanding is they're
interested in bringing that same 8 foot
trail all the way down um in that gap
that currently would exist between the
edge of this property and where it
currently is on Elks.
Mr. Chair, uh Commissioner Kaiser, there
was no talks of any type of extension of
that trail there. What's there there is
there. So it'd be a gap between what is
the county, what is ours. Uh the only
time that they potentially puts and I
believe the the trail is on the east
side along the freeway and this is on
the west side that meanders. My
apologies it runs adjacent to the
schools. You're correct. So no sir
there's no discussions on that but uh
that was their standards. Our standards
just require six foot six foot
pedestrian walkway sir.
Okay. Um, so I guess the question is,
um,
right in front of a school, we have a 14
foot automobile turn lane and children
presumably using that to access the
school get six feet. That seems very out
of balance to me. We have an opportunity
here to really um, change how we've done
things in the past. Um, and I think we
can certainly find room within, what is
this, a total rideway of 50 feet to give
children at least eight feet. Um, so
I I would like to and I'm not asking to
do this right at this moment, but um I
would like to propose a condition of
approval that that sidewalk/multiuse
path on the um west side of Elks be 8
feet to match the multi-use path um that
we've seen the county recently build.
Um the other point I want to make is I
guess two points. Uh the pedestrian
cutth through um my understanding
reading the staff report that's proposed
to be 10 ft um pure concrete. Um my
understanding is parks based on the DRC
comments that parks had asked for 12 but
they got 10. Um,
again, I feel like we can be a little
bit more intentional here about making
something
um more
um
more inviting of a space. You know, 10
feet of asphalt uh with rock wall on
either side of you is not exactly an
inviting um
place to be. I've had conversations with
other people in the community, different
points, um, and have mentioned that
these cutthroughs are they wouldn't let
their children walk through them because
they are a little sketchy. Um, and so I
think here's an opportunity again to
have that direct access to the school uh
to
basically say, "Hey, we want you to use
this. We want you to use this space. We
want you to walk with your kids or even
send your kids alone to walk to middle
school or down the street to elementary
school. And I think we can just be a
little bit more intentional there rather
than just throwing the scraps um doing
the bare minimum. Um the other point I
want to point out is when you exit that
uh exit the subdivision, there is no
sidewalk between that location and the
entrance to the school. You have to cut
across a massive parking lot. I
recognize that that's outside the the
ownership of this applicant. Um, but I'm
just wondering if there's a way that we
can come to some sort of resolution here
working with the school district perhaps
coming up with a development agreement
or something that at least gets you a
sidewalk uh on the north side of this
property. Um so that not only if you're
taking Elks because you're going to have
this phase 4 multifamily
um development, but you also have all
the development to the south uh to the
to the east that would potentially be
using that trail.
They make that right-hand turn by car.
I'd like to see us have come to some
solution resolution uh where we can
extend at least a trail sidewalk
uh all the way um into wherever the
nearest sidewalk is currently uh in the
middle school.
I I got one thing on on the point of
that that I just want I like to see.
What's the what is Elks classification,
Mr. Chair?
Classification.
Elks is classified as an arterial. C can
you pull up the cross-section of the
real eyes
for us on the screen there?
I'm curious to see what the realize
cross-section of that and the trail
system is
because I think to your I think to your
point is that it is a w I think it is a
wider trail system on the current but
I'm not I'm not positive.
Yeah, I think I think actually the if
you go by the the realize
the cross-section would actually be a
lot wider, but I think given the context
here at the end of Elks, they're asking
for an alternative. So, I think because
they're asking for an alternative, we
should
we should be a little bit more um
innovative here. So my my question then
is if GRC has already approved
this cross-section and
if it is the desire of the commissioners
to change or to have DRC relook at that
path that path section
um what would the best way of doing that
uh be so that we're not necessarily
um denying a preliminary plat or a
master plat, but that it is asking to go
back and possibly add those trail
systems to match kind of more in line
with what Elevate Los Cusus is wanting
and to be able to because I think I
think what Kaiser is saying is more in
line with what Elevate Los Cusus is is
having those pathways and those
connectivities and those larger because
we're looking right here and this is 10
foot and on the other um you got a 10
foot, a six foot and two other. So
I just think that might be if that is
the desire of the commission up here to
have them go back. If not, I you'll have
to teach me on on how that happens. If
to add a
require or add an additional layer of
approval,
we would probably have to vote on that.
Is that correct,
Mr. Chairman, commission members? That
is correct. But I I think you need to
also include the um applicant in this
discussion also. Um one, they may want
to go forward with the recommendation
that the DRC made or they may say, "Yes,
we're willing to look at that again and
come back at a future meeting." So, but
I think that's a discussion staff can't
answer for the applicant.
Okay. But I I I guess it's more of a
consensus of com the commissioners right
now if if that is something that we even
were wanting to push towards and then
ask of the applicant.
So I guess I'm going to ask the
question.
Yeah. I mean I guess the the question
open it up to the applicant. I mean, is
the applicant receptive to working with
the commission to find uh a
alternative to what is already an
alternative street section that
accommodates that truly accommodates
pedestrians and cyclists, specifically
children accessing the school that's
literally adjacent
to this project.
I I appreciate the opportunity to have
an open discussion and I appreciate the
uh the concern that you have for the
adjacent school. I would say that we've
been a long time coming through on this
project and we'd like to move forward to
construction drawing development as soon
as possible. That being said, Elks Road,
the alternative was
this is the alternative that we had with
staff, technical staff on public works
and trans and traffic. It was their
recommendation to come to this
cross-section to develop a left turn bay
so that the buses aren't just hanging up
on a through street and be able to be
much more safer on a left turn bay. The
school buses that carry all the kids to
the the school, uh they're the ones that
came up with that width of 14 feet. Um,
are we willing to work with DRC staff or
staff, let's just say public work staff
and tra transportation or traffic staff
to maybe massage the cross-section on
Alks such that we could incorporate an 8
foot wide trail adjacent to a curb and
gutter
but reduce the left turn bay. Uh most
yes, I think we would be willing to have
that discussion
uh if there was a reduction to that left
turn bay. Uh in regards to the adjacent
access point to the school and the
school's property, uh I will let you
know that I I worked for Donana County.
I was there for 21 years. I actually am
part of that group that developed that
trail.
And I will tell you the reason it was 8
ft is because that's all we could fit.
That was it. And I'm going to tell you
that as you go further south from that
trail, you're going to have a difficult
time trying to find 8 ft to fit a a
trail. You're probably not going to find
that space because more of a concern
will be a vertical constraint by adding
curb and gutter so that you have that
separation and give a safer buffer to
the kids that would walk. In regards to
access to the school, the middle school,
I was very active in my role with Donana
County and working with safe routes to
school. And let me tell you that safe
routes to school is very successful
in getting funding to implement
safe routes to school. The pedestrian
access that's being proposed
although the recommendation from parks
was 12, they were receptive of the 10
foot and it was something that has been
done and implemented and works. I'm in a
neighborhood that has 10 foot access
points like that. I'm very close to a
middle school and let me tell you that
is used every day by kids. Uh my kids
don't use it because they went to a
different school and I wasn't going to
allow them to walk eight miles. That's I
I drove them. But I guess the point I'm
trying to make on the adjacent school
and access and maybe an a multi-use path
is safe, excuse me, safe routes to
schools has access to funding that's
provided by NMDO
for exactly that. And I know that they
are working on another school
uh off of Lopez Road. And this is a
matter of of something that maybe they
will work on. When I was with the
county, I worked with the school to
actually name the road because it wasn't
named. It was part of a civic project
with the school with the kids and we had
discussions about the possibility of a
trail and they were made well aware that
there's funding available for that type
of stuff.
I firmly believe that the developer is
willing to work with public works and
transportation to look at that
cross-section on Elks and try to fit in
an 8 foot sidewalk or trail, but the
trade-off will be that left turn bay
will be narrower.
And I I think that's a trade-off that I
personally am willing to live with. I
mean, right now that left turn bay is
more than twice the space that we're
giving our children to be able to walk
and ride their bike to school. I I hear
you on you've been,
you know, you've been through the ringer
probably on this project. Um, but that's
not an excuse in my mind to say, well,
we can't do the things that need to be
done to allow our kids the ability to
walk safely to school. We're always told
that the reason that we have gaps in our
sidewalks, the reason that we don't have
bike lanes on our roads is because that
all has to come when the developer comes
with their project, well, here we are.
You're standing before us. We have an
opportunity to do what's really needs to
be done to get the outcomes that we
want. Um, I appreciate your willingness
to want to work with staff to find a
solution there. Um, I just want to make
sure that we have some guarantees. I
think an 8 foot to match what the county
just built uh by subtracting 2 feet from
the left turnbay.
Fantastic. Um but it's if we don't if we
don't put that as a condition of
approval, my concern is that you're
going to walk out this door, you're
going to have a conversation and say,
"Oh, well, we had a conversation and we
ended up right back where we are."
Um, so
thank you for your willingness there. I
still want to have some guarantees that
we're going to we're going to get there,
particularly on Elks. Um, I understand
the complexities of of the school
district issue on the northern boundary.
Um, but I I again, here's an opportunity
to find a solution where everyone's
coming to the table. you're by be by by
doing a sidewalk that wraps all the way
around in combination with the school
district. That is a huge marketing
opportunity for this development going
forward because very few schools in this
city have what you could potentially
build. Most schools in this district or
in this city are not walkable
or hardly walkable.
And here's an opportunity to really flip
the script. Um
the the final point I'll make on this
topic is um whether or not any other
traffic calming
on Elks Road will be part of this
particularly because that stretch um
that's I guess within a future block of
the entrance to the middle school. Is
there any other requirements that
they're going to have to put in
crosswalks,
um potentially speed bumps, uh to make
sure that traffic does actually slow
down through that corridor?
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kaiser, at this
time um that would be discussions that
would be done uh further as far as um
providing it in the cross-section as
they are only required to build out half
of Elks. um they're only going to get a
portion of it. Um we won't know what
further traffic calming aspects we would
need for the other half of Elks until
that gets developed.
So what you're saying is because we
don't know what's going to happen on the
other side, we can at least put
something on this side.
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kaiser, we can
um it would be part of that discussion
as far as the alternative cross-section.
Commissioner Mccaslin,
I love the passion that this group has
for for future projects in the city. But
I do feel like it is our position that
if you have checked all the boxes that
we currently have in our rules that our
job is to look at that and if we want to
further improve our city, we should go
back to our rules and make sure that our
rules are stipulating what we need in
this city. So, I don't feel like it's
the developer's position to accommodate
things that aren't currently being
required.
Any any other commissioners or do we get
a motion?
I'd like to make a motion to add a
condition of approval that the um
multi-use path on the uh west side
we're going to order. I'm sorry. We're
going to order. Yeah. Chair um under
realized Los Cruus is I'm sorry the new
development code uh the the alternate
crosssections and design of roadways uh
are are at DRC. So DRC is who would have
to vote on that that condition a design
condition cannot be placed by the
planning zoning commission. So it
basically would have to be kicked back
to DRC to see if that's something they
would have to do if I'm not mistaken.
David.
Yeah. No. U Mr. chair and commissioners,
I just wanted to make the same the
approval authority for alternative
cross-sections is u now under the
jurisdiction of the development review
committee. So I think the level of input
you have is that that you would approve
this preliminary plat with the knowledge
that an alternative cross-sections would
be um allowed as it goes forward. So
you're aware of what's taking place, but
the the technical expertise and the the
engineering of that is um is is done by
the applicant and reviewed by the staff
and then it's actually approved by the
development review committee.
So for for this case and for future
cases, if commissioners do not agree
with what is presented, we would uh
basically either table the item or te
tell me how that would be. So if if we
didn't like something, and I'm not
saying we don't like this one. I'm just
saying if if you don't like something,
then we would
next process.
Mr. Chairman, commissioners, if you felt
that a proposal was not meeting the
standards, you could vote no. But if
and
if the applicant felt that they all they
were meeting all the conditions, they
they could appeal that to the next
level.
But if they wanted to kick it back to
DRC,
how would how would they go about that?
if if there's some design flaw or
something like that that we believe that
in the realized Los Cusus is not being
met and we don't agree with the intent
of it that say staff would agree with
how how does the commission go about not
necessarily dis like saying no we don't
like it but how do you get certain
things revisited and I'm not I'm this is
more on a knowledge basis for cases
moving forward.
I think the way that you would go
forward is that you would approach the
applicant say are you willing to
postpone this and go back forward with
that and then it's a decision they make.
But I think it's by the same token the
applicant has an opportunity for a
decision. if he feels that he's met all
the requirements and that he has made
the compromise or made the best design
um that that you should hear that and
and take a take a vote on that and then
it's in your mind of what's been
presented the information that's been
provided. Do you feel that a standard of
the city has not been met? And if that's
the case, then then you can vote no to
deny a proposal.
And then after the vote, no, then it can
still go to city council and then get
approved. That's right. It
upon appeal.
Thank you. All right. With that,
can we get a motion?
Oh, let me let me first clarify the uh
we suspended the rules and to hear both
items and now we need to reinstate the
rules
or do we just No, we just go for a vote.
Yes, sir. That is correct. Uh since
you're you just have to be voting on
them separately. You already did a
motion and a second for approval of uh
7.2. So, you just need to call the role
for that one. And then for 7.3, you need
to ask for a motion and a second and
then call for the vote on that one, sir.
Okay. So, right now, we need to have a
vote. We need to get a basically a
motion on 7.2
to
a vote on the approval for
a vote on approval. Okay. M
Mr. Chairman, you already have a motion
on that. And so, that's for the master
plan. And the master plan uh as it was
presented to staff was recommendation
for approval with approval of an
alternative cross-section for the
streets of the development.
And if you're ready, I can take the
role.
Yes, we're ready.
Commissioner Costa,
yes.
Commissioner Smith,
yes.
Commissioner McCaslin,
yes.
Commissioner A. Costa.
Yes.
Commissioner Murray,
yes.
Commissioner Kaiser.
Um, before I get my vote, I'm just going
to say I'm not opposed to the concept of
the residential development here, but I
do feel like we fell short in our
aspirations. So, I'm voting no.
Chair Thirstston.
rare moment for me, but I'm going to
vote no because only the park issue.
Mr. Chair, the master plan was approved.
It's Yes, it was approved by the
planning zoning commission.
All right. Next, we need a
uh we need a motion. Um
I now can I have a motion to approve
item 7.3?
I'd like to move to approve item 7.3.
I second.
All right. Now call for Can we get a
call for the vote?
Commissioner A Costa?
Yes.
Commissioner Smith?
Yes.
Commissioner McCaslin?
Yes.
Commissioner Murray?
Yes.
Commissioner Costa?
Yes.
Commissioner Kaiser?
No.
Chair Thirstston.
No, only because of the park.
The preliminary plan for the subdivision
was approved.
All right. Now, next item on the agenda
is discussion items. Um, I have I have
two items that I don't know necessarily
are for discussion as of tonight.
Try it again.
Check.
Hello. Okay, it works again.
I guess it it was meant that I'm not
supposed to say anything else.
All right. Um, for discussion items, we
don't have anything on here other than
there's there's two items that I wanted
to bring up. One would be a downtown
update to what's going on with the
downtown update. Just kind of wanted to
hear some some feedback as to the
process of that and when we might hear
something about that.
Definitely, sir. I believe uh David Wear
is kind of spearheading that.
Mr. Chair and commissioners, I can give
you the the latest. Um, the consultants
have finished their initial draft.
There's been one review by the community
development department. The next step is
to get our comments addressed by the
consultant and then do an internal peer
review. And then after that is done, um
the plans are to open it up for public
comment. And after the public comment is
u concluded, we'll put it into the
process for uh adoption of the the
updated master plan for the downtown.
Thank you.
And is there an opportunity for this
body to weigh in?
Mr. Chair, I believe that we will bring
that to you as a discussion item, but
it's actually the plan for the MRA and
the TID and so they will be the
recommending body for that and then city
council will be the ultimate um adopter
of it. My recommendation would be that
um that you can comment on as
individuals when that public comment
period is open and then of course after
the discussion we'll take any comments
that the the planning and zoning
commission has on the plan.
Thank you. Um my other one that I have
on uh points of discussion as long as
everyone's okay with that so far. The
last one was just to realize uh Los
Cusus updates of certain issues. Is
there any issues with what what we've
kind of rolled out there? Um are there
the re reasoning in that is if there's
any issues that staff is currently
seeing with either development code or
it be construction issues or other
things like that that you guys are
seeing that may trickle down to us that
we're going to be having to make
discussions of. Anyways, I just would be
nice to if you can give us an update as
to any issues with realize so that we
can be basically understanding what
what's going to be coming to us for
future preliminary plans, future items.
Sure thing, Mr. Chair. Uh staff is
keeping a log of kind of shortcomings if
you will a little bit or things that
aren't fitting in well with our current
or with our new development code. Uh so
we could definitely kind of provide you
an update of what we have on our list.
uh just so you're not blindsided with a
a book of changes when when we come in
for another amendment because staff is
still working on kind of a time frame
every six months and then every year to
do some type of amendment to code sir.
Okay. Now that there was going to be a
uh realize was supposed to come I think
it already did once with the couple of
changes that we are that staff already
found were messed up a little bit or
just overlooked. Is there going to be
another one of those?
Mr. Chair, that is correct. any type of
amendment to realize or to the new
development code will have to come
before the planning and zoning
commission before it goes on to city
council sir.
Okay. Do you guys have any dates or
anything like that yet?
As of now, not sir. Just because like I
said, we have a every six-month time
frame. Uh so we need to see what we have
this next few months. If we do have
something ready to go, we'll definitely
move it forward, sir.
Okay. if you'll just do us a favor that
if a applicant has a bunch of changes on
it, if you'll give us an update prior to
that one so we know all the updates that
so we're not having to go through the
whole thing with the applicant. Instead,
we could be doing that with you guys.
Sure thing. And just to let you know, we
do have we are working on updating uh
providing the newly updated amended uh
development code. Uh it is still
available on on realize cruises.com on
our website. That is the latest and
greatest one right there. Um uh then
right now it doesn't really make sense
to make paper copies just because I have
to replace them every six months or a
year kind of thing till it gets some
weight to it. Then hopefully we'll be
able to get actual uh physical copies
for everybody if need be.
Thank you. Um with that, does anybody
have anything else? All right. Um
we just vote to adjurnn.
Mr. Chair, I vote to adjurnn. Do
I got a second?
Second. All in favor?